Sitting of 13 July 1925

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Rochdale Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
As amended, considered:
Ordered. That Standing Orders 223 and 243 fir suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords],
Stock Conversion and Investment Trust Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered, "showing, for the financial years commencing the 1st day of April. ISSO, the 1st day of April, 1890, the 1st day of April, 1900, and for each financial year thereafter,—

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1924-25, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;

(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities;

834

(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 140, of Session, 1924)."—[Mr. Guinness.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    SECRETARY OF STATE (SECRETARIAT).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Undersecretary of State for India what were the circumstances which necessitated the appointment as private secretary to the Secretary of State of a gentleman not already on the staff at the India Office; and whether he will state the salary paid to this officer before and after his transfer?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It was considered that, having regard to the volume if work, justification existed for a special additional appointment of assistant private secretary to the Secretary of State for India. The salary paid to the gentleman appointed to this office- is at the rate of £5000 per annum, plus Civil Service cost of living bonus. He was receiving the same rate of salary before transfer.
    Mr. BAKER: May we understand that, when this gentleman is being engaged to play for the butterflies, that the duties which are so important are being performed?

    UNCOTENANTED SERVICES (FAMILY PENSIONS).
    Brigadier - General CHARTERISasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to introduce a family pension fund for the uncovenanted services in India, as recommended by the Islington Commission and by the Lee Commission; and, if so, whether he can indicate the probable date by which the proposal will be formulated and announced?
    Earl WINTERTON: The introduction of a family pension fund for uncovenanted services is under investigation, and it is

    835
    hoped that it will be possible to make an announcement on the subject in the near future. No indication of the date can, however, be given at present.

    FOREMEN'S' ASSOCIATION (MEMORIAL)
    Brigadier - General CHARTERISasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in considering the representations of the memorial submitted by the Foremen's Association of India, he will take into consideration the fact that the pay of these men does not permit them properly to educate their children, and hardly to educate them at all; and whether, as it is undesirable that the children should thus suffer, he will see whether, in respect to this particular aspect of the document submitted, he can make reasonable concessions?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend is in correspondence with the Government of India regarding the question of educational facilities for the children of officers of the foreman class in India, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the matter will receive careful consideration.

    ADVERTISEMENT REGULATION (INDIA OFFICE STOKES).
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State, for India whether arrangements have been made recently for the affixing of a largo notice on the India Once Stores overlooking the River Thames; whether the notice in question is an advertisement; if so, will he state what rent" is received for its exhibition: whether it is to be displayed for a fixed period and, if so, for how long; whether the policy of using Government buildings for disfiguring advertisements has received the sanction of the Cabinet; and if he will state whether the Government propose 10 give the necessary facilities for the Advertisements Regulation Bill passing during the present Session?
    Earl WINTERTON: The High Commissioner for India, acting as the agent of the Government of India has leased the advertisement rights on the river front of the India Store Depot for a period of five years from the 10th February, 1925,
    836
    at a rent of £525 per year. The latter part of the question should be addressed to the Home Office.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Are any precautions to be taken that the form of advertisements is approved, so that any eye-sore may not be created?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the advertisement is already there I am afraid that the eye-sore is there and will stop.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I understood the Noble Lord to say that the contract for a period of five yeas. Surely some precaution will be taken as to the nature of the advertisement displays?
    Earl WINTERTON: if my hon. Friend wants details, perhaps he will put a question on the Paper. All I can say is that the advertisement is there, and that the High Commissioner for India, acting as the Agent of the Government of India, put it up.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    COLONIAL SOLICITORS ACT
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government, will issue an Order in Council extending the provisions of the Colonial Solicitors As to the Irish Free State so that Irish solicitors may be permitted to practise? in England on the same terms as English solicitors are permitted to practise the. Irish Free State?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am advised that under the provisions of Section 3 of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922 (Session 2), no Order in Council can be made; applying the Colonial Solicitors Act. 1900, to the Irish Free State unless and until the Parliament of the Irish Free State passes legislation to the effect that the Act may be applied to the Irish Free State as it may be applied to self-governing Dominions. No such legislation having been passed by the Government of the Irish Free State, His Majesty's Government are not in a position to take any action in the matter. I may add that on the passing by the Parliament of the Irish Free State of the Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1898 Amendment Act, 1923, which provides

    837
    that English solicitors and Scotch law-agents may practice in the Irish Free State, the Government of the Irish Free State invited His Majesty's Government to consider the issue of an Order in Council applying the Colonial Solicitors Act, 1900, to the Irish Free State. His Majesty's Government in reply informed the Free State Government that they are ready to take into consideration in consultution with the appropriate authorities in this country the question of the issue of an Order applying the Act to the Irish Free State with such exceptions, conditions and modifications as might appear to be necessary so soon as the necessary additional legislation had been passed by the Free State Parliament, but they have received no further communication from the Fret State Government on the matter.

    WOOD-RENTON COMMITTEE.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the circumstances and publish the Papers relating to the proclamation in the Irish Free State altering the terms of reference to the Wood-Renton Committee, which was appointed to consider and assess claims for damages in the Irish Free State?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The circum stances giving rise to the new terms of reference in question have been set out in the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth on 16th December last, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. and gallant Member, and papers relating thereto have been published in the Command Paper (Cmd. 2,446) which was presented to Parliament in June last.
    Colonel GRETTON: Was it not within the knowledge of the, Colonial Office, when they assented to the alteration of these terms of reference, that it entailed a heavy increase of liability to the British Government, to pay for compensation that it would not formerly have paid?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: All those considerations were taken into account both last year, when the matter was under consideration, and right up to the end.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that this proclamation actually varied the terms of an Act of Parliament passed by this House, and is that legal?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am assured that it is legal.

    BAHAMAS INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any reply from the Governor of the Bahamas with reference to the recently issued prospectus of the Bahamas International Trading Company, which indicated that the president, two vice-presidents, and other members of the Legislative Assembly are members of the board?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have received telegrams from the Governor of the Bahamas which contain some information, but indicate that a full report will be sent by post. I propose to await the arrival of the full report before making any statement on the matter.

    RUBBER PRODUCTION, MALAY STATES.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the large profits made by rubber companies, as is shown by the last report of a rubber company with head offices in London, the original shareholders of which have received an annual average dividend of 70 per cent. for the last 21 years, he will reconsider the policy of limitation of production of rubber in the Malay Peninsula which has been put-in force with the approval of the Colonial Office?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The legislation in the Malay Peninsula is framed to control the export of rubber and does not restrict its production. There is nothing to prevent an increase of production to meet a continued shortage and, in that event, the quantity which can be exported under the minimum scale of duty will be increased automatically. The whole matter is under the constant consideration of my right hon. Friend, but he is not, as at present advised, prepared to suggest to the Governor and High Commissioner that the present temporary rise in the price of rubber calls for a reconsideration of the existing ordinances.
    Mr. DAVIES: If what the hon. Member characterises as temporary becomes permanent, will he look into the subject again?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The matter is constantly under review. In view of this sudden and rather unexpected rise in rubber it will necessarily, under the existing ordinance, mean that a greater amount of rubber will be released on 1st August automatically. But the matter is under constant review. If the price remains at the present extraordinarily high figure no doubt the matter will be re-examined.
    Mr. THURTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of increasing the percentage increase on 1st August from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.?
    Commander WILLIAMS: Were these Regulations in order last year?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, they were. In reply to the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) that could not be done simply by the Secretary of State. It is a matter of legislation. Legislation would be required in the Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States and Ceylon, to give effect to it. We could not change it without great disturbance.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Speaking generally, the restriction has proved of immense advantage to this country, especially in our dealings with America?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It probably saved the British rubber industry in Malay.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the present price not very much below the price some years ago?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In the famous rubber boom prices were even higher than they are to-day.
    Sir F. HALL: Twelve shillings a pound.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We must regard the present price as abnormal.

  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT PAVILION (CHARGES).
    Captain W. SHAWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas
    840
    Trade Department why there is a charge of 6d. for admittance to the cinema hall at the British Government pavilion at Wembley; and, in view of the fact that the tour, of the Prince of Wales is at present being shown there and that the corresponding cinemas of our Dominions and Colonies are free, will he undertake to cancel the present charge?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The charge of 6d. was imposed in order to obtain revenue against the cost of running the cinema. As regards the second part of the question, I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, I may add that, so far as I am aware, the complete film of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales' tour could not be seen elsewhere at less than this small cost.

    BATH CHAIRS (CHARGES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that bath-chair attendants, mostly ex-service men, employed at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley have found it impossible to pay the charge of 4s. per day for the bath chairs, and are asking that this charge should be reduced; and, in view of the hardship inflicted upon these men, who are obliged to pay this sum for the use of the same, irrespective of whether they do any business or not, will he suggest to the authorities that these charges be reduced?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the British Exhibition authorities that the bath-chair concessionaires have been considering a reduction in the daily charge made to attendants for the hire of bath chairs, and that the Exhibition authorities have at the request of the concessionaires agreed to a reduction from 4s. to 3s. 6d. as from to-day.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on many days these men earn nothing, and that 3s. 6d. a day, with their own expenses, is very heavy? Cannot a further reduction be made?

    ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (SALARIES).
    Mr. MORRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the total amount of the salaries of the 67 administrative officers

    841
    of the British Empire Exhibition, showing separately the total amount of the five largest salaries paid to the salaried heads of the Exhibition?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that the total amount of the salaries of the 67 administrative officers of the Exhibition is approximately £4,000 per month; that is to say, an average of roughly £60 per person per month. As regards the latter part of the question, it is not usual to give such particulars as the hon. Member asks for. I can, however, assure him that, in my opinion and in that of the Financial Controller to the Exhibition, who was nominated by the Treasury, the salaries of the principal officers are reasonable.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DANZIG TRADE FAIR.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the forthcoming Danzig trade fair, which takes place from the 6th to the 9th August; and whether, apart from the announcement in the Board of Trade Journal, any steps have been taken by the Board of Trade to bring to the notice of British Manufacturers this opportunity of exhibiting British products, with the object of developing British trade in Central Europe?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. A considerable number of international fairs are hold every year on the Continent, and, unless any particular fair appears to offer an exceptional opportunity to British exporters to market their goods, it is not the practice of the Department to take special steps to suggest that firms should participate.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not my hon. Friend think that this Danzig fair offers a peculiar opportunity for the display of British goods?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

    DENMARK AND POLAND (BRITISH TRADE).
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total value of goods imported
    842
    into the United Kingdom in the year 1924 from Denmark and Poland, respectively; and whether he can give the total value of British exports, including re-exports to Denmark and Poland, for the same year?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The imports during 1924 into Great Britain and Northern Ireland of merchandise registered as consigned from Denmark (including Faroe Islands) were valued at £49 millions, and those from Poland (including Dantzig) at £8i millions. During the same year exports (including re-exports) from Great Britain and Northern Ireland consigned to Denmark (including Faroe Islands) amounted to £105 millions and to Poland (including Dantzig) to £5 millions.
    Mr. TAYLOR: How are those credits used, and for what purpose?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They are used for whatever purpose the persons having the advantage of the credits think necessary.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is there any difference in the way these credits are used from the way in which Russian credits are used?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I understand the question, but I assume that any person or any country possessing these credits uses them in the way which is considered by that person or country to be most advantageous.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider what his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department said in reference to this matter to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) in the Debate last week?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very sorry; I am afraid I was not present when the Debate was going on, and I do not know what was said.

    TRADE BALANCES.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated result of the first six months of 1925 of the trade balances of the country after invisible exports have paid for the excess of imports over exports?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the first six months of 1925 the recorded value of the imports of merchandise, together with that of bullion and specie, exceeded

    843
    the value of exports of the same descriptions of goods by about £206,000,000. The information available does not suffice for monthly estimates of the amounts accruing in respect of the returns on investments abroad, the earnings of our mercantile marine, and the sums due on account of insurance and banking business done for overseas account, and other items included in the invisible exports. The inclusion or exclusion of a particular month may affect the monetary position to a serious extent. Our position in regard to payments in respect of our debt to America has also to be taken into account.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade approximately the value of the exports from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the first six months of the present year and the value of the imports during the same period?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The aggregate declared value of the total exports of merchandise from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the six months ended 30th June last amounted to £470,108,25V, including re-exports of imported merchandise valued at £77,449.037. The total imports during the same period were valued at £677,543,832.

    STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he expects to receive an interim Report from the Civil Research Committee on the position of the steel industry before the House rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of the grave uncertainty created in the mind of this important trade by recent Government pronouncements, can the right hon. Gentleman expedite the Report of this Committee and make some definite statement before the House rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If any uncertainty has arisen, I shall be only too pleased to dissipate it at the earliest possible moment that I am able to make an announcement.

    SHIPBUILDING (CLYDE OUTPUT).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the output from the Clyde shipbuilding yards for the first six month? of this year of 302,753 tons is the greatest since the record year of 1913; and if he can state the numbers of men engaged in the industry in that area in the respective years?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am aware that, according to figures which have appeared in the Press, the total tonnage of vessels launched on the Clyde during the first six months of this year is higher than that for the first six months of any other recent year; but I understand that the total of all tonnage under construction has been less in recent months than in 1924. I regret that comparable figures are not available as to the numbers of men engaged in the Clyde shipbuilding industry in 1913 and at the present time.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask how much of the tonnage competed during the last six months is tonnage the work on which was suspended for a long time, and finished off during the last six months?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question so soon after the expiry of the six months period. The figures of Lloyd's are not yet available.

  RUSSIA.

    COAL EXPORTS.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that Russia is now exporting coal at a loss, in view of its inability to use it at home; and whether any other countries are adopting the same policy.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware that Russia has been pushing her cal export trade in the Italian and other Mediterranean markets at what are believed to be un-remunerative prices In the case of Germany, also, it appears likely that the difficulty of disposing of colliery output has resulted in forced sales abroad, but I have no definite information on the point.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what the Government propose to do?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is this country exporting coal at unremunerative prices?

    ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether he has satisfied himself that the Clause in the Trade Agreement between this country and the Russian Soviet Government, whereby it was expressly agreed not to conduct propaganda against the British Empire and also to refrain from any attempt by military, diplomatic, or any other form of action or propaganda from encouraging any of the peoples of Asia in any form of hostile action against British interests or the British Empire, has been loyally carried out by the Russian Soviet authorities?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. I cannot say hat in my opinion this Agreement has been loyally observed.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Government and its various missionaries have also kept to their part of the Agreement, and have instituted no propaganda against the Russian Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I can certainly say that.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Clause, to which the House attached very great importance, was put into the Trade Agreement if it is not to be enforced?

    BRITISH OFFICIAL AGENTS.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in which city, ports, or commercial centres of Russia, British Consuls are stationed: and whether it is proposed to appoint Consuls in other districts of Russia and Siberia for the assistance of British commerce and trade?
    Mr. SAMEUL: Assistant official Agents are stationed at Leningrad and Vladivostok under the superintendence at His Majesty's Mission at Moscow. I cannot say when any further appointments will be made.
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will these British Consuls be instructed in their duties to British nationals?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I must have notice of that question.

  AGRICULTURE.

    TUBERCULOUS CATTLE (SLAUGHTER).
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the majority of farmers understand and accept the provisions of the new Order providing for the slaughter of tuberculosis cattle: and what steps he is taking to make its contents known?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): The terms of the Tuberculosis Order have already been fully discussed with representative bodies of farmers, and a copy of the Order, together with a simple explanation of its provisions, is being sent to every local authority, who are required to publish it. As the Order does not come into operation until the 1st September, there seems to be ample time for everyone concerned to become acquainted with its provisions.
    Mr. W. THORNE: What will become of these animals when they are slaughtered; will they be burned or how will they be disposed of?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Send them to the West Ham Board of Guardians.
    Mr. THORNE: Stop interrupting down there!
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not Lear what was the remark.
    Mr. THORNE: Did you not hear what the hon. Member said just now?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No.
    Mr. THORNE: That they ought to be sent to the West Ham Board of Guardians —that is what he said. It is not the first time he has made these insinuations.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. THORNE: You will get a mouse on your eye some of these times.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is always "Order "for us, and not for the other side. Is there only to be "Order" for one side?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member please restrain himself, and allow me to speak? Hon. Members must not throw these interjections across the Floor. It is impossible for me to hear what takes place below the Gangway. It is very disorderly to throw interjections across in this way.

    FERTILISERS.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that farmers could employ many more hands if lime, marl and fertilisers were more within their means; and whether he can take any steps to cheapen the production of these articles?
    Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir. I am aware that it would be to the advantage of agriculture in this country if larger quantities of lime, marl and fertilisers were used, but my Department has no control over the production of these materials, or the price at which they are sold. At the same time, I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the terms of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, under which loans may be made to farmers societies for the purchase of lime or fertilisers. I would also remind him that the index figure for fertilisers is very much lower than that of agricultural produce, and that for the month of June the average price of fertilisers generally was only 14 per cent. above pre-War.

    LABOUR.
    Mr. F. MITCHELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the improved outlook for employment on the land he will stimulate the movement of the workers from the industrial centres hack to thy land: and whether he is taking any steps, and. if so what, to that end?
    Mr. WOOD: I am anxious to give whatever assistance is possible in the direction indicated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and my Department has recently issued a special appeal in the Press and through the employers' organisations to call the attention of farmers to the facilities which are in existence at the Employment Exchanges
    848
    for the supply of labour. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the notice in question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many town workers who, otherwise, would be disposed to revert back to the land, are prevented from doing so by the fear of being thrown out of work without having any unemployment benefit: and will he take steps to bring agricultural workers within the unemployment insurance scheme?
    Mr. WOOD: I have been in communication with the Minister of Labour on that point. Perhaps questions which bear directly upon it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers in West Sussex cannot get labour for love or money?
    Mr. WOOD: Yes, I have heard so, and it is in order to assist in such cases that I have taken the action referred to in the answer.

    ANGLO-SCOTTISH SUGAR BEET CORPORATION.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet Corporation, showing that a net profit of £3 l7s. 4d. per ton had been made on a production of 3,086 tons of home-grown sugar; and the amount of subsidy per ton paid by the Government in respect of this sugar?
    Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir. The net amount of subsidy, after deducting Excise Duty, paid to the company in respect of this sugar was. £9 15s. 3d. person.
    Mr. THURTLE: What has happened to the £5 odd which does not appear as profit? If they received a subsidy of £9 per ton and made a profit of only £3 17s. 4d., what has happened to ':he remainder of the public money?
    Mr. WOOD: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's mathematics. Perhaps, if he gave me an opportunity or seeing his question on paper. I should be able to do so.

    TITHE EENTCHAUGE.
    Mr. LAMBasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any of the tithe rent-

    849
    charge on lands in public ownership was redeemed during the years 1919–20; if so, whether any of it was redeemed by conversion into a terminable annuity; whether the redemption on that basis was compulsory on the tithe-owners at the option of the tithe-payer; and what was the amount of the annuity, to cover interest and sinking fund, fixed in respect of every £100 of commuted tithe so redeemed?
    Mr. WOOD: The answer to the first three parts of the Question is 'in the affirmative. The amount of the annuity was in cach case calculated in accordance with the method prescribed by the First Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1918, and varied according to the average amount of rates paid on the tithe rentcharge, the amount of the Land Tax (if any), the cost of collection, and the period of the annuity.
    Mr. LAMB: Does this represent a sum of £5,600 for every £100?
    Mr. WOOD: I could not say without notice.

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES REGULATION ACT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture in how many cases proceedings have been instituted under Sector 9 (4) of the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1924; how many cases have been to Court; and with what result?
    Mr. WOOD: Proceedings have been authorised in six and actually instituted in three cases. Of these, one has been taken in Court, with the result that the employer was fined £6 and £l Is. costs, and ordered to pay all arrears of wages.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to an outbreak of foot-find-mouth disease at Ottringham, Yorkshire; whether he can state the number of cattle effected and the number slaughtered; and whether ho is able to form any opinion as to the possible cause of the outbreak?
    Mr. WOOD: The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. Six cattle contracted the disease, and in all, nine cattle and seven pigs were slaughtered in connection
    850
    with the outbreak. The origin of the infection is at present obscure, but inquiries are not yet completed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    MATCHES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that the matches used in the dining rooms of the House of Commons have printed on them in large letters, Made in Czechoslovakia; and, in view of the recommendation of the Prime Minister in favour of buying British goods and British goods alone, why this practice is not followed in this House?
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: The matches at present in use are supplied under a contract entered into last year; tenders for the supply for the ensuing six months have recently been received, and a contract entered into for the supply of British matches.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the major part of the matches used in the House are Bryant and May's?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: They should all be British.
    Mr. THORNE: They are in our smoking room, anyhow.
    HON. MEMBERS: Which is yours?
    Mr. THORNE: The common-sense smoking room, if you want to know.

    WESTMINSTER HALL (STATUES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what has become of the statues that were removed from Westminster Hall during its rebuilding and reconstruction; and, in view of their public interest, will he take steps to have these statues replaced in their original positions?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The statues in question were lent to the- City Corporation in 1013. The First Commissioner does not propose to have them replaced in Westminster Hall.

    UPHOLSTERY (FOREIGN LEATHER).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the leather used for the recent re-upholstering of the benches in the House of Commons was obtained from Germany: and what was the reason that skins of British origin were not selected, especially having regard to the fact that 60 per cent. of the goat-skins imported into this country come from the British Empire and from India?
    Viscount SANDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the reason for using foreign leather for the upholstery in the Houses of Parliament instead of Empire leather?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am informed that the leather used recently for re-upholstering the benches in the House of Commons was not obtained from Germany. The skins selected by the firm which undertook the work were of European origin but were entirely manufactured in this country. I am advised that European goat-skins give the most satisfactory results for the class of work required in this instance.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman say where the goat-skins came from if they did not come from Germany?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Some of them came from Scandinavia and the rest from Switzerland.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Was that contract entered into by the late Government?
    Captain A. EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman in future specify that all such contracts shall be fulfilled by British goods?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This question was gone into very carefully, and it was found that the European goat-skins were much more supple and much more durable than any of British origin.
    Mr. HURD: Is not that contention entirely traversed by the best experts in the trade?

    CAVALRY MEMORIAL, STANHOPE DATE.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the Office of Works has been called to the obstruction caused to traffic by the new cavalry memorial at Stanhope Gate; whether he is aware that the memorial itself makes it impossible for drivers to see of coming traffic; and whether the question of moving- the gates a few yards to points where greater visibility can be secured will be favourably considered by the Department?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The First Commissioner has not hitherto received any complaint on this subject, but he will have the matter investigated, in conjunction with the police authorities.

    PASSPORTS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British passport .issued by his Department to British and naturalised subjects for the years 1923 and 1924, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total number of new passports issued at the Passport Office in London and the branch office at Liverpool was

    1923

    …

    …

    313,983

    1924

    …

    …

    233,124

  CHINA.

    CASUALTIES, CANTON.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Chinese persons killed and wounded by the recent machine-gun fire in Canton: and the number of foreigners of each nationality, respectively, killed and wounded during the course of that demonstration?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The numbers of Chinese casualties are not accurately known: they have been reported to be about 30 killed and 70 wounded, but may have been more. The foreign casualties, as far as known to me, were: Killed, 1 French; wounded, 4 British and 1 French.

    SOVIET ACTION.
    Major HORE - BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the, Government's intentions towards the Russian Government arising out of recent events in China?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add for the present to my previous statements on this matter.

    BHITISH EMBASSY, WASHINGTON.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is at present any Canadian official attached to the British Embassy at Washington, and, if so, what is his official status?
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: A representative of the Canadian Department of External Affairs has for some time past been accommodated with an office in His Majesty's Embassy at Washington. He is not attached to the staff of His Majesty's Ambassador, and he has no diplomatic status.

    TANGIER.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the statute governing the surveillance of the territorial waters of the Tangier zone and the control of the zone has not been put into practical operation although technically in force, and that as a result the whole situation is one of transition and confusion, whilst the commitments of Great Britain are indeterminate; and whether there is any proposal that British troops should be sent to reinforce the native police?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Tangier Convention is now in practical operation except as regards the surveillance of the Tangier territorial waters and the amalgamation of the two existing native tabors into a gendarmerie under a Belgian commandant. Steps are now being taken to carry out the naval surveillance. The amalgamation of the tabors has been delayed for the reasons stated in the answer just given to the hon. Member
    854
    for Orkney and Shetland. It is not proposed to send British troops to Tangier.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps are being taken to organise a local gendarmerie in the Tangier Zone?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Tangier Convention provides for the amalgamation of the two existing gendarmerie tabors, under the command of a French and a Spanish officer respectively, into a force of 350 men under the command of a Belgian commandant. This step has been postponed, first owing to the non-arrival of the commandant and now owing to the present troubles.

    TURKISH GUARANTEED LOAN.
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present amount of the accumulated surplus which has arisen from the funds allotted to the payment of the interest on the Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855; how is it invested; and how will it be employed?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr.W. Guinness): The accumulated surplus referred to has been invested from time to time in various securities issued or guaranteed by the British Government, and there is no present intention of modifying such arrangements. The nominal value of the securities now held is £642,400.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention to commence the next Session of Parliament before Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject.

    NAVAL SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the Government naval shipbuilding programme?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    OIL (DISCHARGE AT SEA).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has yet been able be secure any measure of international co-operation to prevent or limit the discharge of oil at sea; whether he is aware that oil so discharged is at present causing a loss of fish and bird life and inconvenience to sea bathers; and whether he will take all possible steps to ensure that the nuisance is abated without delay?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is hoped that an International Conference will be called by one of the leading maritime Powers to deal with oil pollution, and if such a Conference is called the Board of Trade will do all they can to assist it, but no definite proposals for international action have yet been made by any Government.
    I am aware of the inconvenience and dangers caused by oil pollution, and would call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to a White Paper on "Oil in Navigable Waters" which has recently been published by the Board of Trade.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is there any known method whereby oil can be separated from bilge water?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know there have been a good many experiments in that direction, and a number of British shipowners have been making efforts, quite voluntary efforts, in that way, and, as my hon. Friend knows, as far as lies in our power, within territorial waters, we have done everything that is possible in reference to this matter.
    Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department considered the question as to whether any attempt has been made to collect the exhaust into tanks, and since that has been a success is it because it would take up the same space as carrying coal and, therefore, make oil dearer, that that method has not been adopted?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The prohibition against putting oil into the water within the three miles limit, which we can control, is absolute. The difficulty that arises to-day on the English coasts is, I think, entirely due to the
    856
    deposit of oil outside the three miles limit, over which we have no control.
    Mr. HARDIE: The statement has been made that we have no control over this, and yet all our sea-going ships from this land can be controlled so far as that is concerned, outside the three miles limit. I want to know whether anything has been done to control that.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member again forgets that, while it is quite true that you can put certain obligations upon British ships which you cannot put upon foreign ships, unless you get the same obligations on the foreign ships you do not get the advantage for the people on the coasts, and yon merely put a grave limitation and expense upon the English ships.
    Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the three miles limit has, in accordance with international law, been extended for certain purposes to a 12 miles limit, and might not a similar extension be adopted for the purpose of preventing the destruction of fish and birds by the discharge of oil fuel?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Thai does not arise.

    COMMUNIST LITERATURE (GOVERNMENT ARSENALS AND FACTORIES).
    Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSONasked the- Prime Minister what steps he intends to take at the present time to prevent the publication in arsenals and Government factories of subversive Communist literature?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. My attention has been called to several of these pernicious documents, but as at present advised I do not think it worth while taking legal proceedings.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it a fact, as stated in the question, that these publications have actually beer published in factories, or merely distributed in factories?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Distribution of the documents is technically publication. They have been distributed in and outside several factories.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the most useful form of propaganda for the Communist party is in consequence of the constant advertising it gets in this House?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is one of the reasons why I do not think it worth while prosecuting.
    Sir W. DAVISON: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to stamp out these things in the bud and not let them grow into a tree or a flower?
    Mr. THOMAS: Arising out of the latter answer of the right hon. Gentleman, which was to the effect that the Government did not consider it wise to advertise the Communists, does he now agree that the attitude which was adopted was precisely the same in the Campbell case?
    Sir F. HALL: Did it not have very bad results on the Labour party?
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the right, hon. Gentleman aware that this class of literature receives its widest circulation through the free circulation in the official documents of the Conservative party?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I do not think so, added to which the people who read the official documents of the Conservative party would, I think, not be 'harmed by this literature.
    Mr. MAXTON
    Mr. SPEAKER: Party questions really do not arise.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSION'S BILL.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the. Minister of Health whether Clause 24 of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, which makes provision against double pensions, applies only to those in receipt of allowances from the Ministry of Pensions; or will it prevent a man who receives an inadequate pension from a local Poor Law or municipal authority from taking an old age pension from the State?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There is nothing in Clause 24 of the Bill which would deprive a retired employé of a Poor Law or municipal authority of an old age pension to
    858
    which he might otherwise be entitled under the Bill. I should, perhaps, add that many employés of local authorities will not be insured for old age pensions under the Bill.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (DOCKYARD ORDERS).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department is making full use of His Majesty's dockyard. Devonport; and what is the value of the stores and other supplies ordered from Devonport by his Department in the course of the past financial year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, full use is made, whenever possible, of the facilities afforded by this and other dockyards, the allocation to any particular dockyard of the orders for marine craft, marine craft repairs, cordage and other stores requisitioned by this Department being a matter for the Admiralty. As regards the second part of the question, the claims presented show that the cost of stores ordered and work done for the Air Ministry at Dovonport Dockyard in 1924–25 amounted to, approximately, £3,800.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any stores that could be purchased from Government supplies are purchased from private concerns?
    Sir S. HOARE: I could not say without notice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down, I will give him an answer.

    NAVAL RATINGS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that children's allowances are stopped, in addition to marriage allowances, when a naval rating refuses to live with his wife, through no fault on the wife's part, and are payable to a guardian other than the wife, whereas it was obviously not the intention of the Regulation so to penalise a mother, who is better qualified to look after her children than

    859
    any guardian, he will take steps to confer with the other Service Departments concerned with a view to modifying this Regulation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The matter is not quite so simple as the hon. and gallant Member's question would suggest. Payment of marriage allowance in respect of such children would involve an allotment by the naval rating which he might not be willing to make. The question was discussed in September, 1923, by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Marriage Allowance, but I will look further into the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, and let him know the result.

    BANK OF ENGLAND AND CURRENCY NOTES.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the assumption that the Bank of England note issue and the currency note issue had been combined, what was the total note issue and the value of gold held on the dale on which the gold standard was restored, and on the latest date for which the figures are available?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The combined figures for the Bank of England Issue Department and the Currency Note Account are:

    29th April, 1925.

    8th July, 1925.

    £

    £

    Total notes issued

    408,212,500

    418,850,496

    Gold held

    153,906,315

    157,047,415

    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has there been an expansion of credit since the restoration of the gold standard?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I should like to have notice of that question.

    NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the first War Savings Certificates will reach maturity early next year, if he is going to give holders an opportunity of continuing their investment for a further period?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The matter is under consideration, and i have no doubt that some such arrangement will be made.

    GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STORES (LOCOMOTIVES).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken to dispose of the locomotives which have become sin-plus for disposal since the Armistice?
    Mr. GUINNESS: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the reply, which is a long one, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    At the Armistice there were in traffic with railway companies in Great Britain 518 fast goods mainline locomotives. Sales of these locomotives lives have been made to railway companies as follows:

    London and North Western Railway in 1910

    …

    30

    Great Western Railway in 1919

    …

    20

    London and North Eastern Railway in 1924–25

    …

    173

    Great Western Railway in 1925

    …

    80

    In addition l8 of these locomotives have been sold for overseas, leaving 197 still unsold.
    In addition to the locomotives referred to above, fast passenger main-line locomotives were manufactured at Woolwich Arsenal after the Armistice and became surplus for disposed, namely, 50 complete locomotives and 50 uncreated sets of unassembled parts of locomotives. The 50 complete locomotives were sold to the Southern Railway in 1924–25. Of the unassembled parts, sales to railway companies were made as follows:

    Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland in 1923

    …

    12

    Metropolitan Railway in 1924

    …

    6

    Great Southern Railway of Ireland in 1925

    …

    15

    This leaves 17 sets of unassembled parts still for sale.
    I may say that in addition to advertising both types of locomotives extensively abroad, I have been in personal communication with the railway companies in Great Britain, with a view to securing

    861
    that these companies purchased approximately the number of fast goods locomotives which they had in traffic during the War. In the case of the London and North Eastern Railway and the Great Western Railway, I am glad to say that it has been possible to effect sales on that basis. In the case of the Southern, that company stated that the fast goods locomotives, of which they had 13 in use during the War, were not suitable for their traffic, but, as already mentioned, that company purchased 50 of the fast passenger locomotives manufactured at Woolwich after the Armistice.
    The London and North Western Railway and its associated companies (now London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company) had in traffic at the Armistice a total of 231 fast goods locomotives, of which they purchased 30 in 1919. The company say that they are unable to purchase any further locomotives, as the capacities of their bridges and gauges necessitate the use of this type of locomotive being confined to a very restricted area.

    ARREST (MR, W. P. REA)
    Mr. AMMONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrest of Mr. W. P. Rea in connection with a constitutional meeting of the unemployed at Peckham on 24th June; will he have inquiries made as to in what manner any breach of the law or regulations was committed by Mr. Rea's action; and will he define the regulations as regards open-air public meetings?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Rea's offence was obstructing the traffic on a public highway. He did this deliberately, after having been warned that the place ho had chosen for calling a meeting was unsuitable for the purpose. The law on the subject is quite simple; no one is permitted to obstruct a highway for the purpose of a public meeting.

    MOTOR TRAFFIC (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the proposal to make compulsory the insurance of motor-car owners against third-party risks, he will say what percentage of the
    862
    owners of private motor cars are at present insured against third-party risks; and what was the number of cases during 1924 in which an owner of commercial vehicles has been unable to pay the damages awarded against him in respect of an accident to a third party?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I regret that I am not in possession of the information sought by the hon. Member, nor indeed do I believe that any reliable figures are obtainable. From general information in my possession, however, I believe the proportion of motor vehicles (both private and commercial) in respect of which insurance policies against third-party risks have been taken out to be very high.

    ROAD REPAIRS, LONDON.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that at Blackfriars Bridge the granite setts are being removed and wooden blocks put in their place, whereas at the Elephant and Castle wooden blocks are being removed and granite setts put down instead; and if he will state the reasons for making these changes?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In each of the two cases referred to by the hon. Member the existing paving was due for renewal, and the highway authorities concerned in one case preferred to renew with wooden blocks and in the other with granite setts. I may point out that the nature of the traffic in the two places is not the same. At Blackfriars Bridge it is mainly through traffic, and at the Elephant and Castle slow moving cross traffic.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two places in question are under one authority. That is what I want to know?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. One is under the City of London, and the other under the Borough of Southwark.
    Mr. THORNE: What is the reason for all this chopping and changing about that is going on?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member will agree with me that this is a matter primarily for the local authority to decide.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: May I ask if there is any advice given to local authorities as to the way they mend their roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The general practice is to leave this matter to the decision of the local authority. But, undoubtedly, if the Department strongly dissented from any action taken, it could make representations because for certain roads they find a proportion of the cost.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman got any control over local authorities when ripping up these roads from time to time, and has he attempted to advise them to have continuous work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the steps taken by the Government and the Dominion Governments, as outlined in the Annual Report of the Overseas Settlement Committee for 1924, have failed to bring the flow of migrants from this country to the Dominions up to pre-War figures, what, if any, further steps the Government propose to take to extend the dimensions of Empire migration: can he explain how it happens that, whereas before the War the average number of migrants per year was 200,000 and this without any financial assistance from the Imperial Government, the average has now fallen to 150,000; and what sum of public money has been expended on Empire migration since financial assistance was sanctioned by Parliament?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Since the 8th August, 1919, when the Government free passage scheme for ex-service men was announced, the total expenditure on State-aided migration to the 31st March last was £3,347,000, of which £327,000 is loan money, and recoverable. In spite of this expenditure, and of corresponding expenditure on the part of Dominion Governments, the economic conditions in the various Dominions have not been such as to create a large volume of migration. A general discussion of all the factors influencing the situation is not possible in an answer to an oral question, and I can only refer my hon. Friend again to
    864
    my reply of 8th July. I need not add that the Government here are most anxious to co-operate with the Governments of the Dominions in every way, in order to secure a better and healthier distribution of the population of the Empire.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that, so far as Australia is concerned, the policies of the present Governments of the States are the main cause of the failure?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would not say it like that. To throw the whole blame for the difficulties which, apart altogether from any policy, are uncontrollable by the Governments, on to the State Governments of Australia, is. I think, rather unfair.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the hon. Gentleman not seen the statement made in the Press only on Saturday with regard to the immigration policies of the Government of the States?
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask when we shall have an opportunity to discuss this?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand the salary of my right hon. Friend is to be asked for some day next week in Committee of Supply, and the subject will then be in order.

    MALTA.
    Sir G. STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Maltese affairs- are to be dealt with under the Dominions Department of the Colonial Department, or some other department of the office under his administration?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The intention is that Maltese affairs should be dealt with as heretofore by the Colonial Department.
    Sir G. STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the office of acting lieutenant-governor of Malta has been entrusted to a private secretary in the absence of the titular holder of the office: and whether he is in future prepared in similar cases to take advantage of existing enactments, which contemplate the appointment of the senior

    865
    military or naval officer to act as the King's representative should the governor be suddenly incapacitated by illness or absence?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that any person has been definitely appointed to act as Lieutenant-Governor of Malta. If such an appointment has been made, the person appointed would, by virtue of the Dormant Commission, succeed to the government in the event of the death, incapacity or absence of the Governor. My right hon. Friend will inquire what arrangements have in fact been made.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: Is it a fact that the Lieutenant-Governor has been here on leave for some time and that a private secretary is acting for him?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is, I understand, the case.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: If no acting appointment has been made, does it follow that the office is unnecessary?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. I am not sure who has been appointed to act while the Lieutenant-Governor is on leave, but inquiry is being made on that point.

    LAW OFFICERS (EMOLUMENTS).
    Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. LANSBURY)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of public money paid as salaries, emoluments, fees, or as charges to the Law Officers of the Crown. or to other legal gentlemen who are Members of this House, during the years ending 31st March, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925?
    Captain DOUGLAS KING: I have been asked to reply. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the amounts received by the Law Officers of the Crown during the years ending 31st March; 1922, 1923 and 1924. Figures for the year ended 31st March, 1925, are not yet obtainable. No figures are available as to the sums paid (which consist merely of the normal professional fees for specific services rendered) to other barristers who are Members of this House, as the payments made for such services are made by a large number of Government Departments and the accounts do not distinguish between payments
    866
    to Members of this House and to others.
    Following is the statement:
    Attorney-General.
    For the year ending 31st March, 1922:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Salary

    …

    …

    7,000

    0

    0

    Fees

    …

    …

    24,170

    13

    2

    £31,170

    13

    2

    For the year ending 31st March, 1923:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Salary

    …

    …

    7,000

    0

    0

    Fees

    …

    …

    17,278

    19

    11

    £24,278

    19

    11

    For the year ending 31st March, 1924:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Salary

    …

    …

    7,000

    0

    0

    Fees

    …

    …

    12,995

    4

    6

    £19,995

    4

    6

    Solicitor-General.
    For the year ending 31st March, 1922:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Salary

    …

    …

    6,000

    0

    0

    Fees

    …

    …

    9,723

    17

    0

    £15,723

    17

    0

    For the year ending 31st March, 1923:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Salary

    …

    …

    6,000

    0

    0

    Fees

    …

    …

    6,565

    2

    0

    £12,565

    2

    0

    For the year ending 31st March, 1924:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Salary

    …

    …

    6,000

    0

    0

    Fees

    …

    …

    6,000

    3

    2

    £12,000

    3

    2

    CROWN LAND, REGENT STREET (RENTALS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the annual rent received from Crown land in Regent Street under the old leases and before the work of reconstruction began; and what is the increase, if

    867
    any, under the new leases granted since the present scheme of reconstruction was initiated?
    Mr. WOOD: The original leases reserved rents amounting in the aggregate to £26,383 9s. 7d. It is estimated that on completion of the rebuilding the vents will amount to £450,000 per annum. The new lettings on rebuilding in some cases include small additional areas adjoining but not actually situated in Regent Street.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    INDUSTRIAL COURTS ACT INQUIRY.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to ask the Prime Minster a question of which I have given private notice, namely, if he has any statement to make regarding the coal situation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Bridgeman), the Minister of Labour (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines (Colonel Lane-Fox) had conversations last week with the representatives of the owners and the representatives of the miners. In view of the situation disclosed by those conversations the Government has decided to set up a Court of Inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has set up a court accordingly. It will consist of—

    The Right Hon. II. P. Macmillan (Chairman).

    Mr. W. Sherwood, and

    Sir Josiah Stamp.

    The terms of reference will be.
    "To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute in the coal mining industry."
    I hope that it will be possible to make arrangements for the Court to commence its duties at an early date.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has got the sanction of the Miners' Federation for that Court of Inquiry? Is he not aware that every Court of Inquiry that has been held has been a failure—that a Court of Inquiry is simply eyewash, and means nothing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret to hear the last remarks of the hon. Member. He is probably aware that the responsibility of setting up such a court belongs to the Government. They do not consult either party. We consider in the present circumstances that it is the proper course to pursue, and I very much trust it may be of some assistance.
    Mr. BATEY: It will make things worse!
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is it proper to describe the present impasse as a dispute?
    Mr. GRUNDY: Does the setting up of the Court of Inquiry mean that the owners have postponed or withdrawn their demands?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that arises?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  AIR ESTIMATES.
  Colonel GRFTTONasked the Prime Minister if there will be an opportunity of discussing the Air Ministry and the Air Force before Parliament rises?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that we have not yet completed the business of Supply and that there is still an opportunity for the Air Estimates to be discussed if so desired.
  Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman advise me how to obtain such a discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend for information to the other side.
  Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand that the Prime Minister refers me to the Leader of the official Opposition?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend knows the customs of this House as well as I do.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Mr. MacDONALD: May I put a question as to business? Will the Government tell us what Supply is to be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that what has been asked for is the Navy Estimates, Vote 12, which is that of the First Lord's salary.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill be exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order
  (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 90.

  Division No. 261.]

  AYES.

  [3.40 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Han. Sir James T.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Gates, Percy

  Murchison, C. K.

  Albery, Irving James

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Grace, John

  Oakley, T.

  Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balniel, Lord

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pilcher, G.

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Ramsden, E.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Remer, J. R.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Berry, Sir George

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Ropner, Major L.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sandon, Lord

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Savery, S. S.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St Marylebone)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Burman, J. B.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Campbell, E. T.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Christie, J. A.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Clarry, Reginald George

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Cope, Major William

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Couper, J. B.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Crook, C. W.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Loder, J. de V.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Looker, Herbert William

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Macintyre, Ian

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Dixey, A. C.

  McLean Major A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Drewe, C.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Elveden, Viscount

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Meller, R. J.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Fleming, D. P.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Colonel Gibbs.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Baker, Walter

  Ammon, Charles George

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Barnes, A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Barr, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Batey, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Beckett. John (Gateshead)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sinclair. Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lowth, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Cove, W. G.

  Lunn, William

  Stamford, T. W.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dennison, R.

  Mackinder, W.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Dunnico, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maxton, James

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Thurtle, E.

  Gosling, Harry

  Morris, R, H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Greenall, T.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Warne, G. H.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)

  Groves, T.

  Owen, Major G.

  Westwood, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hardle, George D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hirst, G. H.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Wright, W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Runciman. Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House while I make a brief personal explanation in regard to a sentence in my speech last Thursday night. It is due not only to me and my party, but to the House, and for a correct understanding of the functions and purposes of debate in this House by my Indian friends. When I said in the course of my speech that I held myself responsible for, and that I am at the bottom of many of the Communist manifestoes and the Communist propaganda in India, I beg to explain that I unequivocally, unreservedly, and without reservation associate myself with, and endorse such manifestoes, resolutions, and propagandist literature as are openly and officially propagated by the Communist party of Great Britain.
  This does not refer to documents of doubtful origin advocating crime, or whatever is alleged, which has no proven authenticity. I submit that, while I, on behalf of my party, as well as on behalf of my electors, will always in this House express fearlessly and unequivocally the sentiments and true feelings of peoples struggling for freedom and liberty in this Empire, we would not, Mr. Speaker, endorse here in this House a propaganda which advocates individual crime through religious or racial animosities, or for personal revenge.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
  Ordered, That the Committee OK Group F of Private Bills, which stands adjourned until Thursday, be further adjourned for the convenience of parties until Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.—[Sir park Goff.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Statutory Gas Companies (Electricity Supply Powers) Bill, with Amendments
  That they bare passed a Bill, intituled, "An Art for prevention of abuses in connection with the grant of Honours." [Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire to construct a new bridge over the River Ouse; to provide for contributions thereto by the county council of the East Riding of Yorkshire, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the city and county of Kingston-upon-Hull, and the Goole Urban District Council, and for the vesting of the said bridge in the said county councils; and for other purposes." [Boothferry Bridge Bill [Lords.]

  BOOTHFEBRY BRIDGE BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  STATUTORY GAS COMPANIES (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWERS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Atkinson, Sir John Ganzoni, Major Glyn and Mr. Grace; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier - General Brooke, Mr. Charles Crook, Sir William Davison and Mr. Dixey.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee D: Vice-Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, Mr. Harrison and Major Kenyon-Slaney.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Mr. Cadogan.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Major Salmon; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Meller.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill further considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 9.—(Contributions and Financial Provisions.)
  The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
  In page 7, line 35, after the word "shall," to insert the words "save in respect of insured persons employed in agricultural operations as defined for the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, when half the rates specified in the appropriate Schedule or Schedules of this Act shall apply, and."—[Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.]
  In page 7, line 39, after the word "sixty-five," to insert the words "(but not by or in respect of insured persons employed in agricultural occupations, as defined for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920)."—[Sir Alfred Mond.]
  In page 8, line 2, after the word "Act." to insert the words "(but not in respect of persons employed in agricultural occupations, as defined for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1920)."— [Sir Alfred Mond.]
  The CHAIRMAN: The first three Amendments on the Order Paper have been dealt with on a former Clause.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I understand that the Amendments standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends have been ruled out because the subject was discussed on Clause 1. I want to submit to you, Sir, that since Clause 1 was under discussion a great deal has happened. Among other things, the Government have brought in an Unemployment Insurance Bill, under which every other industry, except agriculture, gets relief from a certain part of the contributions. I submit that is quite a new point, which could not have been raised before, because the Unemployment Insurance Bill had not then been brought in.
  The CHAIRMAN: My duties are concerned with the Amendments on the Order Paper. I know nothing officially of what may have happened outside. The hon. Member's point is not a point of Order, because the matter can be raised on Report.
  Mr. LAMB: Will it be possible to raise this matter on Report, because there are Amendments dealing with the same point in the Schedule in the name of myself and other hon. Members?
  Brigadier-General BROWN: We understand that some arrangements have been come to by the Leader of the Opposition and the Government as to time, and it is very often the way in these debates that Amendments which some of us agriculturists think are important cannot be discussed for lack of time. Could not we get some assurance from the Government and the Opposition that we should have time to discuss it on the Schedule?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order with which I can deal. As to whether some Amendment can be moved on the Schedule to reduce, I presume, the contributions paid by agricultural workers, I do not want to say that will not be in order, but I will give the matter consideration. It certainly cannot be raised on the present Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment I now call upon is a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for North East Ham (Mr. Crook). It proposes to leave out paragraph (v) of Subsection (1). I do not view eleventh hour Amendments with favour, but I understand other Amendments have been put down dealing with the same question on a later Clause, and it was overlooked that it would first be necessary to omit this paragraph.
  Mr. C. W. CROOK: I beg to move in page 8, line 20, to leave out paragraph (v).
  I apologise for being so late in putting forward this Amendment. We have already put down a similar Amendment to Clause 15, but we have decided that it would be better to deal with it at this stage on Clause 9. There is another reason why we have taken this course. This Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland. With regard to our Amendment later on we were informed that if we desired to make it effective we must come to an agreement with our Scottish friends, and I only heard this morning that our Scottish friends had agreed to this course. Under these circumstances, I hope hon. Members will pardon my lateness in giving notice of this proposal.

  889
  This is an Amendment of substance. It asks that the teachers eligible for benefit under the Superannuation Act who are excepted under the National Health Insurance should be excepted persons under this Bill as well. The reasons for asking for this to be done are many, but I will give only the most important. Only last week this House imposed for an indefinite period a payment of 5 per cent. by the teachers and 2½ per cent. by the authority for the pensions scheme. That is already a heavy burden. If teachers are not excepted from this scheme, not only will they have to make superannuation payments, but they will also have to pay an extra amount under the Widows and Orphans Bill. When they reach the maximum salary of £250, if they wish to remain within the Act they will have to pay not only the full amount provided for under this Bill, but the full amount under the National Health Insurance Act as well. We should not trouble at all about that matter if tangible benefits were available consistent with the payments demanded. The great majority of our teachers, particularly in elementary schools, are unmarried women. If they get married, in the great majority of areas they have to leave the service. Obviously, most of those who remain in the service remain unmarried, and will come under this scheme. I think the Committee will agree that an unmarried woman cannot be a widow, and I think hon. Members will also agree that an unmarried woman cannot leave orphans. No teacher can get a double pension, and as the unmarried woman teacher is entitled to a pension under the Act she cannot get the widow's and orphan's pension or the old age pensions benefits. No scheme of this kind ought to be imposed where not one of the classes I have mentioned can get any benefit at all.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Hon. Members will observe that paragraph (v) of Subsection (1), which it is now proposed to omit, deals by way of reference with certain excepted employment by virtue of paragraphs (d), (e), (g), or (h) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act. It is rather difficult for hon. Members to follow the meaning of this proposal.
  890
  These paragraphs refer to those employed as teachers in public elementary and certain other schools subject to provisions set forth in the First Schedule. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has already explained that England, Wales and Scotland have carefully considered this Amendment and are satisfied with it. Under these circumstances the Government propose to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: We have had no notice of this arrangement, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can assure me that the paragraphs which are being dealt with refer to teachers only.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  Mr. KELLY: Are these teachers in the same position as those who have reached their maximum salary limit? Will they also be excepted?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that question is not in order at this point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out the word "either."
  This is the first of a series of short Amendments which I have put on the Paper to make some changes in paragraph (b). That paragraph provides for the continued existence of certain schemes already in operation, although the provisions of this Measure, when they come into force, provide that according to the terms of the Clause the benefits conferred by other schemes in existence and not less capable of providing benefits than those prepared under this Bill are to be secured. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the National Health Insurance Act similar arrangements have been made. What I complain of in regard to this paragraph is that it only allows these schemes to be continued if they are secured by statutory enactment, and there seems to be no reason why other schemes, if not secured by Statute, should not be allowed to continue in operation provided that the benefits are equally favourable and that the scheme is equally secure. For these reasons I think we should allow the continuance of such schemes provided that the Minister is satisfied that the benefits are secure.

  891
  4.0 P.M.
  I daresay the Committee will know of particular illustrations of the kind of scheme that I have mentioned. For example, in connection with at least two of the great railway companies there are in operation at the present time schemes in favour of widows and children of people who are in the service of those companies. Of course, no one would ask that they should take less good provision under private schemes than under this Bill, but since it is clearly provided that the benefits are to be equally good and equally as well secured, I think the Committee will feel assured that no harm is being done; but, on the contrary, that any very meritorious scheme which is at present in existence should be allowed to continue.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal a substitution for the compulsory scheme of the Bill, or is it supplementary?
  Sir R. HORNE: It is supplementary. It allows the Minister to continue these schemes in operation provided he is satisfied that their benefits on the whole are not less favourable than those under the Bill
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In those cases, it would be a substitution.
  Sir R. HORNE: Yes, certainly. The paragraph accordingly would read as follows:
  "(b) where the Minister certifies as respects any such excepted employment is is mentioned in paragraph (iv) of this Subsection that provision is made by means of a, superannuation fund established by Act of Parliament, or by means of any other statutory enactment."—
  and then I add the words
  "or by other means approved by the Minister for securing in respect of men employed therein and of their widows and children, or in respect of women if also employed therein and of their children, benefits on the whole not less favourable than all the benefits conferred by this Act, no contribution shall be payable under this Act in respect of such men and women, as the case may."
  In the following paragraph there will be two consequential Amendments. I think the Committee will realise the importance of continuing these schemes and will allow the Amendment to be accepted.
  Sir K. WOOD: The Committee will observe that this paragraph (b) says:
  "Where the Minister certifies, as respects any such excepted employment as is mentioned in paragraph (iv) of this Subsection"
  that the provisions of a superannuation fund equal those in the Bill he can exempt such fund by his certificate. As the Clause is now drawn, it is limited to schemes which are on a statutory basis. It has been represented to us that there are several good and sufficient schemes which are not on a statutory basis, and the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has moved would enable the Minister, if satisfied that such schemes are sound and secure to the recipients benefits equal to those mentioned in this Bill, to exempt them just as he can statutory funds. I need hardly say that these schemes will be scrutinised very carefully in order that the contributors may be properly safeguarded, but in principle we see no objection to the Amendment. Of course, we shall have to make full inquiries into schemes which may be put forward. Under these circumstances, the Government propose to accept the Amendment, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will permit me to make an observation with regard to the concluding words of his series of Amendments
  "in respect of such men or women, as the case may be."
  Those words enable the Minister to have regard separately to the particular benefits which are given to men or to women, so that if he is not satisfied with the benefits of the scheme for women he will not of course give his certificate in respect of women, but he can give it in respect of the men. In these circumstances, I think the Committee will agree that the Government are acting reasonably in accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel that there is some force in the Amendment that we should not call upon people to pay twice for two benefits of the same kind, but. before I can give a vote for it, I want to be satisfied on this point. I know of some superannuation schemes which provide these benefits, but do not provide benefits equal to those under this Bill, and do not proceed on the same lines.
  Sir R. HORNE: They will not be excepted.
  Mr. DAVIES: You give the Minister authority to decide what to do, and it will be within his power to include or exclude any scheme. I do not see anything in the Amendment to cover this case. A superannuation fund may have been established for a period of five or 10 years, and may when it comes before the Minister appear to be quite solvent, but I have known such superannuation funds which have fallen to the ground, and I want to have some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will review these superannuation schemes which are accepted in substitution so that men who have paid into them will not, if they fail, fall between two stools, as it were.
  Sir K. WOOD: Certainly, I will give that assurance. If the Committee will look at the paragraph, they will see that the Minister has to be satisfied that the benefits under these schemes are not less favourable than all the benefits conferred by this Act. We shall certainly, before we approve of any such scheme, have to be satisfied, not only that the benefits at the moment are sufficient, but that there is no danger whatever of the scheme breaking down. Of course, with regard to responsible undertakings like railway companies, there would be no difficulty in providing a safeguard for the contributors to the scheme; but we shall have to be satisfied that these schemes are stable and secure, not only for the moment, but for the time that the people are insured under them.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: It seems to me that we are proceeding rather rapidly with a rather important Amendment, because the substitution of a voluntary. non-statutory scheme, however good, for a scheme of the character embodied in this Bill must always involve some element of risk, and, though the Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to cover the various points which have been raised, there are many other points that could be raised and which will have to be considered. Why should a voluntary scheme which is not less favourable be acceptable, and why should a voluntary scheme in any case have to be more favourable to make it acceptable to a statutory scheme? I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) is
  894
  doubtless thinking of some of the old railway pensions schemes which have been in operation for many years and which I daresay have been proved to be entirely actuarially sound, but this Amendment would cover a great deal more ground than that, and would put a great deal of responsibility on the Minister in having to examine, and practically guarantee, voluntary schemes. The question is whether it is really wise, when you are making a change like this, to go in for an extension of such a wide character. For instance, are new schemes not in operation but which might come into operation to be excluded, or are we to deal only with schemes already in existence? Is it to be a scheme of any particular magnitude? It seems to me that there are a number of points of that kind on which the Committee ought to be assured before it passes this Amendment. After all, it might be better to abandon a voluntary scheme and have a uniform scheme of this character than to exclude people on a voluntary basis with the idea that the scheme was all right when unforeseen events might happen.
  Mr. OLIVER: Could the hon. Gentleman state what guarantee there will be that persons employed by a company operating a sectional scheme will have free movement from one firm to another? Apart altogether from whether the benefits of any such scheme may be actuarially sound, does it not limit the freedom of the individual if you are going to substitute these small sectional schemes for one national scheme? It almost compels any person who has contributed for a number of years to remain. It limits his freedom of movement and choice of employment, and, in consequence, to some extent operates detrimentally to a person if he is insured under a sectional scheme of this kind. If we are making an important change and establishing a national scheme, would it not be better, even where these sectional schemes are in existence, if some policy could be outlined whereby they could be incorporated in the national scheme, thus leaving freedom of movement and choice of employment to the people of this country who are compelled to contribute?
  Mr. LAMB: May I ask for what period it is anticipated that the Minister would make these certificates, and if they would be revised at any stated time?
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Supposing a scheme has been approved and then for some reason or another it fails and becomes insolvent, is it proposed to have provisions whereby the workpeople shall not be placed in any less eligible position as the result of such failure than they would have been if they had been under the State scheme?
  Mr. GILLETT: One of the borough councils in London for a number of years made it their custom to collect their refuse by direct employment of labour, but they now have a proposal that the work should be done by a contractor. They have had about 60 or 70 men in their employ, and there was a superannuation scheme to which those men contributed. Under the proposals of the council, the payments made by those men to the fund are now to be paid back. Supposing this scheme had come before the Minister, there would have been no reason whatever why he should not have thought the plan would go on indefinitely. That is the danger it seems to me of accepting this Amendment. A scheme like that comes to an end on the ground that the council think they can do the work more economically by handing it over to a contractor. The man who has been connected with the fund has no voice in the determination of it. A number of them are men of 40 and 50 years of age. Supposing a scheme like this had come before the Minister 20 years ago—it is not as if there had been any political change in the composition of the council: it is simply a change of policy by members who have been there for many years—the Minister might very easily have said, "the thing is perfectly sound and secure." How could ho have guarded himself against a change of this kind? What is going to happen to any men in such a fund to whom this happens? Can the right hon. Gentleman make provision either by making it an understanding, if there is a change of this kind, that he must consent, or that his approval must be obtained before such a fund is wound up, or, in the second place, by finding some means by which these men can be transferred if the scheme with which they have been connected and which scheme has been exempted by his approval should for any reason come to an end.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the best answer I can give to several of the questions that have been put to me is to refer the
  896
  Committee to the Clause. It will be seen that, under paragraph (b), the Minister, before he can give a certificate, must see that the people referred to are secured terms that are on the whole not less favourable than all the benefits conferred by this Act. The number of these cases can be but a limited one. and perhaps the Committee will feel more reassured about the matter when I say that, of course, the certificate will only be given in those cases in which the Minister has already given a certificate under paragraphs (b) and (c) of Part II of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act—that is to say, where he is already satisfied that the scheme is of such a nature that, so far as national health insurance is concerned, it secures provisions for sickness and disablement benefit which are, on the whole, not less favourable than the corresponding benefits conferred by the National Insurance Act. It is only in cases whore the scheme is of that character, and has already received the certificate of the Minister under the National Insurance Act, that the particular association can come forward and say, "You have given us. a certificate under that Section; you are already satisfied about our stability and security so far as national health insurance is concerned: in so far as we make provision for superannuation, we ask you to pursue that policy in connection with superannuation just in the same way as with sickness." As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), as to people being transferred and not being able to go to another society, that, of course, is an objection which would apply just as much to a statutory scheme as to a scheme that was not imposed by Statute.
  Mr. OLIVER: I do not mean joining another society. My point was that, in the case of a sectional scheme such as that of a railway company, for instance, the employé's freedom of action is limited in consequence of his having contributed for a number of years t;o a scheme. It ties him, in many cases, to one firm, when he. would much prefer to leave.
  Sir K. WOOD: In answer to that, I think I can safely say that no scheme will be approved by the Minister which does not make adequate provision and safeguards for persons leaving, say, a railway company, and joining another society.

  897
  Obviously, if the Minister is to comply with that part of the Clause which says that the employé must be secured, he must have regard to the fact that people may leave and go elsewhere. I think it is the experience of those who have been connected with national health insurance that, when the Minister certifies a scheme under the National Insurance Act, due provision must be made that, if a person leaves that scheme, adequate transfers will be made in respect of him to the scheme into which he goes.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there are many schemes of that kind under the National Insurance Act?
  Sir K. WOOD: I will make inquiries, but, of course, in that respect, the Minister, in. order to comply with this Clause, must see that the person is secured. It may be said, and this certainly weighs with the Government that inasmuch as due provision is made in many of these schemes by responsible bodies, whose security is, perhaps, as good as that of the Government, it is hard and unnecessary to ask that people who have belonged to such schemes for a long time should have to contribute twice, or have their schemes wound up. I can assure the Committee that it will only be done after the very greatest scrutiny. The Minister will naturally feel that the obligation is put upon him by Statute to see that adequate security is given in the case of all these schemes, and it is only in such cases—and I do not think the number will be very large—that the certificate will be given. In all the circumstances of the case, I think the Committee may rely upon the carefulness with which this discretion will be exercised, and in those circumstances I suggest that the Committee might accept the Amendment. I may say. with regard to the question asked me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that I have just been informed that the number of the schemes in question is 550.
  Mr. LAMB: I hope the hon. Gentleman will reply to my question, as to whether there will be any revision.
  Mr. GILLETT: Will he also reply to the point that I put about the winding up of a society?
  Sir K. WOOD: Of course, the certificate will be given subject to conditions. I feel in some little difficulty about replying to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), who is, apparently, referring to some case which he has in view and with which I am not fully acquainted. I always hesitate to reply on any case about which I have not the fullest information, but I hope the hon. Member will be able to apply the general observations I have made to the particular case he has in mind. If, however, he will let me have the facts of that case, I will carefully look into the particular point of view, and let the hon. Member have a full statement upon them.
  Mr. GILLETT: I did not wish to put forward a special case, but, in the event of a society coming to an end which a few months previously might have been thought to be fairly permanent, I wanted to know whether any provision was made, and the hon. Gentleman's answer does not seem to me to meet that point.
  Sir K. WOOD: Obviously, before the Minister could certify that the scheme was one which would secure to its members benefits equal to those under this Bill, he would have to have very particular regard to the question whether the funds and stability of the scheme would warrant his doing so. That, I should think, would probably be the first matter which would receive bis consideration. He will, of course, be advised by the Government Actuary, and the very first point to which he will direct his attention is whether there are adequate reserves in such a scheme; and, of course, no certificate will be given unless there are adequate reserves. I think that that would meet the case mentioned by the hon. Member.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: May I press the point that I put to the hon. Gentleman? Suppose that the judgment of the Minister happened to be at fault, and he gave a certificate to a scheme which afterwards broke down, what is to be the position in that case? Such a case may arise. What is to be the position of the people interested? Are they going to be in a worse position than that in which they would have been under the Government scheme?
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member must assume that we should approve

  899
  of no scheme unless it was absolutely certain that the interests of those concerned would be safeguarded. We should have to see that adequate reserves were actually there, and we shall certify no scheme unless it provides adequate reserves.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: But reserves that are adequate at this moment may disappear in the future. Are we to take it that, in the event of such a scheme breaking down, the workpeople are going to be left to begin again? It is rather an important point.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member must have in mind some case abroad, or something of that kind. Certainly, before such a scheme is certified, those who advise my right hon. Friend will see that adequate reserves are there, just as is done in a statutory scheme. These non-statutory schemes will have to comply with exactly the same standard of reserves and the same guarantees which apply in the case of a statutory scheme.
  Mr. BROAD: I do not think that the Ministry have quite grasped all that there is in this question. The hon. Gentleman has drawn a comparison with the transfer of a person under National Health Insurance from an exempted scheme to an approved society and the transfer of value which has to go with it, but this is not a scheme of pensions to be administered under an approved society with separate funds. I think the Committee, ought to see that a man who has been in employment under one of these companies who have exemption schemes, whenever he goes out of their employment, either by his own desire or through a reduction of the company's staff, is going to be in as secure a position as the man who has been under the Government scheme all the time, and from that point of view I think we want more adequate provision in this Bill to see that a capital sum is transferred from the exempted scheme to the Government, to compensate for the loss of the contributions which have been made to that special scheme. The Minister will find that the matter is a very involved one, if he is going to deal with it properly, because, apart from the question of men being tied to one employment, very few of these men have any statutory
  900
  security in their positions. The conditions of a railway company, for instance, may be considerably altered, and, although they may seem secure at present, it may be that the railway companies will have to reduce their staffs considerably. In that case, what will be the position of the men affected? If they are to be transferred to the State fund, in what way is provision going to be made to see that a capital sum is taken from the railway company's superannuation fund and transferred to the Government? The whole matter is very difficult.
  Moreover, apart from the railway companies, we know that a considerable number of old men have been put off from Government establishments, and we had a communication before us to-day with respect to some of these, showing in what a pitiful plight they are. They may have contributed to special schemes in small-arms factories or other ordnance factories, and when they are put off, many of them at the age of 55 or 60, no other employer will look at them, and they will have no chance of qualifying, even under the three years' period. It will be hopeless for them to get 39 contributions each year. I want to see them transferred to the Government scheme, with the full value of their past years of service. In order to do that it will, I am afraid, be necessary to submit further provisions to the House, and to add new Clauses to the Bill. When the Minister comes to consider these cases, as I hope he will before the end of the Committee stage, I hope he will see that it is advisable, for the sake of continuity, to restrict the application of these exemptions, as far as possible, and bring us all under one national scheme.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that the Government, before the Report stage, will consider this provision very carefully. It is full of pitfalls and dangers. I should like to know a little more about the 350 special schemes which have been established under the National Insurance Act. Unless I am mistaken, they will probably be schemes under which better benefits are given than those given under the Act, because I cannot see the object of giving exemption in cases where only the same benefits are given. What possible advantage can there be in having a works scheme with only exactly the same

  901
  benefits as under the National Health Insurance or the Pensions Scheme? There is no point in it. I can understand an inducement being offered to employers and workpeople in a given works to establish a better scheme with increased benefits, but to say to them, "If you establish exactly the same scheme as the scheme under the Pensions Bill of the Government, we will exempt you"—
  Sir R. HORNE: My right hon. Friend must not think that that is what the Clause says. The phrase "not less favourable" is, as my right hon. Friend will remember, the phrase used in previous Statutes in the same connection. The Minister, in the exercise of his discretion, will look at the scheme very narrowly to see whether it is worth continuing or not as compared with the benefits given by the Statute.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think my right hon. Friend's interruption in the least challenges the proposition I was laying down. If it is the same, surely it is not less favourable. If you have a scheme which gives exactly the same benefits as the benefits given under the Act, surely it is not less favourable?
  Sir R. HORNE: It does not provide that if as favourable a scheme is provided the Minister is bound to approve of that scheme. It leaves the Minister discretion to decide whether the temptations are good enough to allow him to sanction it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want to increase the temptations in this particular case, because it is rather a statutory indication to the Minister that, if the scheme is good and the actuarial position is sound, then he is to accept it. What I think ought to be done is to give an inducement to works to give some additional benefit, some improvement, some variation which is more favourable, and I would ask the representatives of the Government to consider, between now and Report, whether there ought not to be words which will make it perfectly clear that there should be no exception unless some additional benefit of some sort or kind is given. I cannot see why there should be any exception at all. I agree that there might be a gap before a man got into the next employment and began to make his contribution, which would deprive him of benefit. There is a real danger of that kind, but it is worth
  902
  taking that risk if the benefits are better. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would examine some of the schemes which have been exempted under th Insurance Act. I should be very surprised if they are not schemes which are an improvement upon the statutory benefits conferred by the National Insurance Act, 1911. There is a good deal to be said in that case for offering inducements to employers and workmen to retain a scheme of their own which increases the benefits, but I really do not see why you should give an exemption where the benefits are practically identical, or "not less favourable."
  Mr. ROBERT SMITH: There is one point I should like to put before the Committee. If the Minister grants a certificate to a scheme, is not that a guarantee by the State that it is absolutely solvent? If in 5 or 10 years' time that scheme comes down, surely the person who is not able to receive benefit will be able to turn round to the State and say "You guaranteed this, and you will have to pay."
  Mr. MELLER: Is it not a fact that in many of these excepted cases to which reference has been made, the real advantage is that there is no contribution in respect of which these benefits are received? That is the great advantage which is to be found in these excepted schemes.
  Sir K. WOOD: I should, of course, like to respond to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Anything said by him in connection with the matter will receive our most careful attention, because we recognise his knowledge of the question. But the words we have taken follow a very great example, set by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I told him just now there were some 550 schemes which were exempted under the National Insurance Act. They were exempted as giving benefits in respect of sickness and disablement "on the whole not less favourable than the corresponding benefits conferred by this Act." Therefore in all these 550 schemes, which cover 300,000 men and women, which receive a certificate under the right hon. Gentleman's National Health Insurance Act, all that has been done is to grant a certificate that on the whole

  903
  they are not less favourable than the corresponding benefits conferred by the National Health Insurance Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), in introducing his Amendment, has simply taken the same criterion and the same words as in the right hon. Gentleman's Act. That is really the position, and I think in all those cases we have been satisfied that the people who have been so excepted have been amply safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the gap, and hon. Members are naturally anxious about the people who remain in the societies, but obviously the Minister could not certify any scheme as securing benefits not less favourable than this Act which do not make adequate protection for people leaving the scheme. Obviously that must be so. Of course, the exemptions which are likely to arise in this connection are not in connection with workpeople as a whole, but with people who are generally permanently employed by railway companies and associations of that kind. Therefore I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. We will have due regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said to see if any further safeguards are necessary to be inserted in the Clause to secure what the whole Committee wants, namely, that these people should not have to pay a double contribution, or pay something from which they are now free. I ask the Committee, having regard to the vast amount of work which is before us, if they will be content with the assurance I have given, and allow the Amendment to pass.
  Sip HENRY CRAIK: There is one omission in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment touches a very important point, and there has been some doubt in my mind whether it is not seriously invading further the general scheme. One point was raised by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeenshire (Mr. Robert Smith) as to the question of the solvency of these schemes which are now to be admitted. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeenshire assumed apparently that if these schemes do not prove solvent, the Minister pledges himself to the contributors and would at once proceed to replace them in a position of solvency, even though he had had no contributions in the past. I should like
  904
  to ask whether he is prepared to accept that responsibility on behalf of the Treasury, and is prepared in the event of the failure of such recognised schemes to implement these insolvent schemes from public funds.
  Sir K. WOOD: Before the Minister certifies any such scheme, he will see that there are adequate reserves already there safeguarding and securing to the Members benefits as favourable as those provided under the Bill. That is far better than giving any undertaking as to the future. Before any certificate is given by the Minister, he will have regard to the future. The first thing any actuary who is advising him would say would be, before granting a certificate under the scheme, "Are there adequate reserves? Is the scheme solvent?" No certificate will be given unless there are adequate reserves which fully safeguard the future in respect of these people.
  Mr. ROBERT SMITH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite answered my point. I quite admit that the Minister will be most careful before he approves of any scheme, but that does not get away from the difficulty of the unfortunate individual who is insured under a private scheme. He is not able to insure under this other. The Government say, "This is a perfectly good scheme, and we guarantee it." But it does not seem very fortunate for the insured person if the scheme fails.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 8, line 39, after the word "enactment," insert the words "or by other means approved by the Minister."
  In page 8, line 41, leave out the second "and", and insert instead thereof the word "or"; after the word "women," insert the words "if a so."
  In page 9, line 3, after the word "Act," insert the words "in respect of such men or such women, as the case may be."
  In page 9, line 11, leave out the word "and" and insert instead thereof the word "or."
  In page 9, line 15, after the word "payable," insert the words "in respect of such man or of such women as the case may be."—[Sir R. Horne.]
  Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, at the end, to insert the words,
  "(2) Where the Minister is satisfied that employment by any statutory undertakers, that is to say, persons authorised by Parliament to construct, work, or carry on any canal, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, or other undertaking of public utility is, having regard to the normal practice of the employer, employment which is permanent in character, and that the persons engaged in that employment are entitled to rights in a superannuation fund approved by the Minister, and that the terms of the employment (including those rights) are such as to secure to the persons so engaged benefits on the whole not less favourable than the benefits (other than additional benefit, but including medical benefit) conferred by the Insurance Act, the Minister may give a certificate to that effect, and thereupon, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed,

  (a) the employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it were an excepted employment within the meaning of paragraph (iv) of Subsection (1) of this Section; and

  (b) the employment shall for the purposes of the Insurance Act be treated as an excepted employment within the meaning of that Act, subject to this qualification, that where employed persons affected by this Sub-section are members of an approved society connected with the undertaking such financial arrangements between the society, the Reserve Suspense Fund, and such superannuation fund as aforesaid as may be provided by a scheme approved by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee shall be carried into effect.

  Provided that the Minister shall not give a certificate unless he is satisfied that, if the certificate is given, proviso (b) or proviso (c) to Sub-section (1) of this Section would apply to the case."
  One of the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) which has just Been accepted paved the way for this Amendment, which deals more specifically with the same matter that the Committee has been considering for the last half-hour. The class of undertakings dealt with here are undertakings which are permanent in character, which are such things as canals, docks, harbours, tramways, gas, electricity, water, or other undertakings of a public nature.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite clear on the point. Perhaps the hon. Member will explain. It appears to me, on the face of it, that this is really covered by the words just passed.
  Mr. PETO: I do not think it is, because it goes to certain specific cases and exempts entirely members of approved schemes from this Bill. I understand it is accepted by the Government. It appears to me that the whole crux of the Bill is that we should somehow or other include under it as nearly as possible all for whose benefit it is designed, but it is also important that we should exclude and exempt certain categories of people. Further, on the point of benefits not less favourable than those under the Bill, it is obvious that where a scheme has been in force, perhaps long before the inception even of the Insurance Act, and has been constantly administered in the main by the employés themselves, it tends to promote good relationship between employer and employed, and confidence in the employment, and it is exactly the spirit in industry which is so very desirable at present.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the Minister whether this provides for cases which are not provided for by the Clause so far as amended.
  Sir K. WOOD: We are advised there is this difference. The Amendments of which have been passed referred to undertakings which have already been excepted so far as National Health Insurance is concerned, by a provision in that Act. This applies to superannuation funds, which are not subject to that exception, and, therefore, would not be covered.
  Mr. PETO: I think it will be clear that it is very desirable that where these schemes are promoting good feeling and good relations between employer and employed, we should not substitute for them a scheme of general national application. On those grounds, therefore, I am glad to hear that the Minister is prepared to accept the Amendment. If any small alterations in the wording are required, we shall be quite prepared to see them made.
  Sir K. WOOD: We have given careful consideration to this matter. It is one of those superannuation schemes which does not come within the purview of the Minister as far as National Health Insurance is concerned. There is one scheme that I know of which makes very valuable

  907
  provision as far as the employés are concerned. We want to help them, inasmuch as they are taking a great share in the insurance scheme itself and are very anxious that we should help them in this way. The same safeguards that I mentioned in connection with the other Clause will be used by the Minister in this connection. I hope the Committee will see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should like some explanation of this Amendment. The proposed new Sub-section uses the words
  "and that the terms of the employment (including those rights) are such as to secure to the persons so engaged benefits on the whole not less favourable than the benefits (other than additional benefits but including medical benefit) conferred by the Insurance Act."
  I raised the question as to whether a person would be entitled to additional benefits under the National Health Insurance scheme from 65 and upwards? I received a reply that such a person would be entitled to additional benefits between the ages of 65 and 70. I should like to be assured that a person falling into that category will not be deprived of those additional benefits if we accept this Amendment.
  Sir K. WOOD: Those schemes which are now excepted from the National Health Insurance Act have to be not less favourable as far as sickness and disablement benefits, etc., are concerned. The words in this Amendment have the same effect. The schemes which my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has in mind will not be certified unless they provide benefit exactly the same as under the National Health Insurance Act itself. As to the question of additional benefits, that is a matter for the particular society to which the Member may belong. In some cases there would be no additional benefit.
  Mr. DAVIES: In the event of the Minister certifying a scheme as a sub stitution scheme for this fund, am I to understand that the Minister will not certify any scheme unless the additional benefits as well as the normal benefits will be as good as under this scheme, plus the National Health Insurance Act? The approved societies after the last valuation will be able, I understand, as to a large majority of them, to provide
  908
  various additional benefits, including contributions for convalescent home treatment and so forth. I want to make it clear that no scheme shall be certified by the Minister as a substitution for this scheme unless the substituted scheme will give benefits equal to those of the National Health Insurance Act and this Bill as well.
  Sir K. WOOD: The answer is that as far as this Bill is concerned, under the Clause which we are now discussing, the Minister can certify no scheme which does not secure to the members of that scheme benefits not less favourable than those given by this Bill. The conditions specified in the Amendment also apply as far as National Health Insurance is concerned. Those conditions are that the benefits shall not be less favourable than the benefits referred to in the Statute which are sickness, disablement benefit and medical benefit. With respect to additional benefits, that is a question of membership of a particular society. Some members will not get additional benefits, while some will. The Minister under the National Health Insurance Act has not to have regard to the question of additional benefit. The hon. Member will see that it is in regard to sickness, disablement and medical benefit that the benefits are not to be less favourable. What the Minister will have to see is that as far as those particular schemes are concerned, that they shall be not less favourable in their benefits than the benefits given by this Bill and the Insurance Act.
  Mr. CLUSE: There are a large number of trade unions who are paying superannuation benefits after a certain period of membership, and the unions are charging their members certain subscriptions in respect of these liabilities at a certain age. I should like to know whether this Bill will bring about any reduction in the present amount of superannuation paid to the members of those unions on their arrival at a certain age. or after a certain number of years' membership.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will appreciate the fact that I have not in mind the particular case to which he refers. Any such body as that he mentions, provided that it complied with the conditions of this Clause would, equally

  909
  with the associations to which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has referred, have the benefit of it. If there is any particular case which the hon. Member has in mind, I will gladly go into it with him and see whether it comes within the Clause or not. This Clause is in general terms.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir A. MOND: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move the second Amendment which stands in my name, to provide a new Sub-section (3), instead of the first Amendment to insert in line 20, after the word "provided," the words "and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Section."
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the first Amendment is necessary, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move it, it would not be out of order.
  Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, at the end, to add
  "(3) The provisions of this Section shall not take effect until the deficiency period, as defined in Section sixteen of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act of 1921, has terminated, and the weekly contributions of employers and employed for the_ purposes of unemployment have been fixed in accordance with Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, at rates not higher than the maxima prescribed in the First Schedule to that Act."
  The principle raised in this Amendment has been debated more than once during the proceedings on this Bill. I make no apology for raising it again, as it is perhaps the most crucial question which arises, and one which has not yet been finally disposed of. The object of the provisions is obvious, and that is, to avoid any new contributions being levied on industry, either on the employer or the employed, while the present very heavy unemployment contributions are going on. Since this provision was laid down, the Minister of Labour has introduced a Bill which has the effect that the additional contributions to be made to meet the deficiency under the Unemployment Insurance Act are reduced by nearly one half. The Government has to that extent tried to meet the critics of the Bill who, from the beginning, have pointed out, and I think with irresistible force, that in the present condition of industry, or of a large
  910
  section of industry, you cannot possibly afford to place any more heavy charges on industries which are already on the brink of shutting down.
  I should like to ask the Committee to go back to certain figures on the subject. If you take the present Unemployment Insurance Act figures, the employer pays 10d. in the case of a man and the employé 9d., making 1s. 7d. In the case of a woman, the total charge is 1s. 3d. Under the new Bill we get a reduction of 2d. The rate under the Bill which has been introduced will be, in the case of a man, a reduction of from 10d. to 3d. to be paid by the employer, and from 9d. to 7d. in the case of the employé. The contribution in respect of a woman will be reduced in the case of the employer from 8d. to 7d., and in the case of the woman herself from, 7d. to 6d. Even with these reductions, there will still be a very heavy burden. The final burden on industry will be, unemployment insurance in the case of a man 1s. 3d.; pensions, employer 4d,, employé 4d., total 1s. 11d. In the case of a woman, unemployment insurance 1s. 1d.; pensions, employer 2d., employé 2d., total 1s. 5d.
  It will be seen that there is still a considerable increase over the existing burden, an increase which has been estimated by actuaries at something like 11¼ million pounds per annum. One does not want to repeat arguments, but one does feel bound to put certain points to the Government. Look at our present industrial position. We are in the middle of a great coal crisis. Everybody is trying to find a way out of the difficulty existing in the coal trade, and the high cost of coal which is preventing our export trade. There is the crisis in the steel industry. The Government have a Cabinet Committee sitting to consider whether it should give a subsidy to the steel trade, and at this very moment, when it is admitted on all hands that the biggest industries, the fundamental industries, cannot go on working with the present burdens, the Government are proposing to put a burden of 11¼ millions per annum on their standing charges. I have never understood how they can justify that course. I have heard speeches from the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister on the subject, but they have been entirely unconvincing, and they must remain so.

  911
  5.0 P.M.
  On the one hand they have a Committee considering whether or not they should pay out of the Exchequer grants to help industry, and on the other hand they are increasing the standing charges on industry by a Bill which is not yet law. A more illogical procedure has never been followed by any Government nor by this House. We all want to see this Bill proceed, and we all want to see these benefits begin, but how can it be seriously argued that the Government are justified, in order to provide something which does not yet exist, in adopting a procedure which is liable to add to the very deep and terrible distress with which we are having to deal to-day? People talk about two-pences as though they were very small amounts, but when you come to a question of a labour dispute as to wages, two-pences, fourpences and sixpences have led to long controversy and strife. I have been looking through figures published in reference to the coal industry, comparing certain social services in the year 1913 and in the year 1924, and it is perhaps worth while to repeat these figures. In 1913 you had added to the cost of a ton of coal: health insurance ·93d., and workmen's compensation 1·25d., or a total of 2·18d. In 1924 you had: welfare levy, 1·09d., unemployment insurance, 2·31d., health insurance, 1·16d., and workmen's compensation, 3·76d . or a total of 8·32d. When we are talking of endeavouring to reduce the cost price of coal by 2s. or 2s. 6d. a ton, by increasing the hours of labour or cutting down the wages of the miner, you cannot disregard the accumulations of burdens an industry, and there is no use on the one hand trying to make the industry pay and or the other hand creating conditions which necessarily make it more difficult.
  What is the necessity for this? Anyone who cares to go into the details of the matter can ascertain the facts for himself. As I have pointed out before, there is no financial necessity for any additional burdens in the shape of contributions to be laid on this scheme for the first two or three years of its existence. If you look at the finances of the scheme as explained in the White Paper you will observe that practically for the first two or three years no money is really required from the Exchequer at all. The money is practically coming from the contributions, not merely the money for
  912
  the benefit, but the money for the accumulation of a great reserve. It Is true that according to the White Paper the Treasury has to contribute £4,000,000 a year for 10 years, but that is not a matter of financial necessity. That is a way in which the Treasury covers its liability in the 10 years by a level contribution of £4,000,000 a year for the first 10 years, until you have a total Treasury contribution of £40,000,000. Twenty-one million pounds is in respect of other purposes, and the amount which the Treasury has to contribute for the for 10 years for new purposes is only £18,000,000. During the first 10 years, out of £248,000,000, the Treasury will provide only £18,000,000 for new services.
  Those of us who voted in favour of the contributory principle did so only on condition that the contribution should not add any additional burden on industry as long as the very heavy unemployment insurance payments are made. The Amendment states that until you have the unemployment insurance contribution down to its old normal level no new contribution should be levied on industry. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and various other people have made ingenious endeavours to devise means in order to deal with this difficult matter. I am not going to associate myself with any of these schemes. Knowing something about the matter as an old Minister of Health, I think that they are all financially unsound and would be bitterly resented by all the great friendly societies which, by their administration and care, have accumulated large surpluses, and would now naturally object to these being utilised in order to save the British Government or the Treasury in a new scheme of this kind.
  Anyone who likes to examine this matter will see that there is no financial difficulty in the Treasury, taking this scheme for the first two or three years. Obviously, it is the right course to pursue. There are two or three ways of doing it, and it is not our business to tell the Government which is the best way. The whole deficiency of the unemployment fund is a pure question of bookkeeping. It depends upon the period within which you wish to pay off that deficiency, and what rate of contribution you want. If you spread it over a larger number of years you can

  913
  drop the contribution now to unemployment insurance. That is one method which might be financially quite reasonable, and which could be adopted. It would be for the Treasury to take over this scheme for two or three years, or, at any rate, to provide that no contribution should be exacted from employer or employed as long as the unemployment insurance remains in deficiency, that is to say, as long as the extra contributions are demanded.
  I do not know what reply the Front Bench would give to the Amendment. I do not know whether they have decided that in no conditions and in face of no arguments will they depart from the existing scheme. I do not know whether they have said their last word in this matter. As one who is seriously concerned with our industrial situation, with industrial peace and with this Bill, and with its smooth and efficient working, I earnestly implore the Government not to shut the door on this Amendment, and not to force through with their majority a procedure which in their heart of hearts they must know is unsound. I cannot believe that if an impartial committee had been sitting investigating the industrial conditions of this country, and investigating at the same time the additional burdens which have been placed on industry, and if a scheme of this nature had been put before such a committee they would have reported in favour of the action which the Government are taking. The question is of vital importance, and the objections to these burdens being placed on industry occur just as forcibly to those who represent the workmen's side as to those who represent the employers, and the views of such a combination of forces should be taken into account by any Government responsible to this country. They are unanswerable and fundamental. That being so, there being no reply to the arguments which I have put forward and no real financial difficulty in the way of adopting this Amendment, we beg the Government to give it consideration, and we say that the people of this country and the employers will be equally happy if the Government can accept the Amendment which I now move.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The right hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, said,
  914
  and said truly, that the principle of the Amendment is one which has been debated before in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. He said also, and I think quite fairly, that he need not apologise for reintroducing the matter, as it is one of some importance. But the reasons why the Government are unable to accept the Amendment have, I think, been stated before, and I shall very shortly, but I hope clearly, state again what they are. The right hon. Gentleman said that at the present moment the position of industry is a serious one, and that any Government ought to hesitate before imposing any additional burden. That is an accurate statement, and the Government have had to consider carefully the question of imposing any additional burden. But what is the logical deduction to be drawn from that argument? This Bill undoubtedly does necessarily cost a very considerable sum of money in the first years, increasing in the third year to some £16,000,000, and in the fourth year I think to more than £25,000,000, and rising gradually thereafter. If that argument be accepted and pressed to its logical conclusion, it would necessarily mean that we should postpone the operation of this Bill until industry recovers what we all hope will be a more normal condition. The Government said on the Second Reading, and I can only say again now, that they are not prepared to postpone indefinitely what they regard as a most vital social reform.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the annual cost, as he estimated it, was £11,250,000, but the text of the Amendment is that all contributions are to be stopped for such period as may be necessary until the employment insurance scheme becomes solvent. Nobody can say at what date that may happen—it depends on the uncertain future—and until then the whole burden of the finance of the Bill is to be borne by the Exchequer. That is not a scheme which the Government can accept. It is all very well to say that in the earlier years it does not cost so much as in the later years. I have indicated already that it will cost a very considerable sum. Of course if you postpone it until the later years it really means that the extra payments which have to be made up in the later years will be even bigger than they are supposed to be under the Bill.

  915
  We hope and believe that this Committee and the country will say that this is a reform which is already overdue, and which does not brook further delay. If we take that view we are bound to try to devise the most practical scheme which we can for putting this reform into operation at the earliest possible moment. We propose under the Bill that the scheme should commence to confer benefits next January, Jess than six months from now. We are not prepared to postpone it for an indefinite time. We are not prepared to saddle the Exchequer with the uncertainly and the increasing liability which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, and therefore we are bound to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to accept the scheme in the form in which we have brought it forward.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: lam sure that the Committee will have heard with regret of the non possumus attitude of the Government. My right hon. Friend never suggested the postponement of this scheme. All that he suggested was that there should be a postponement of the contribution of industry, which is a very different matter. He asked that because of the very heavy contributions that have to be made under the Unemployment Insurance scheme. Why are those contributions so heavy? Because in the past the State has not recognised its responsibility with regard to the burden of unemployment that is thrown on the employer and the employé, a very much bigger burden than there should be thrown on them. If the State had accepted its responsibility in the past for the abnormal amount of unemployment, if it had not piled up this debit, and if it had met: its liabilities out of the national exchequer, the position to-day would be very much easier than it is. This Amendment merely seeks to carry out an understanding or a suggestion made when the Chancellor of the Exchequer first foreshadowed this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said that arrangements would be made, by balancing operations, which would relieve industry of a very heavy burden. Although the original proposal involved a charge of 8d. for individuals, which has been reduced to 4d. by the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is now upstairs, the 4d, that is left is far more than industry can bear.
  916
  The Minister of Health spoke somewhat glibly of the extra 2d. to be paid by the employer and the employé, as though those twopences were of very small account. I can assure him that, although they may be small under normal conditions, yet when industry is unable to make ends meet and is making losses, these extra sums are very real and very serious handicaps on industry. The present burdens of the various insurance schemes are very heavy items. We have 1s. 3d. for unemployment, 10d. for health, and 8d. for pensions, making a total of 2s. 9d. per employed person, which industry has to provide. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some figures showing the increase of these social charges in the coal industry. May I quote some figures bearing on the steel industry? At the annual meeting of one of the works in my constituency, the chairman stated the increase for social services for iron and steel. It included rates and health and unemployment insurance, and in 1913–14 these various charges amounted to 3s. 2d. per ton. To-day, before this Bill comes into operation, they amount to 10s. 3d. per ton. To suggest, when that large increase has taken place, that the industry can bear further additions, is surely asking the industry to do more than is possible.
  We have been told that unemployment averages something like 11 per cent. That is only an average, and average; figures are often very deceptive. In certain districts there is three times that amount of unemployment. In marine engineering on the North-East Coast the figure is something like 28 or 29 per cent., and it is 42 per cent. in shipbuilding. That means, when the yards are able to turn out only a little more than half their capacity, that you are adding very considerably to their burden by putting on this extra 2d. per man employed. This is not a time for these added burdens. We were told that under the Unemployment Insurance Bill there was to be a reduction of £6,800,000 in the contributions to be levied from employers and employed, and that that was given as a relief. I submit that the relief is more apparent than real, because at the same time benefits are likewise reduced by £6,500,000. Although the benefits are reduced the payments will have to be met notwithstanding. They will come out of the local rates which these industries have to bear. Therefore,

  917
  the Government are not, in their new Unemployment Insurance Bill, relieving industry at all, they are merely transferring the burden from the insurance fund to the local rates. I trust that the Prime Minister, who knows the difficulties of those black spots, will see that further consideration is given to the appeal made, not merely by employers and employed, but by local authorities also. The Government should consider whether they cannot postpone this extra charge.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think I can state very shortly the view of the Amendment which is held by the Labour party. We agree with the Amendment and we agree with the arguments which were used in favour of it. Therefore, if the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) goes to a Division, we shall support him in the Lobby. We would add that we think we can support him in the Division Lobby with a good deal more logic than he can vote for the Amendment. The fact is that every argument which he has used to support this Amendment is an argument which leads directly to a non-contributory system of insurance, such as we have hitherto advocated and for which we have received no support from him. We admit that the right hon. Gentleman has proved conclusively that this contributory system will have an evil effect upon industry at the present time; but he has not proved that it will have a good effect upon industry 10 years hence.
  What is the right hon. Gentleman's argument? What was the one argument on which he relied? His argument was that the contributory system added to the stauding charges of business, and, therefore, of course, added to the price of manufactures and was a handicap both in home and foreign trade. That is true. But it would be equally true 10 years hence. It is because a contributory scheme adds to the standing charges of business that we have advocated that this expenditure should be met out of the Income Tax, which is levied after the standing charges have been paid out of any profit that may remain. The right hon. Gentleman in previous Debates has noted as the chief champion of what maybe called the capitalist doctrine, but when the industries for which he speaks are in difficulties he finds himself driven to the argument used on these benches, and finds himself more or less standing under
  918
  the red flag. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should come and sit here amongst us. I can make him this offer— that if he will learn to sing the "Red Flag" we will learn to call him comrade. We invite him to subscribe generously to our funds and to accept the logical end of his own arguments.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I wish to emphasise some of the points put by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me say, in the first place, that I can quite understand my hon. Friend who has just spoken looking forward with some joy to a new recruit. No doubt he would be grateful to get my right hon. Friend. But do not let Members of the Labour party over-stress the importance of the virtue of consistency. It is a very much exaggerated virtue. Hon. Gentlemen of that party, although they have a clean sheet on the question of contributions versus non-contributions in this Session of Parliament, have not always had the same advantage in the past, and we cannot forget that. I hope my hon. Friends will acquit me of being at all inconsistent on the subject. I have from the first, in every discussion, pointed out how unfair the present contributory system would be to certain industries, and how disastrous it would be to some of those industries which are least able to bear any additional burden at the present time. In one of our discussions I gave figures covering the coal trade of Northumberland and Durham, and on another occasion I stated the effect of these new burdens on the shipyards. In both of these industries, where foreign competition of a most severe kind has to be met, the scheme of the Government will add to overhead charges an amount which can be worked out per ton of coal and per ship. We know from the experience of the shipyards in the North of England that the total amount added to an ordinary tramp ship of 7,500 tons will be something like £1,100.
  I am sure that the Prime Minister knows, even if his colleagues do not, that a difference of that amount is quite sufficient at the present time, with other differences in charges and costs, to drive an order to Holland, or to the Elbe or to Denmark. It has already done so to some extent. With all the burdens which are borne by these extremely hardly-pressed industries at the present time, it is little wonder that the addi-

  919
  tions of the extra amount, first of all at 4d. and now on the revision of 2d., should be looked at with horror by those who are trying to make ends meet and to keep their men together. I hope that the Government are not going to dismiss lightly the plea that has been made. They will not have heard the last of it in the Committee stage of this Bill. They will hear of it in every one of the heavily-depressed constituencies. I do not think they need bother to wait for the opinion of the constituencies. They are quite capable of understanding themselves that, for instance, in the iron trade, where the local burdens are a matter of very grave consideration, this unemployment insurance scheme will add to the local rates and will not diminish the overhead charges. There is no doubt that the scheme must raise the poor rate, for instance, on the Tees. My hon. Friend who represents Middlesbrough West (Mr. Thomson) is in one of what the Prime Minister calls black spots. The only suggestion, which has been made by the Government with regard to a modification of the burdens to be thrown upon that black spot, is that the charge shall be taken off the contribution under the widows' pension insurance and transferred to the amount that they have to pay in poor rates. They would be no better off; the burden remains just the same and they are still at the same disadvantage.
  There is no doubt that, so far as the working of the scheme goes, it is a worse scheme by that arrangement than it was originally. The other fact is that they are asked by their weekly contribution to make payments to what is, in effect, a national charge. You will never persuade them that it is anything else. This is not a matter which is directly concerned with a particular industry and with no-one else. It concerns the country as a whole. They have an objection to paying this tax—it is nothing more nor less than a tax—and they say that if there is to be a national service rendered the money ought to be raised on a national basis. To raise it from those trades which are now most depressed is unjust. By doing so you handicap the very industries which ought to be receiving assistance and make what is a bad case worse. I am sure the
  920
  Prime Minister must be conscious of the fact that while his Civil Research Committee is looking into schemes for helping the steel industry, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is adding to the very burdens which he thus seeks to lighten. I do not know what artificial stimulus he will give the steel industry, but one thing he could do for it would be to relieve it from the additional burdens which are now being put on by his right hon. Friend, or, at all events, make some arrangement for postponing them and allowing the trade a chance of recovering itself before these steps are taken. The right hon. Gentleman will find his Civil Research Committee hard put to it to devise any scheme which will give a stimulus to the steel trade, if at the very time when they are attempting to do so the overhead charges are either kept up or increased.
  The other point I wish to emphasise in connection with the appeal which is being made to the Government, is that it is absolutely essential, if the scheme is to succeed, that it should be popular, not only in the benefits it confers, but also in the method by which the funds are collected. I know what happened in 1911 and 1912. There was a great deal of feeling in the country against the health insurance schemes of those years because of the collection of the money from both employers and employed. If this scheme is to work well and is to be a complete success, the method of collection ought to be on a basis incapable of being challenged on the ground of unfairness or injustice. I hope the Government will not shut their minds to the fact that not only are they going to make trouble for these great industries, but that they will create an atmosphere in some areas which will be detrimental to the good working of the scheme unless they are going to raise this £11,500,000 this year and the £20,000,000 or £25.000,000 or whatever it may be next year, on a basis which will appeal to the public as being a fair basis on which to finance these great benefits to be conferred upon our less fortunate classes. The Attorney-General, I understand, has said that the Government cannot see their way to modify their views on the subject. If they have said their last word in the Unemployment Insurance Bill I deeply regret it. It will not be the last word which they will hear on the

  921
  subject. The only sound way to raise funds for these great national services is on a national basis—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the only question before the Committee is the question of postponement.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope none of the arguments which I have used is inconsistent with the proposal for a postponement of the burdens which are being placed upon industry. If I suggest that the just basis on which to raise this fund is a national one, I do so, not only for the future, but for the temporary period covered by the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt the time will come when this House and the country will decide that, if they are going to pay for these great services on a fair basis, they will make what my hon. Friend now regards as a temporary expedient into a permanent way of relieving the burden.
  Mr. MARCH: I desire to support the Amendment owing to the state of industry, especially in the Division which I represent. It is well known to the Minister and all others concerned that there is a very large amount of unemployment in the Division, and most of those who are employed are
  engaged on work of a casual nature. The 2d. a week which is to be added on to the charges of these casual workers will seriously hit them. Those who are only getting a half-day's work or a day's work now and again find 2d. an important consideration, and it seems to me that we should pause before imposing any extra burden either upon the men or upon the industries in which they are engaged. The shipping industry is not too bright and very little is being done in the ship-repairing yards, with the result that large numbers are unemployed. It may be said that when this fund comes into being and widows and orphans receive the benefits, they will be getting assistance in that way which they now receive from the rates and that the rates will be relieved in consequence, but in the other Bill you are going to re-impose that burden on the rates. At the present time the rates in my Division are very heavy, and they are likely to be increased. I hope the Minister will give this subject further consideration and will see if it is not possible to wait before putting this burden upon the workers or upon the industries.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 241.

  Division No. 262.]

  AYES.

  [5.37 p.m.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Greenall, T.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Groves, T.

  Owen, Major G.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Baker, Walter

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Barnes, A.

  Hardle, George D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Barr, J.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Bread, F. A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Bromley, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Buchanan, G.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Charleton, H. C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Or. Alfred

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kennedy, T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Connolly, M.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lowth, T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lunn, William

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Dennison, R.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)

  Snell, Harry

  Duncan, C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Dunnico, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Stamford, T. W.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  March, S.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maxton, James

  Taylor, R. A.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Gosling, Harry

  Morris, R. H.

  Thurtle, E.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Whiteley, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Warne, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Sir

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Windsor, Walter

  Robert Hutchison.

  Westwood, J.

  Wright, W.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Fermoy, Lord

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Albery, Irving James

  Fleming, D. P.

  Meller, R. J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Gates, Percy

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Grace, John

  Murchison, C. K.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Grant, J. A.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Bennett, A. J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Berry, Sir George

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Bethell, A.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hanbury, C.

  Oakley, T.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Perring, William George

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Pilcher, G.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Preston, William

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Ramsden, E.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Burman, J. B.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Savery, S. S.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol.(Renfrew, W.)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n &P'bl's)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Christie, J. A.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Jacob, A. E.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cope, Major William

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Couper, J. B.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Crook, C. W.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Davies, Maj. Geo F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Dixey, A. C.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Templeton, W. P.

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Drewe, C.

  McLean, Major A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elveden, Viscount.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  924

  925

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Wells, S. R.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Captain Douglas Hacking.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the effect of carrying the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), to leave out the word "either" on page 8, line 37, and on the same page, line 39, to insert the words "or by other means approved 'by the Minister." How will the carrying of these two Amendments affect corporations such as that of the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, which has a superannuation fund which gives more than the Bill provides for old age, but is not quite so comprehensive so far as widows and orphans are concerned? Will corporations of this kind be called upon to pay the full 4½d. as laid down in the third part of the first Schedule, or will they be subject to some relief? It appears to me that an anomaly and a certain injustice will be done to these corporations if the Amendments in question have, no bearing upon their position, for it will mean that such corporate bodies as have made some provision for old age will be paying the full 4½d., the same as those who have made no provision at all.
  Sir K. WOOD: We shall be dealing with the question of corporations and their schemes on an Amendment which will be taken in a short time, and I shall be able to deal more specifically on that occasion with the point raised by the hon. Member, but I can say briefly now that there is a provision by which associations whose schemes do not give quite so much as does the Act may make alterations in their schemes, to bring them up to the standard, and they will not have to be insured under both schemes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: Will that point be dealt with on Clause 13?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes. Of course, so far as this Clause is concerned, before any schemes can be certified by the Minister, the benefits must be not less favourable than those conferred by the Act. I hope
  926
  to be able to deal more adequately with the question when we come to the appropriate Amendment on the Paper.
  Clause 10 (Collection of contributions) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 11.—(Financial provisions.)
  An Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM and other hon. Members, in page 10, line 20, to leave out Subsection (3).
  Mr. MacDONALD: I think we Will raise this point on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—in page 10, line 23, to leave out the words "twenty-seven" and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-six" —imposes a charge and is, therefore, out of order. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A, Mond) or any of those with him intend to argue the next two Amendments—in page 10, line 23, to leave out from the words "twenty-seven" to the word "such" in line 25; and in line 25, at the end, to insert the words" and as the payment of pensions under this Act may require "—as one. I think they really hang together, though it would be possible technically to take them separately. I do not know how that may be.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It was our intention to take them together, but after the decision that has been taken by the Committee just now, we do not propose to press these Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) had an Amendment down to leave out Sub-section (3) of this Clause, which we have not actually moved, but he wished to raise certain questions on which he wanted an answer

  927
  from the Government with regard to the financial provisions of the Clause, and those questions, I think, can be put in a very few words and disposed of without any delay In Sub-section (3), which is the Sub-section by which the Exchequer contributes £4,000,000 a year towards the cost of the widows' pensions, the orphans' pensions, and the old age pensions at 65, a contribution which, I believe, includes nothing towards the cost of the increased pensions at 70, we understand that this £4,000,000 represents only an average over 10 years, but, as a matter of fact, during the first three years the fund will have a surplus, and, therefore, no Exchequer contribution will be necessary.
  I think the point my right hon. Friend wished to raise was this: This £4,000,000 has always seemed to us to be a very-small and a very insufficient sum, but the special question which now arises is whether it remains at the original figure after the Amendments which have been introduced into the Bill. There have been Amendments, for example, which have increased the orphans' pensions, for all children but the first, from 6s. to 7s. 6d.: there have been Amendments which have increased the period of allowance for children from the age of 14 to the age of 16 if the children were at college; and, most important of all, there is the Amendment which the Government have put down to-day to Clause 13 with regard to voluntary insurance, which I imagine is going to cost a very considerable sum of money. It would facilitate our discussion on that Clause if we knew where that money was coming from, and for that reason the specific question that I put is whether it is the intention of the Government at any later stage to increase this sum of £4,000,000 to some larger amount as a result of the extensions which are being introduced into the Bill.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The question which has been put is, if I may say so, a very proper one. It is quite clear that a number of alterations have been made in the Bill which will have, not, I think, a very important, but certainly some effect upon the amount of the Exchequer contribution. It is not necessary to alter the sum of £4,000,000, which has already been covered by the Financial Resolution, but the point which the hon.
  928
  Member has raised indicates, what has already been in my mind, namely, that it is probably desirable that we should have a report from the Government actuary at a somewhat earlier period than is laid down in Clause 42, and I think, therefore, the best way in which I could meet the hon. Member is by-saying that, when we come to Clause 42, I will put down an Amendment which will call for an earlier report by the actuary, and will, therefore, make it quite certain that we know where we are, and what is going to be the result of the various alterations in the Bill.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he does that, he will not be governed by Clause 11? The limitation is put on him in Clause 11, no matter when he gets the report of the actuary. Is not that the case?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think it is the case. But if it were then found that the contributions were insufficient, we should have to come to Parliament again.
  CLAUSE 12. — (Administrative expenses.)
  The CHAIRMAN: The only Amendment on this Clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean), should come as a new Clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. R. DAVIES: I would like to raise one simple question on this Clause, which deals with the administration of the Measure. The approved societies will collect the contributions for this purpose, and the amount collected for this Measure will be transferred to a pensions account, and the benefits will be payable through the Post Office. I understand from the actuary's report that the total sum set aside from the £4.000,000 for the purposes of administration is, for the first year, £300,000, and for each succeeding year approximately £500.000. I would like to know what proportion of the £300,000 or the £500,000, as the case may be, will fall to the approved societies and to the Post Office respectively. I know it will be very difficult at the moment to say, but I think we are entitled to some indication. I would like to inform the Committee that the approved societies are very anxious to find out what income they will get for

  929
  administering this scheme. I know they will administer it to the best of their ability, and the machinery is there to collect the contributions, but I do not think it would be fair if this question which I have put were not asked on this Clause.
  Sir K. WOOD: This is a question which I should expect from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who is a prominent member of an approved society and of the Advisory Committee, and I know he will anticipate the answer I am going to make. Of course, it is impossible at this stage to indicate what the exact financial arrangements between the approved societies and the Ministry will be, so far as their work under this scheme is concerned. The Committee will remember that it is contemplated that use will be made of the approved societies in connection with certificates which we shall ask them to give in relation to the insurance status of persons insured under the Bill, but I would say to my hon. Friend that the matter will be the subject of negotiations between the approved societies and ourselves, and I have no doubt that the Consultative Committee will be one of the first to be consulted in the matter. I gladly recognise the help which the approved societies of the country have afforded us in connection with this matter, and the expression of their willingness to do all they can to assist us in passing the Bill into law, and endeavouring to make a success of it when it is on the Statute Book. So far as the financial arrangements are concerned, we will certainly consult them, and I have no doubt we shall come to a satisfactory arrangement.
  CLAUSE 13.—(Voluntary contributors.)
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out the words "married woman," and to insert instead thereof the words "woman married to an insured man."
  6.0 P.M.
  The effect of the Amendment is to grant to women who have been insured prior to the passing of the Bill, and who have fallen out of insurance, either by marriage to an uninsured man or for any other reason, the same privileges which are extended to men. The justice of this is
  930
  so obvious that I spent a little time in turning the matter over in my mind to see what could be the reasons why the Government, who, we all know, are anxious to deal fairly with all people, had not put this provision in the Bill as originally drafted. There are, of course, the obvious difficulties of administration from the point of view of health insurance. A woman who might become uninsured by marriage, would, of course, be difficult to control from the administrative point of view under health insurance. While I admit that difficulty, I think, on the other hand, it could be overcome, and the great justice of giving women the same advantage as men is, I think, sufficient to enable us to ask the Government to make an effort to overcome the administrative difficulty. It requires, of course, no stressing of the fact that the woman who has paid contributions should get some return for them, if it can be fairly done, and the proposal to allow her to become a voluntary contributor would not, I take it, adversely affect the Insurance Fund. She would probably— although I am not an accountant—get less out of the Fund as a voluntary contributor than would be a fair value of what she put in. The Amendment, of course, connects with an Amendment to be discussed later on. I should not be in order in discussing that subsequent Amendment, but it is quite obvious that if a woman, who has passed out of insurance before the passing of this Bill, be given the privilege of becoming a voluntary contributor, it would carry with it a similar privilege to a woman who fell out of insurance in future. That, I understand, will be one of the difficulties. I move the amendment for the reason that it is quite obvious, that not only in this House, but throughout the whole country, there is that feeling that the woman who has fallen out of insurance is being harshly treated, or, at least, is not getting as much out of this Bill as the man, and even if the Amendment cannot be accepted, I think it is right that the Committee here, and the country, should know very clearly what are the reasons the Minister finds himself unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the

  931
  hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and myself, is, I think, one which can be dealt with on this Amendment, as it will save the time of the Committee. This is a very far-reaching Amendment, which, I am sure, is going to deal with the cases of tens of thousands of women, and I should like to discuss it, in view of the Amendment which the Government have down later on this Clause as a result of our Debate on Friday week. The Government have down a very important proposal indeed with regard to voluntary insurance to which we shall come in a short time, but what I wish to point out to the Minister is that that proposal is not going to cover this particular case, and that, while his new Amendment, as we admit, deals with a great many of the hardships that we have pointed out, this particular injustice remains as it was. In order to explain what it is, and to explain a suggestion I wish to make, may I put the case with which the Minister is familiar? Take the case of a woman who goes into insurance at the age, say, of 16. She works for nine of 10 years, paying contributions all the time. She then marries, we will say, a blacksmith, who is a poor man, but who, because he is not in a mill or a workshop, is not insured. She, perhaps, continues in work for another 10 years. Then the Bill, as it at present stands, lays it down that, after 20 years' contributions, if her husband were to die, she would not receive a penny for herself as a widow's pension, or for her children as children's allowance. The Minister of Health, when this was pointed out to him, explained that the woman's contribution is only about one-half that of a man, and that, although it did not cover the widows' and orphans' pension, it would more or less cover her old age pension at 65, and that, therefore, she was justly dealt with on that account.
  That was the argument, so far as I think it was taken when we last dealt with this subject. But may I ask the Minister this question, about which I am not yet at all clear? Is it not the case that, as a matter of fact, in, I should say, a majority of instances, these women will not get their pension even at 65? The majority of women in this position who are married do not keep on employment till 65. Long before the age of 65, they will have passed,
  932
  in most cases, out of insurable employment altogether. That being the case, as far as I read the Bill, they will not be entitled to their old age pension at 65. Look at the position which is revealed by the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. Here is a woman who may contribute, in these circumstances, for 20 or 30 years, and the majority of women in this class, after contributing half their lives, will not get a widow's pension, they will not get an allowance for their children, and they will not even get a pension at 65, but will have to wait till 70. This is a gap in the Bill which must be filled, and, if not filled now, there will have to be an amending Bill dealing with it.
  When this was discussed two or three weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Health whether he could not provide that a woman of this sort could become a voluntary contributor for the purposes of this Bill, so that she could use the reserve value that she had created in all these years to help her forward till 65 years of age, and cover the intervening period. The Minister's answer was this. He said, "No. This Bill is interlocked with health insurance. We cannot permit a woman to become a voluntary contributor for this Bill, unless she becomes a voluntary contributor for the National Health Insurance Bill at the same time, and, as the National Health Insurance Bill will not permit married women to become voluntary contributors, she cannot become a voluntary contributor at all."
  That is the position in which we are left, and I wish to put this suggestion to the Minister. This case can be met by certain alteration of machinery. Let this woman become a voluntary contributor for the purposes of this Bill alone. The Minister shakes his head. What is the objection? I have tried to find out the objection in the last few days, and I know the objection which, I think, he will state. It is that if you allow people to become voluntary contributors for the purposes of this Bill, and not for health insurance at the same time, you will not be able to utilise the wonderful machinery of the approved societies under health insurance for collecting the contribution under this Bill, and that, without that machinery a large proportion of men and women would lapse out of the Bill altogether. That is the argument. I, really, if I

  933
  may say so, accept that argument in some of the cases which I have brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman before, but is it not evident to the Minister that that argument does not apply to this particular section of the community? In this particular section of the community, in order to prevent some of them from lapsing out of insurance, you are saying they shall not be allowed to have any insurance at all. Because if they became voluntary contributors under this Bill a certain number of them would lapse, you are not justified on that account in forbidding insurance to the others who would not lapse.
  In order to meet the difficulty that he cannot get a perfect scheme, the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to have any scheme at all, and I venture to say, if he will look into the matter, he will find all his arguments may apply to other cases, but they do not apply to this, and the proposal I put to him is this—I know it alters the symmetry of the Bill. The suggestion I put to him in the case of this special class of women married to uninsured men is, that he should allow them to have a system of voluntary contributions for this Bill alone.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister give us some indication as to how many people are likely to be affected by this Amendment? If the number of people be small, it might be possible to remedy the injustice. On the other hand, if the number of people be very large, the injustice would be very large, and the cost of remedying it would be very large. Perhaps he will give us some idea, when he replies, as to how many people are likely to be affected by the Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question which has just been put to me by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) draws attention to an observation that I was about to make, namely, that the Amendment which we are discussing, although it has been used to raise a much larger question, really only deals with a comparatively small point. We are dealing here, in this first Sub-section, with persons who have been continuously insured as employed contributors, or as voluntary contributors, for a period of 104 weeks, and who have fallen out of insurance before the commencement of this
  934
  Act. That is all we are doing. The really big question is, what is going to happen to the people who may be in a similar position after the commencement of the Act, and that, I think, is a case we have already disposed of in the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) at a very much earlier period of the Bill. We have discussed and argued the very question which has just been stated by the hon. Member opposite, and, to me, it seems rather difficult to enter upon that discussion a second time; but I may, perhaps, use the arguments which were applicable to that case, as applied only to those people who are dealt with in this particular Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. He wants that a woman who marries an uninsured man shall be permitted to become a voluntary contributor Under his proposal, any woman, whether insured or not, if she has been insured at any time for a period of 104 weeks, would be able to become a voluntary contributor, and receive the benefits which would accrue to her in respect of her contributions. That is a very big proposition. I am not quite certain whether my hon. and gallant Friend realises that his Amendment would have that effect, that the woman herself would not be required to be insured if she had at some previous time been insured. It is, of course, opening the door pretty wide, and the first question one has to consider is, What about health insurance? Is this woman going, also, to be a voluntary contributor for health insurance?
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Yes.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But the hon. Member opposite says No, and, obviously, there is a difference of opinion on that point. If she has become insured as a voluntary contributor for health, we get into the very difficulties which have proved so fatal to the voluntary system under the Insurance Act. The hon. Member opposite, I believe, is well aware of these difficulties, and sees where they would lead. While it is easy to check the contributions of the men who are in employment, when the woman becomes married it becomes practically impossible to discover whether she is fulfilling the proper conditions when she claims benefit. The hon. Member opposite inquired, why do you not separate the two? If the

  935
  State creates a special arrangement for the women, not themselves insured, but who have been insured, and who are married to uninsured men, how can you withhold that privilege from the women who have married insured men? It is impossible The uninsured man, presumably being a man in a better position, may, therefore, be supposed to look after his wife and provide for her future. I myself cannot see how it is possible to restrict this principle as suggested to the women who marry uninsured men. It will have to be extended to the wives of insured men. Therefore, you come up against exactly the same difficulties as before.
  The Amendment which I have put down to this Clause is designed to meet the difficulties which were put to me in a previous discussion on the Bill, and that, I think, is so far as it is practicable to go. We have tried to meet the views of hon. Members in that Amendment. When, however, they speak of grave injustice as between women and men, surely they have forgotten the distinction that has been drawn, not between women and men, but between the widow who is provided for and the widow of the man left unprovided for. We are dealing here with the difference between the women who marry insured men and the women who marry uninsured men. The talk of grave injustice I do not think will bear examination for a moment. I ask hon. Members to remember that the contributions of the women, small as they are compared with those of the men, are contributions not small in view of the benefits, but they are contributions to the general pool, and it is only by reason of those contributions that we can give so large benefits to the women and so keep the general contributions so low.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered my hon. Friend at all. He stated the case that would only arise if a woman marries, and he pitted her case against another woman and said: if this Amendment to which we are speaking were carried, it would follow as a corollary that the woman who marries an uninsured man would also continue in insurance as a voluntary contributor. Let me put this case. The wife of an insured man secures advantages that this type of
  936
  woman cannot hope to get. That is the point we are trying to make, and I repeat—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It was the suggestion that there should be separation between health insurance and pensions to which I addressed myself when I said that if you gave the privilege to the wife of an uninsured man you would have to extend it to the wife of an insured man.
  Mr. DAVIES: What I intended to ask was whether this case cannot be met in some other form. It has passed through my mind that there are thousands of people who now go to the post office, and are regarded under the health insurance scheme as deposit contributors. These women could be dealt with by the post office, or by the approved societies, for the purpose of this Bill alone, and it does appear to me that the Minister ought to meet the case by bringing them through the post office for the purpose of this Measure alone, so that they might be in the category mentioned by my hon. Friend or in some other way. They ought to be entitled to receive some benefit instead of being ruled out altogether. That is the case we are making out. We appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman foresees, but I think the case ought to be met much better than it has been up to the present.
  Mr. B. PETO: I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider this point. Surely if the Bill is to be the complete success that we desire, our object must be to try to prevent, so far as possible, the omissions suggested, and to make the Bill really applicable to the people who, having been called upon for contributions at one period or another in their lives, now find that they can get no benefit at all out of their contributions. The hon. Gentleman opposite has an Amendment dealing with a woman married to an uninsured man, and the right hon. Gentleman has met that by saying that the vast majority of these uninsured persons are people of superior position. That may be quite true. But there is a residuum of husbands of that sort who are uninsured and who may be in no better position than hawkers or the village blacksmith, the small wheelwright or the smallholder—somebody,

  937
  that is to say, who depends mainly upon the cultivation of what is little more than an allotment. I do not see why these cases cannot be dealt with under this Bill. I feel convinced that if this Bill is to be a complete success these gaps and holes have got to be stopped somehow. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider between now and Report if he cannot put words into this Amendment which will provide that if a woman is fortunate enough to marry a man of considerable means she may be exempted from this Act? That can be dealt with by putting in a means limit. Where the husband's means are below the insurance scale, in that case, at any rate, the woman's contribution should ensure that she is not deprived of all benefit.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I am in complete accord with the object at which my hon. Friend is aiming, but may. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend and the Committee that the only way of dealing with this question is to induce the woman who marries an uninsured person to bring pressure upon her husband to become a voluntary contributor? I should not, of course, be in order if I were to anticipate a subsequent Amendment on the Paper, but I would suggest that what I have said is the real solution of the difficulty.
  Mr. TEMPLETON: The Committee will surely see that there are not many people who would be affected by the Amendment that is proposed to this Clause. At the same time, though there are not many
  throughout the United Kingdom, you hear from different parts, of the country that there are a great many of these people. Take, for example, a fishing town where share fishermen form the bulk of the population. We find that many wives of share fishermen have been, for many years during their spinsterhood, contributors under the Health Insurance Act, and now they find themselves the wives of men who are poor, distinctly poor. Not only are the men poor themselves, but also on account of the conditions of their avocation. They have helped to pay the contributions under the National Health Insurance Act and under this Rill when it becomes an Act for other people who will benefit. It does seem to me a decided hardship that these women should be deprived of the means of again becoming insured under this scheme and drawing the benefit to follow from it. I would like to ask the Minister to consider, when we are in Committee, whether this differentiation will not prove a real hardship to many very deserving women.
  Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: If a woman is married, say, to a husband who is not now insured, surely he can get insured, and then she gets the benefits. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] There are Amendments down that seem to me to go a long way towards meeting the point.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 263.]

  AYES.

  [6.29 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Albery, Irving James

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Burman, J. B.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Drewe, C.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Berry, Sir George

  Christie, J. A.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Bethell, A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Borthby, R. J. G.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fermoy, Lord

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Fleming, D. P.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cope, Major William

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Crook, C. W.

  Gates, Percy

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen'sUniv., Belfast)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Looker, Herbert William

  Skelton, A. N.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Grace, John

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, Co)

  Grant, J. A.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  McLean, Major A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn

  Stantey, Lord (Fylde)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Meller, R. J.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Storry Deans, R.

  Hanbury, C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mousell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Ward, Lt.-Cot. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Oakley, T.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Perring, William George

  Wells, S. R.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Pliditch, Sir Philip

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Preston, William

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Womersley, W. J.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Savery, S. S.

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Harry Barnston.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Dennison, R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Dixey, A. C.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Duncan, C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Attics, Clement Richard

  Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

  Kennedy, T.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Baker, Walter

  Forrest, W.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lawson, John James

  Barnes, A.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Barr, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Lowth, T.

  Batey, Joseph

  Gosling, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Greenall, T.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Broad, F. A.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Bromley, J.

  Groves, T.

  Mackinder, W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  March, S.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hardle, George D.

  Maxton, James

  Cluse, W. S.

  Harney, E. A.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Compton, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Montague, Frederick

  Connolly, M.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Morris, R. H.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Oliver, George Harold

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Owen, Major G.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross)

  Paling, W.

  940

  941

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Snell, Harry

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Westwood, J.

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Stephen, Campbell

  Whiteley, W.

  Polls, John S.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Williams, c. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Windsor, Walter

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Thurtle, E.

  Wright, W,

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Viant, S. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Warne.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out from the word "woman" to the word "may" in line 13.
  This Amendment covers, broadly, the same subject as a number of Amendments standing in the name of a group of hon. Members on the opposite side, and is moved in order to raise the case of those millions of persons who are going to be shut out of this Bill because they do not happen to be wage earners and, therefore, within insurable employment. The Minister of Health will be aware that, when he determined to base his Bill upon the contributory principle, he at that moment automatically decided that there would be shut out from it that vast number of people who are just as poor as those who work in mills and factories, just as much in need of assistance and of freedom from financial anxiety, but who will not be able to get the benefits because they are not wage-earners working for an employer. The Parliamentary Secretary will see that I am not dealing with the particular point in the new Amendment which the Government have put down. That would be more conveniently discussed on our next Amendment. We are dealing with the large section of the population who receive neither benefits nor pay contributions under this Hill. This particular Clause allows for voluntary, insurance, but lays it down that no person may come into voluntary insurance who has not been an employed contributor for two years. That provision automatically shuts out the whole class of small tradesmen, costermongers, fishermen, smallholders and crofters, many of them miserably poor. I am not going to make an extended speech. I have moved my Amendment to get a statement from the Government. We are entitled to a statement, and even an explanation from the Minister of
  942
  Health, because of the hopes he raised by his words on the Second Reading, when he showed that he was aware of this enormous omission from the Bill and said that a scheme which imposed heavy charges on the community at large and then shut large sections out of its benefits was a scheme that was not complete. He went on to say he would like to see whether it was possible to plan in such a way as to bring these people in. If he has formulated his plans in the intervening period this is the proper stage in the Committee discussions at which those plans should be stated to the Committee; and this Amendment is moved, therefore, to give the Government an opportunity of stating whether they have any plans for a scheme of voluntary insurance for these millions.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish to say one or two words in opposition to this Amendment which, I feel, is too widely drawn. This proposal gives anybody the right to came into insurance at any time they like and to draw full benefits. As I understand it, if this Amendment were carried people who are not in the ordinary way qualified to come into the insurance scheme would insure themselves as they were approaching 60 in order to get the old age pension at 65 on very cheap terms. An Amendment of that kind is really a wrecking Amendment. What we ought to do is to consider seriously admitting to the Bill those persons who, in the opinion of some of us, have been improperly left out. I shall vote against this Amendment, but that will not in any way prevent me from voting perhaps in another way on some other Amendments.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I am rather amazed at the argument used by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). He said this Amendment would allow some people to get cheap insurance. Obviously he has

  943
  not read what the Bill would allow if this particular Amendment were accepted. The Bill says that they can only come into insurance
  "On giving notice in that behalf within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner,"
  and a prescribed time will be decided, I assume, by the Minister of Health Surely no one on the other side can argue against allowing hundreds of thousands of individuals to get the benefits of this wonderful insurance scheme, as they claim it to be. If people are prepared to pay both the employers' contributions and the employés' contributions as voluntary contributors, surely hon. Members opposite will not refuse them the benefits of insurance. The Minister of Health can lay down the prescribed time. He may say that they must apply within two years of the passing of the Bill or within three years. The purpose of the Amendment is to give all people an opportunity of coming within the terms of the Bill in accordance with conditions laid down by the Bill. I shall support the Amendment, and I trust that the hon. Member opposite will see his way to support it when he realises the mistake he has made.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly do not complain of the action of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment and calling attention to the words which I used in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. I do not go back in any way upon those words, although I have exactly the same feeling of sympathy with regard to these people who are concerned in this Amendment. I say that a scheme of State insurance is not complete unless it does include these people, and I was extremely anxious to see if we could bring them under this Bill in order to complete our scheme. I regret to say that I have not been able to find any practical way of achieving that object. The assumption underlying the speeches which have been made is that it is possible to bring voluntary contributors into a compulsory scheme at the same rate as compulsory contributors. That, however, is a mistake, because when you have a voluntary scheme you offer a selection to the people who wish to take advantage of it.
  Who are the people who would take advantage of the selection? Obviously, those people who would have most to
  944
  gain by it. Under a compulsory scheme everyone has to come in, and then you can balance the contributions with the risks. If you have a voluntary scheme, the confirmed bachelor, for instance, will not come into it, because it is a scheme which is going to give benefits to widows and children. The older man who has no children and is not likely to have any children is not the sort of case which would come in. In these instances, they may select against the scheme. A man who is sickly, the man who has a large family, those are the people who will pick out this scheme and take advantage of the flat rate. Therefore it seems impossible that we should offer a flat rate to voluntary contributors.
  Some argue that we ought to have a sliding scale, but in that case difficulties immediately arise. The actuary informs me that the rates which would have to be paid would begin in the most favourable circumstances at about 1s. 6d. per week, and rise perhaps as high as over 5s. per week. That is not a very practical scheme. Further than that, there would have to be inquiries in every case into the circumstances of the proposed voluntary contributor in order to find the proper rate. We should have to ascertain the man's age and condition of health, whether he is married, what family he has, and make up our mind whether he is likely to marry again in case his first wife dies, and whether he is likely to have a family by the second wife. Hon. Members can put their own limit to the number of cases, and I am only putting these cases to show that there are difficult problems in connection with voluntary insurance Here we have in this country a large number of insurance societies which have had as prosperous and enterprising a career as in any other country in the world. They have explored every aspect of insurance, and, if they have not found it possible to formulate a scheme for voluntary contributors, we may take it that the difficulties in the way are very serious indeed.
  When I spoke on the Second Reading of this Measure, I did not think that it was impossible to bring in the voluntary contributor under the Bill as it stood, and I had in mind that we might make some arrangement with the insurance societies which would allow these other people to contribute and have the

  945
  benefits. I am afraid that further acquaintance and exploration has not encouraged me to hope that we are likely to find a very easy solution of this problem. I can say to the Committee that, whilst I see no possibility of producing a scheme that will work successfully in dealing with this particular point, yet I feel it is a problem which ought to be solved, and it is one which deserves further and more protracted investigation. As far as I am concerned, I certainly intend to go further into this matter in order to see whether something cannot be devised to meet this case.
  Mr. DAVIES: I feel sure the Committee will agree with me when I say that the Minister of Health, by his speech, has practically supported the Amendment which has just been put forward, and it seems to me that all that counts now against the Amendment is a question of administration and behind that the question of finance. If hon. Members will look into that matter closely they will see what is actually stated on the financial position, and they will agree with me that it is the financial side which prevents this Amendment being accepted. These cases of voluntary contributors will involve the granting of a valuable option, and it must be assumed that in general this option will be exercised against the Exchequer. That is the whole position against this Amendment.
  Let me take one or two of the points which have been made by the Minister of Health. He stated that if we threw this scheme open to all persons who de-sired to become voluntary contributors there would be a selection against the Exchequer. According to the Bill as it stands, they can do that now. The Clause we are now dealing with states that no person will be able to become a voluntary contributor unless he has been through the National Health Insurance scheme for two years as a compulsorily insured person. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that practically all those persons who have gone through the National Health Insurance scheme, and in respect of whom 104 contributions have been paid, will be old people now. My experience has been that if a person joined in 1912 he would go out because very often he was of such an age that he would not
  946
  continue compulsory insurance under the Act. I repeat that the selection will be against the State as the Bill now stands.
  I want to put a stronger argument. When the State establishes an insurance scheme of any kind to which the Exchequer makes a contribution, that scheme ought to be open to all citizens of the State, and, in fact, I have not yet heard any argument to upset that principle. Let me go a step further. This Clause makes it clear that no person can come in as a voluntary contributor unless he has paid 104 contributions under the National Health Insurance scheme. I know of two brothers, one of whom has been for three years through the National Health Insurance scheme, and the other has been in it for only 18 months. The brother who has been in it for three years and will be entitled to benefit under this scheme is in a better financial position than the. brother who is refused benefit because he has not been in the scheme for that period. There is something very unfair in the case as it stands, and I fail to appreciate the difficulties which the Minister of Health seems to apprehend. If Sub-section (2) of Clause 13 is carried as it now stands it practically means that people will not be encouraged to come in of their own volition, and they will not in many eases get an opportunity of coming in as voluntary contributors.
  This Clause states that no person will be entitled to the benefits unless he comes in of his own free will. The Bill provides that
  "any person who at the commencement of this Act insured as a voluntary contributor, unless before the prescribed date and in the prescribed manner he gives notice to the contrary."
  The man who is now a voluntary contributor will not be able to come into this scheme unless he carries out certain instructions, and I am not so sure that the approved societies will trouble to give him those instructions. I know of no Regulation that is suggested by the Amendment that will give this man power to continue automatically his membership as a voluntary contributor. I confess that I cannot see what administrative difficulties there are in the way of these people coming into this scheme, provided that they have been through the National Health Insurance scheme before.

  947
  I do not see the value of 304 weeks' contributions in this case. Whenever the Exchequer makes a contribution towards a scheme of this kind, it ought to be open to any person in the State to come into that scheme.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry that the Minister of Health did not think it wise to offer any suggestions as to what he might be prepared to accept in the way of modifications in regard to this Amendment. I want to put to the Minister a particular case which it seems to me is a good illustration, and it would be covered by this Amendment. I have already referred the Minister of Health to the case of the men who are engaged in the meat trade as slaughterhouse-men in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Those men, because of the particular way in which they are engaged in their work, are not able to come under the National Health Insurance Act. In Glasgow the slaughterhouses belong to the Corporation, and because of that in each case the men engaged have got to work for more than one employer, and they are deemed not to have a contract of service, and consequently they are not able to become insured under the National Health Insurance Act.
  7.0 P.M.
  In all the other districts of the country, because of the fact that the slaughterhouses in those cases are held under different conditions, and are let out to various private firms in the meat trade under different conditions, the people engaged in the slaughtering of cattle are able to come under the National Health Insurance scheme. Consequently, one section of the workers are in the position of coming into this insurance scheme just as they have come under ordinary insurance schemes, whereas in respect of the same class of people engaged in that particular trade in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and working under practically similar conditions to those in Birkenhead, Liverpool and London and other places, they are unable to come under this scheme. Surely here is a case that the Minister ought to be willing to meet, to give these manual workers who are engaged in this industry the opportunity of coming under this scheme the same as their fellow-workers in other parts of the country. It has already been suggested by the Mover of
  948
  the Amendment that there are also the crofters, smallholders, and people like that who, if there is an insurance scheme, ought to be entitled to share in the benefits of that scheme. In the case that I have put to the Minister I know that the men at the present time are willing to pay not only the contribution that the worker is being called upon to pay. but until they can get their position regularised under the National Health Insurance they are willing to pay the employers' contribution as well. But it seems impossible to get them into the four corners of this Bill because of this extraordinary Regulation that, because a man works, or because a. squad are engaged, by more than one employer they cannot be considered to be working under a contract of service. They are said, forsooth, to be contractors themselves. They are said to be on their own as contractors, and they cannot expect to come under this Regulation. But the fact that they are on their own engaged in work for more than one employer is not of their own choice, but is something imposed upon them by the Regulation laid down by the corporations in Glasgow and Edinburgh in regard to the slaughter-houses.
  I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that, surely, the Minister is going to hold out something to those men with regard to the benefits of insurance. It is not good enough that thousands of men in this country, who are being called upon to pay as citizens their share of taxation, workmen the same as others, should be put into an unfair position, and I do hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary is going to give me some promise with regard to this class of man, that he will put an Amendment down himself that will make provision for workmen who are really manual workmen just as much as others, but who, by a technical regulation are ruled out, in order that they may get in benefit in this way.
  I think that the Minister of Health has been in these Debates a little bit too prone to rule the whole community into two sections, a working class section working under contract of service, and other people whom he seems to consider as well off, able to provide for their widows if anything happens to them. They are so well off that their widows

  949
  will be assured of a competency that will enable them to provide for the future. We cannot rule off the people of the country in any hard and fast line in any such way. The case that I have given is a proof of that, and I am looking to the Parliamentary Secretary who is here on the Bench to tell me what he can do to meet such a case as I have suggested.
  Mr. THURTLE: I think the Minister will have convinced us from the actuarial point of view that this proposal is unsound, but I hope we are not going to regard it merely from the actuarial point of view. It is perfectly true that in this process of selection which would be arrived at under the voluntary scheme, the worst cases would probably elect to come under the scheme; that is to say, the scheme would make bad bargains and would not make good bargains. The Minister instanced the case of the sickly man who would take the opportunity of becoming an insured person and also of the man with a large family, and in that way those cases would probably get a great deal more value, actuarial value, out of the scheme than their contributions would entitle them to. But I submit to the Government that the whole purpose of this scheme is to render aid when aid is most desired. If you take the case of a sickly man and a wife and children or a man with a very large family—in each of these cases I assume that there is not a large income, and, of course, we are talking on that assumption—there is very great need, because it may easily happen in the case of a sickly man that he will be cut off and his widow and children will be left, and in the case of a man with a large family obviously there will be a very serious position if that man is cut off.
  I thought the main object of this Bill was that when you had got a case of a widow with a large number of children that that widow and those orphan children should be relieved from the obligation of resorting to the Poor Law. Obviously, in these cases cited by the Minister where the family is poor, where there is no other provision if the man does die, and he is not allowed to come under the scheme, these people will have to be kept. The widow will have to be kept and the orphan children will have to be kept, and I submit that what we want to do by means of this scheme is to keep them without forcing them to resort to the Poor
  950
  Law. Various eases have been cited like the costers and the crofters, and everyone knows very well that these people are not well off, that their families are generally very large, that they live in very poor circumstances indeed, that, because of the nature of their calling, their physique is not of a very high order, and that they frequently do die very early in life. It does seem to me that it is those classes of persons that in particular the State ought to assist by a scheme of this kind, and, if there is any case at all, and. of course, there is a very powerful case for a scheme of pensions of this sort, then that case is strongest probably for the very persons you are seeking now to exclude. I would like the Government to think over this project further and say if at some later stage they cannot bring forward some proposal which would cover the great mass of these people.
  Sir K. WOOD: I have listened, as, of course, every Member of the House has listened, with great sympathy to the speeches which have just been made. I may tell the House that my right hon. Friend and myself have been engaged ever since the formation of this scheme in an endeavour to see if we could do anything further for the men such as the hon. Member has referred to just now. Our main difficulty has been the financial difficulty, and this was put very plainly indeed by my right hon. Friend. As soon as we came forward with a scheme and presented it to the actuary, it was stated that the liability that might be incurred was very serious indeed. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) just now invited me not to take any account of actuarial considerations, but I know he would be one of the first if this scheme proves to be unsound, very seriously to indict this Government the moment that it broke down. Above everything else, we must keep the scheme solvent.
  As regards the question which was put by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I hope that in any event their ease may be somewhat mitigated. I think a great majority of them will have served in the War, and by a Clause which is on the Paper and which we hope to move very shortly a great opportunity will be afforded to men in that position, because their years of service in the Army will be treated as if they had complied

  951
  with the statutory conditions of payment of contributions under this Bill. In other words, all men who have served for, say, two years during the Great War, will be deemed to have qualified themselves under this Bill and will not have to comply with any other conditions so far as past contributions are concerned, and by that means I think a very large number will be covered. I confess that I have not been able to devise a scheme to meet the remainder. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health says we shall not relax our efforts. I know very many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like us to extend this scheme as regards voluntary insurance.
  I venture to ask the Committee if it will come to a decision on this matter, because we have still a great deal to do, and there are very many important
  Amendments on the Paper dealing with this Clause, including one put down by the Government, which will do a great deal to mitigate a great many of the cases which hon. Members have in mind. It is one of the most far-reaching proposals, so far as voluntary insurance is concerned, and I know the Committee will be glad to discuss it. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I do not think anyone would seriously care to see it in the Bill, because it practically permits anyone to enter insurance without any qualification at all. I do not desire to press the point any further, because I want to urge the Committee, if I may, to come to a decision.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 247: Noes, 114.

  Division No. 264.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hasiam, Henry C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cope, Major William

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Crookshank, Cpl. H (Lindsey. Gainsbro)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanlay

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Balfour, George (Hampsttad)

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Balniel, Lord

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Berry, Sir George

  Drewe, C.

  Hudson R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Bethell, A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Jacob. A. E.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Jones, G. W, H. (Stoke Newington)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Kennedy, A. B. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Forrest, W.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Burman, J. B.

  Gates, Percy

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Loder, J. de V.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lumley, L. R.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Grace, John

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  McLean, Major A.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Makins, Brigadier General E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Meller, R. J.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.

  Tasker, Major B. Inigo

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Rye, F. G.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Shaw, Capt. w. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Murchison, C. K.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Wells, S. R.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Oakley, T.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Perring, William George

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Philipson, Mabel

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Plicher, G.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Pliditch, Sir Philip

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Preston, William

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Major Hennessy and Captain

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Margesson.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Sexton, James

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hardie, George D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Snell, Harry

  Barnes, A.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Barr, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Beckett. John (Gateshead)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Bromley, J.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, E.

  Compton, Joseph

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Connolly, M.

  Mackinder, W.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Viant, S. P.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dalton, Hugh

  March, S.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maxton, James

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Montague, Frederick

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Dennison, R.

  Morris, R. H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Duncan, C.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Paling, W.

  Whiteley, W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gosling, Harry

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne)

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts. Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Groves, T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  TELLERS FOB THE NOES —

  Grundy, T W.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Warne.

  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, to leave out the word "whether."
  I think it will be obvious to every Member of the Committee, after the very
  954
  interesting discussion which has already taken place, that in this Clause we are brought up against one of the most difficult and most disputable problems raised by the whole of this Bill. The

  955
  Clause, as it stands in the Bill, admits the existence of this problem, but my sub mission is that it only provides a very partial solution for it. What is the problem? I will state it in the briefest possible terms. It is the problem of providing for the people who, in one way or another, do not come into the general scheme of this Bill, which is based, as I would venture to remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, not merely on the principle of contribution, but also on the principle of compulsion. How are you going to provide for people who are not brought in under the scheme, and how are you going to deal with those who, having been brought into the scheme, have, for one reason or another, fallen out of it?
  Clause 13, as it stands, does make provision for certain categories of persons, but not for other categories who, in my submission, have equal or even superior claims to inclusion. I would remind the Committee that in this Clause we are dealing with persons, who, for one reason or another, are to receive special consideration, and my short point is that the persons whom the Bill, as it stands, selects for special consideration, are not, in every case, the most appropriate recipients. I would ask the Committee to bear in mind, as, indeed, has been obvious throughout the whole of our discussions, although I think it was a little forgotten in the discussion on the previous Amendment, that the whole of this scheme is absolutely interlocked with health insurance—with the Acts of 1911 and 1918—and that under those Acts some 70 per cent. of the population, that is to say, probably 30 millions of people, are affected. By the Act of 1911 there was given a very important option. The option was given to a large class of persons to become, under the National Health Insurance scheme, voluntary contributors. They were persons who, in economic status, were not above the class of the ordinary insurable person, but who for one reason or another—being in small businesses, small tradesmen, or falling within such categories as those of woodmen, blacksmiths, smallholders and so on, which have already been enumerated—were not in receipt of wages, and were outside the general scope of the Act of 1911. The
  956
  point that I want to impress on the Committee, however, is that that very important and valuable option, which was given in the Act of 1911, was withdrawn by the Act of 1918. That is really the whole basis of the Amendment which I am now venturing to press upon the attention of the Committee.
  Briefly stated, the object of my Amendment is to restore that option. The persons mostly affected will be small tradesmen or small shopkeepers in the towns, and smallholders, woodmen, and so on in the country districts. I may be met by the suggestion, and it is perfectly true, that for seven years, that is to say, between 1911 and 1918, these persons on behalf of whom this Amendment is being moved enjoyed an option and had the opportunity of an option which they did not exercise. The reason for their abstention in many instances was that a large number of them had already made provision for themselves in times of sickness, through the various friendly societies in the country, and they preferred to continue that independent method, which, incidentally, I may remind the Committee, did not involve any supplementary payment from the Exchequer, that is to say, from the taxpayer. But these men, nevertheless, did, as taxpayers, contribute to the benefits of the employed contributors and of those who availed themselves of the voluntary contributory provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911. What I am asking the Committee to accept is the re-option, as it were —that these people should be given once more the opportunity which I admit they neglected between 1011 and 1918. I have not the least doubt that, if this option were restored, as it virtually would be restored were this Amendment accepted, many of these men would avail themselves of it, in view of the contingent benefit which now attaches to insured persons under the present Bill. I ought in candour to point out that the Amendment as it stands is both exclusive and inclusive. In the Bill as drawn, provision is made for persons who have for two years contributed under the Health Insurance Acts and paid 104 contributions to resume health insurance if they wish, and so become entitled to pensions. It is true that the Amendment, as framed, would exclude some of these persons, because it imposes a qualifying test in the words "at the date of the passing of this Act."

  957
  A person, therefore, who has gone out of insurance because he has prospered, because he has made good, because he has got beyond the range of economic income to which insurance is limited, would be debarred from the opportunity of coming in, but on the other hand a person whose financial status at the date of the passing of the Act is comparable in every respect to that of the employed contributor would be permitted to become a voluntary contributor under both Acts, that is to say, under the Health Insurance Act and under this Act, if he so desires.
  In this Amendment we are adhering to the principle on which the Bill is based, namely, the close interlocking of this new insurance scheme with the existing Health Insurance Acts, and it appears to me that there is no reason whatever for differentiating, as the Bill would propose to do, in favour of the man who for the prescribed period was insured either voluntarily or compulsorily. So far as health insurance is concerned, voluntary contributors would be required to pay contributions appropriate to their age in order to take advantage of the opening offered by the Amendment, and the right to admit or to reject such persons would lie with the approved societies, as indeed it dons at present, so that no undue strain would be placed upon the finances of these approved societies. But I am free to admit that the Amendment would impose some additional strain on the new pensions fund because there is the possibility that it is the worst lives, the people who have most to gain by voluntary inclusion in the scheme, who would be most likely to take advantage of this voluntary opportunity. It is obvious that it is the more unsatisfactory risks—men with large families or men approaching the pension age—who would be attracted to the voluntary scheme. I have been at some pains, which I am sorry to say have not been rewarded with success, because the means of investigation open to me are very limited—they are open to the Government but not to me—to try to form some approximate estimate of the number of persons to whom the option, if granted, would be available, but I have found it really impossible to reach any conclusion on that subject, but it is a matter that merits, and I hope will receive, further consideration at the hands of the Government.
  Sir ROBERT SANDERS: On a point of Order. May I point out that by our last Division we affirmed that all the words down to "may" in line 13 should stand part. How then can we move to leave out the word "whether" in line 9?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): What the hon. Gentleman said is perfectly true, and it is entirely my mistake. I should have put it down to the word "whether." I took it upon myself to enter it accordingly.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: Although my name is not down to the Amendment I should like to support it wholeheartedly. In spite of the opposition, I feel that there are a good many women throughout the country who welcome the Bill and the Pensions scheme, and it is only right that the widows should have the fear of penury and starvation taken from them and their children. As has been proved, even on the last Clause, there is a splendid case on behalf of fishermen and agricultural labourers. There are going to be many people left out and many extremely hard cases which I think the hon. Gentleman should bring under the scheme. It was only the sympathetic reply of the Minister of Health that he would do his best to further look into these cases that made mo go into the Division Lobby on the last Amendment. I should like to mention another case which I think was extremely hard. It is that of the widows of disabled ex-service men who married after the War. In many cases they have young children to bring up and, owing to the disability of their husbands, they are unable most of the time to be in insurable employment, and when the disability pension ceases and he dies the widow is left with her young children to face very great hardships. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that case most sympathetically, and I am certain, perhaps by some scheme in conjunction with the Ministry of Pensions, those cases could be dealt with, as could the case of the fishermen and the agricultural workers, which are two most important industries comprising very hard-working races of men. Many of these people would be very glad to come into the scheme and would be only too willing to contribute, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do something to help them.
  Sir K. WOOD: I regret to have to ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment, especially after the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson). I know the Committee will forgive me if I do not go again into the discussion which was very largely dealt with on the last Amendment. The Mover desires to revive the option which was first given in the National Health Insurance Act, 1911. It is right that the Committee should know that that option meant a graduated allowance, and, if adopted here, would again set up a scheme of graduated pensions. That is full of difficulty. The approved societies would have the greatest difficulty in administering it, and that is one objection to the proposal. A second objection is that it would limit the number of voluntary contributors who can come in, even under the Government proposal, by confining it to employed people. I do not think the Committee would desire to do that. If they have any desire in the matter at all it would be to add to the number of people who can take advantage of the scheme. The really great difficulty we have to face is that if you are to bring in this class of person at any age, at any time they like, you must obviously impose a health test and medical examination. You will have to inquire the person's age, whether he is married and how long he has been married, and matters of that sort. It would impose a very considerable burden so far as inquiry is concerned, and new machinery altogether would be required.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Is it not a fact that this machinery was operating years ago, and that it still lies to hand and could be used without any extra cost to the Exchequer?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, I regret to say that the voluntary contributory scheme broke down. As a matter of fact, it was very unsatisfactory, and only about 20,000 people came in altogether, and that was the real reason why, with the assent of the approved societies and the insurance committees, it was repealed.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: They are extremely anxious that the option should be restored.
  Sir K. WOOD: That is not my information at all. I think the approved
  960
  societies recognise the very grave difficulty. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Hon. Members may be better informed than I am. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are:"] I will say they are, but I would remind them that the scheme the hon. Member has referred to, with such satisfaction, broke down and, with the assent of the approved societies was repealed. Therefore, while I may be wrong, it surprises me to hear that the approved societies wish to see it set up again. It may be that hon. Members are right, but I am entitled to tell the Committee that that part of the National Health Insurance Act was repealed. Therefore we view with apprehension any proposal now to readopt it. We regard the scheme as incomplete when it does not make provision for some of the small shopkeepers and people of that class. We would, if we could, devise a scheme which would be actuarially sound by which they should come in. We have given a great deal of consideration to the matter and we are at present unable to devise a scheme which would be actuarially sound. I again give the assurance I gave a little while ago that we will endeavour, in conjunction with our advisers, to see. if anything further can be done. The matter has occupied the attention of the Committee for some time, and I hope they will now see their way to proceed to the next Amendment, which also raises an important issue.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has given quite as much consideration to this proposal as he ought to do. He says the provision contained in Clause 5 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, had to be repealed. I think it would be more accurate to say that it was allowed to lapse when the law was standardised and brought up to date in 1918. It was found that not a great many of these people chose to join the National Health Insurance scheme. It was a scheme which provided for a graduated rate of payment, which was not a that rate scheme, and many people did not join because, perhaps, it did not make a great appeal to them. We are advised—I am speaking for those whose names are down in support of the Amendment—that the friendly societies want the Amendment which we have put on the Paper and that they are largely responsible for the

  961
  drafting of the Amendment. Therefore, for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this is something to which the friendly societies would object is not correct. He must have been seriously misinformed. The friendly societies look upon this matter with very considerable perturbation, and they are anxious that something should be done. I do not say that this is the perfect way of doing it. It would be absurd, in view of the difficult problem involved, to say that what certain people think is necessarily the best way of meeting the problem, but, at any rate, there is a case to be met, and we suggest dealing with it in a modified form. We have provided a means to reduce the number within reasonable limits. I hope that something will be done to meet this very legitimate demand.
  Sir W. SUGDEN: I want to say a few-words in reply to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the unsuccessful working of this type of Clause in the previous Act. I need scarcely remind him, because he is an expert in these matters, that in consequence of the tightening up that has taken place the machinery now is at concert pitch and in first-class operating condition. I can assure him that if the point he raised is the only difficulty he may rest quietly in his bed that if he is good enough to give us this Amendment nothing will go awry in the rest of the Measure.
  Mr. DEAN: This is a most important question. I know something of the people referred to. The small shopkeepers, the blacksmiths, carpenters and others have in the past been the backbone of our friendly societies. There have been no more thrifty people in the country. From year to year they have been the chief supporters of the friendly societies. I have been a trustee of three friendly societies, and I know that these men have always been helping the societies and have always been active in encouraging others, perhaps less educated than themselves, to join the societies. It would be a most grievous blunder if these men were to be left out, and not allowed to come into the scheme.
  Mr. SKELTON: In view of the apparently erroneous statement made by the
  962
  Parliamentary Secretary that the friendly societies are against this Amendment, whereas, apparently, they are absolutely in favour of it, I hope that before the Report stage this matter will be gone into fully by the Department in consultation with the friendly societies, and that it will not be left over until some future Bill, in some unknown year, is brought forward. I do not urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Amendment now, but I do strongly urge him to realise the importance of the question, and to get the facts correct and see whether something cannot be done. I know the difficulties, but wo must realise that the matter is of the greatest importance. It brings in all the classes to which the hon. Member who has just spoken referred. If the Amendment were accepted it would make the Bill not so much numerically more comprehensive as socially more comprehensive. Therefore, it raises a question which cannot be disposed of in this Committee, and nothing more said about it.
  In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that it applied only to employed persons, which I understand is not correct, there is apparently a difference of fact and opinion there which requires discussion and inquiry. Further, in view of the fact that he said that the friendly societies were against this Amendment, whereas that statement, apparently, is not on all fours with the facts, and in view of the essential importance of the question raised by the Amendment, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to have the question properly investigated before the Report stage, and see whether he cannot, even at this late hour, do something to bring into this Bill a socially important class of the community.
  Sir K. WOOD: I hope there will be no misapprehension in regard to any statements that I have made. I made an observation that the Amendment confined the classes more than does the Government Clause. I stated that the Amendment confines the Clause to the employed contributors. That is correct. I made an observation as to the attitude of the approved societies towards the scheme. I did not say that they were against the scheme, but I said I did not believe they were for it. I have had some opportunity —hon. Members will agree that I have

  963
  been in very close contact with the views of approved societies on this matter-of making inquiries since I made my statement, to see whether the approved societies expressed approval of this matter when they had the opportunity, when the special committee of the consultative council went into all the Amendments and had an opportunity of discussing the various Clauses. I understand that they gave no expression of opinion either for or against this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) may have in mind some special class of approved society.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: No.
  Sir K. WOOD: The matter is not of sufficient importance to justify delaying the Committee longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I mean, my own views about the friendly societies. I do not want the Committee to think that because I dealt briefly with the matter on the second occasion that I do not understand the importance of it, or the desire of the Committee that something should be done, if possible. My point was that the matter had been discussed at some length on the previous Amendment, and I suggested
  that we might dispose of the matter. If we can possibly devise a scheme which is actuarially sound, no one will be more pleased than my right hon. Friend. I hope with that assurance the Committed will now come to a decision.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: I think the Parliamentary Secretary had overlooked the proviso of this Clause when he said it was limited to the employed contributor. If he looks at the proviso he will see that that is not the case. There is no question about the attitude of the friendly societies. Without any disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I maintain that the friendly societies are certainly in favour of this Amendment, whatever the approved societies in general may be. I am aware of the actuarial difficulties, but I hope the Minister will respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) and see whether something cannot be done on the Report stage of the Bill, and not in some future Bill, if he can find an actuarially sound solution of the question.
  Question put, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 122.

  Division No. 265.]

  AYES.

  [7.56 p-m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burman, J. B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Elveden, Viscount

  Albery, Irving James

  Caine, Gordon Halt

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fleming. D. P.

  Amery Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Balfour George (Hampstead)

  Christie, J. A.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Balniel Lord

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gates, Percy

  Barclay-Harvey, C M.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Barnston Major Sir Harry

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Beamish Captain T. P. H.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Grace, John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Cope, Major William

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Berry. Sir George

  Couper, J. B.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Bethell, A

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, w. R.. Skipton)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Blundell, F. N.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Crook, C. W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Brass. Captain W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Drewe, C.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Storry Deans, R.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n &P'bl's)

  Oakley, T.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Perring, William George

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Templeton, W. P.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Plicher, G.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Lamb, J. O.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Preston, William

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Raine, W.

  Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wells, S. R.

  Lougher, L.

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Rye, F. G.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  McLean, Major A.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Mac Robert. Alexander M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Meller, R. J.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyda)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Wood, Sir s. Hill- (High Peak)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Skeiton, A. N.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES -

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Groves, T.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Potts, John S.

  Amman, Charles George

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardle, George D.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Riley, Ben

  Baker. Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Barr, J.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Scurr, John

  Broad, F. A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sexton, James

  Bromley, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Connolly, M.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Snell, Harry

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

  Stephen, Campbell

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Dennison, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Taylor, R. A.

  Duncan, C.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  March, S.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Forrest, W.

  Maxton, James

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Thurtle, E.

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gosling, Harry

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  966

  967

  Welsh, J. C.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Westwood, J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Whiteley, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

  Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Wright, W.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I select is that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I would suggest that when we are discussing that Amendment we might also discuss the principle of the Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health so as to cover the whole question.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 11, line 16, after the word "contributor" to insert the words "under this Act, or."
  I recognise that this Amendment is of considerable importance, because it is going to be the vehicle for an explanation by the Government of the very far reaching Amendment they have put down later on the Paper as a result of a discussion which we had in this Committee OR last Friday week. I have endeavoured to understand all that is signified by the new Government Amendment, and I wish to raise certain points upon it, and also to point out that, having gone so far, the Government, I am afraid, will be compelled to go a good deal further. The position is this. By Clause 8 of this Bill if a man falls out of insurance he loses his right to an old age pension at 65 if he has not been insured for the previous five years, and lie also loses the value of the contributions which he has paid throughout his life. That obviously was an injustice which was going to affect hundreds of thousands of people, and we called the attention of the Minister of Health to its effect.
  The answer of the Minister of Health was that by the Prolongation of Insurance Act, 1921, approved societies could keep these men in technical insurance, not in benefit, and as they were technically in insurance then they would receive their old age pension at 65. The approved societies only had the Tight to do this as long as the insured man remained in an insurable occupation, and when that became clear it was evident that the case of tens of thousands of men was not going to be met. The whole class of men from 55 to 60, who leave the factory or the mill and set up perhaps in some small business, would be left out. The whole class
  968
  of single women who, perhaps, have been employed as maid servants or housekeepers then left their position and were too old to go back to domestic service, would be left out, because they would not have been in an insurable occupation. That was the point to which we called attention on the last day. The Minister of Health said that they could continue as voluntary contributors, and so obtain the pension at 65, but in order that a man or a woman in this position could continue as a voluntary contributor, the Bill lays down that they must be contributors, not only for the purposes of this Bill, but for national health insurance at the same time. We pointed out that the double contribution was so heavy as to be impracticable to tens of thousands of people who came within this class.
  I would like now to know whether I am correct as to what the Government Amendment docs. The position before that Amendment has been this. In a single year, in order to keep within the Insurance Act, a man had to pay 39 contributions in the year. He had to be insured 39 weeks which meant paying 1s. 6d. for 39 weeks, or a total of £2 18s. 6d. in the year, and a woman had to pay 1s. 1d. a week for 39 weeks which meant a contribution of £2 2s. 3d. in the year. Our contention was that £2 18s. 6d. per man and £2 2s. 3d. for a woman was too heavy to meet the cases of the men and women whose circumstances we had in mind. I hope that I am right in interpreting the new Government Amendment in this way. It lays down that a man or a woman in this category will be considered as insured, and entitled to an old age pension, if instead of paying 39 contributions 20 contributions are paid. It would mean, in the case of a man, paying 30s. in the year instead of £2 18s. 6d., and in the case of a woman £1 1s. 9d. instead of £2 2s. 3d.
  We asked that the burden should in some way be lessened, and this is the Government method of meeting our case. If I am correct in my interpretation I should like to say on behalf of those sitting on these benches that we consider that the case which we put forward has been fairly met by the Minister of Health,

  969
  and that it carries out the undertaking which he gave to us when the subject was under discussion. But now I want to put a question that arises as to a matter of machinery.. There may be a very good reason for it, but why this very complicated system? Why say to a woman, "You must pay 1s. 4d. a week, but you need only pay for 20 weeks"? Why not say to her, "You shall pay whatever it is, say 6d. a week, and pay all the year through"? That would be simpler for her and, I should think, simpler for the purposes of collection. That is so obvious that I presume that there is a good reason for the course adopted, but up to the present those of us who have been going into this Amendment have not been able to find the answer.
  Now I come to a matter which I have no doubt was present to the mind of the Minister of Health. It is a matter which affects a large class of cases, larger than the class which he has dealt with in this particular instance, and I cannot myself see how, having gone so far, he can avoid going further and dealing with this far larger class. I have no doubt that he took the full consequences into his mind when he consented to meet us, and I would like to try to explain the point which is now in our mind. The Amendment which the Government have put down deals, and deals fairly, with the case of those who have passed entirely out of insurable employment. They can come in as voluntary contributors under this scheme, but the case which I would like to put to the Minister is a case which involves a very large number of persons who have not passed out of insurable employment. What is going to be done about the case of men who, say, at the age of 55 or 60, do not leave their occupation altogether, but slacken off, as many of them do, legitimately, and become intermittent? They will still be working, but only so many weeks in the year.
  On Saturday in the North of England I came across two cases. One was that of a fairly elderly man who told me that he spent half his time playing in an orchestra at Morpeth, and that for the remainder of the year he pottered about in a little business. Another man said that during the summer season he drove a char-a-banc at Blackpool and during the winter
  970
  he also pottered about. He, too, was a fairly elderly man. What about waiters? There must be many thousands of cases of men who are not wholly out of an insured occupation, but are working in an insured occupation for only part of their time. What is their position as the Bill stands? They will fall between two stools. They cannot become voluntary contributors, because they are still insured persons, and they will not get their benefits as insured persons, because they will not for 39 weeks of the year either be in employment or seeking employment in their insured trades. They may be perfectly genuinely working for half the year, and be outside the insured trade for the other half. I have no doubt that the Minister is aware of these cases. Unless they are met, there will be tens of thousands of men who will lose their benefit between these two alternatives. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take such cases into consideration, and by adapting the new Amendment to them will confer on them the same advantages as are conferred on those who have Passed out of the trade altogether and have become voluntary contributors.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very pleased to hear from the hon. Member that, in his opinion, the Amendment we have put down fairly carries out the undertaking, which I gave earlier, to provide for cases which he impressed on my attention. He has asked me to answer two questions which arise out of the Amendment standing in my name. He asked first, "Why go through this somewhat complicated process of saying to the would-be voluntary contributor that we insist on the full rate of contribution for a smaller number of weeks instead of a smaller rate of contribution for a larger number of weeks?" The answer to that is very simple, and I am much surprised that it has not occurred to the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to exclude these people from the benefits of the Health Insurance Act. People who are arriving at the age of 55 for women or 60 for men are just at that time of life when the value, of health insurance benefit is greatest to them. What we are doing by maintaining the contribution at the full rate is to maintain their insurance and their entitlement to benefits, not only for pensions, but also under the Health Insurance Act.

  971
  The hon. Gentleman put to me a further question, with regard to those who cannot become voluntary contributors and are only intermittently employed, and therefore might have difficulty in making the 39 contributions required under Clause 8. It has already been made clear that in calculating those 39 weeks under Clause 8, weeks of unemployment and sickness would count as weeks of contribution provided that the illness was proved or that the persons could be shown to have been genuinely seeking employment. That should entirely meet the case of the people whom the hon. Member has described. Therefore, I think it will be necessary to make a provision for these people which will bring them into line with the Amendment I have now put down in the case of voluntary contributors. Hon. Members will see that it is not possible to deal with that point in this Clause. It will have to be dealt with on Clause 8 which we have passed. Therefore, I shall propose in due course to recommit the Bill for the purpose of introducing an Amendment to Clause 8, under which I think I shall be able to deal with those cases. What I had in mind was that we should leave open a sort of alternative or option between the 39 weeks, in which case each week of genuine sickness and genuine seeking for employment will count as a week's contribution. That. I think, will entirely meet the case of the hon. Member.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, in page 11, line 16, at the end, to insert the words
  "Provided that any person in the permanent and pensionable employment of the Crown whose employment, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, is an excepted employment by virtue of paragraph (k) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act (which relates to employment otherwise than by way of manual labour and at a rate of remuneration exceeding in value two hundred and fifty pounds a year) and who desires to become voluntarily insured under this Act shall be entitled either upon payment by the contributor of the contribution prescribed in Part I of the First Schedule to become voluntarily insured under this Act in the case of a man for widows, orphans, and old age pensions, and in the case of a woman for orphans and old
  972
  age pensions, but without paying any contribution to, or becoming entitled to any benefits under, the Health Insurance Act, or to become a voluntary contributor under this Act and the Health Insurance Act in accordance with the provisions on that behalf contained in this Act."
  This is an Amendment which I had put down to Clause 16, and which, it was suggested, would be more appropriately moved on Clause 13, with the alteration of preliminary words to adapt it to the Clause we are now discussing. I hope it will be accepted by the Minister. It asks that option shall be given to a civil servant to become a voluntary contributor for widows' and orphans' and old age pensions only; that is, that they will pay 9d. for men and 4½d. for women. The position is that these people for most of their service have been paying at the full rate. But at the moment when a man passes the margin of an income of £250 a year, he falls outside the Act. He is then allowed to become a voluntary contributor. All permanent and pensionable employés of the Crown normally are entitled to six months' sick pay, and to other leave with reduced pay during a short term of sickness, so that it is hardly to be expected that many of them will take advantage of any such suggestion, and insure under the National Health Insurance provisions, plus the other Act. Then, owing to the means qualification limit, very few, if any, civil servants came under the National Insurance Act, so far as medical benefits and the panel medical assistance are concerned.
  I suggest that the people who have contributed to the scheme for a number of years certainly have some claim to be considered, if they wish to remain in the scheme so far as the benefit for the old age pension and the widows' pension are concerned. The Minister will get a larger number who will voluntarily come into the scheme, than he is likely to get if he insists that they also have to pay the national health insurance contribution. Really this is going to act against the Exchequer because the only people likely to take advantage of the right hon. Genleman's suggestion and become voluntary contributors are those people whose health is bad or indifferent and who may think it to their advantage to subscribe the full amount. I admit that my Amendment tries to make the best of both worlds. It suggests a double

  973
  option. There may be some persons who, for various reasons, think they would like to have a little more benefit when they are sick and would like to take advantage of this provision, but when we have regard to the terms of service and the provisions already made for sick leave and so forth it is hardly likely these will be many, and they are more likely to be the persons who stand most in need of benefit from the point of view of their normal health. Surely the civil servants who find themselves excluded under the operations of this Clause will have a legitimate grievance. They will have paid probably for the greater part of their service careers. In this matter I am speaking not only for the Post Office but for all the Civil Service, and a large number of the persons for whom I speak will not pass the £250 a year limit until they are well advanced in their service. This means that they will have paid during all these years, and that they will be shut out unless they pay for something which means no benefit for them and in regard to which they need not insure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the proposal in the interest of a large number of civil servants. I think it will make his own scheme better, and it will give these, people the knowledge that while they are paying in during the earlier years of their service they are not going to be shut out from benefits in regard to widows' pensions and old age pensions for which they have paid.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of this Amendment would be to give a special privilege to this particular section of the community and give them what we are refusing to give to other people, namely, an option to separate health insurance from pensions insurance, and to become voluntary contributors for pensions insurance only. I did not gather from what the hon. Member said that he had any particular case to put forward on behalf of these people which would distinguish them from other people whose case might be just as strong. I do not think it a fair description of the actual provisions of the Bill to say that they are shut out from benefits for which they have been paying over a large number of years. They are not shut out; they can go on keeping the insurance alive by means of the voluntary contributions and,
  974
  although it is true that they have to pay contributions for health as well as for pensions, it is only 7d. per week and the benefits from that insurance are worth probably 50 per cent. more than the contributions they pay. I cannot think that is a very great hardship. I might remind the hon. Member that these people would come within the benefits of the Amendment of which I have just been speaking and at which we have not yet arrived, and, when they reach the age of 60 they can secure this benefit by the payment of only 26 weeks. In these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 16, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
  (2) Any woman who at any time after the commencement of this Act has been an insured person for a period of one hundred and four weeks and has one hundred and four contributions to her credit shall, in the event of her marriage to an uninsured man, be deemed to be an insured person for the purposes of this Act, and shall be entitled to a widow's pension on the death of her husband or to an old age pension on reaching the age of sixty-five, notwithstanding the fact that on marriage she ceases to pay contributions under the Insurance Act or under this Act."
  The object of this Amendment is to raise in an acute form the case of the woman who, after contributing during her unmarried life, marries an uninsured man, and then drops out of the scheme of the Bill. The Amendments which we have been considering during the past hour sought to bring into the Bill persons who were outside its scope. This Amendment deals with the peculiarly hard case of persons who are compulsorily brought into the Bill so far as contributions are concerned, but are kept out of the Bill so far as benefits are concerned. I cannot help thinking that the words which the Minister used recently with regard to another set of persons when he admitted that in that respect the Bill was incomplete, also apply to the case which I am raising. Let me go over the principal points of this case as it appears in the Bill. In the first place, the woman as a single woman, even as a girl of 16, is compelled to contribute week by week towards this scheme. She then marries a man who is uninsured—I need not go over the various reasons for the man being uninjured—

  975
  and automatically, according to the Bill, she drops right out of the scheme. It cannot be argued that a woman ought not to marry a man who is uninsured. Even though she were to use some option in choosing an insured man he might of his own volition drop out quite: shortly after marriage. As I say, she falls out of the scheme; she does not get the benefit which other widows get when their husbands die. If she and her husband both die their children do not get the orphans' pensions, and, if she survives, she does not get the old age pension at 65. Further, the State does not offer her any surrender value for all the insurance money she has paid. This is an insurance scheme, and in a case where, owing to circumstances over which the insured person has no control, the insured person drops out of the scheme, any insurance company would allow that insured person the surrender value of the policy and thereby enable the insured person to reap some benefit for the contributions paid. According to this Bill the State does not do so.
  I would like the Committee to note that the woman has no alternative. She cannot continue to contribute as a voluntary person. Her husband is in many cases ineligible for voluntary contribution, and even if he be eligible the wife has no power to compel the husband to contribute. I would like the Committee further to notice that he may be poor. It does not at all follow that, because the, man is outside the limits of the compulsory insurance scheme, they are well off. He may be a small shopkeeper, or a hawker, and it must be clear that here is a very grave injustice. I have spoken to a number of people about this question, and they are amazed that it is possible for people to be compelled to insure themselves and, after having paid all that money, that they should be ousted from any benefit under the scheme. So far the Minister has defended this on the ground that in every insurance scheme you must pool resources. I recognise that general fact, but I would remind him that, if a scheme were one in which the State paid all the contributions, it would be open to the State to give or to withhold benefits as it thought right; if you had a voluntary insurance scheme, it would be open to prepare a scheme in which certain people would not benefit, and if people
  976
  voluntarily insured themselves, they would do so with their eyes open; but the circumstances are quite different when you come to compulsory insurance. There you have to be much more just, because you have taken money compulsorily from people, and you have to render an account to them, which at any rate should give them the benefit when the risks against which they think they are insuring actually occur.
  I would make this further point, which I do not think has been made at all in these Debates. If you are going to have a compulsory insurance scheme, and certain sections of people are going, after having paid benefits, to be ruled out, why should you limit the persons who are to be compulsorily insured to special members of the working classes? Why should you not take other sections of the population? Why should not Members of this House be compelled to come in under thi6 scheme, knowing they will not benefit by it, but assured that their contributions will swell the general pool? I do not seriously suggest that, but it seems to me quite as defensible as bringing people into this scheme, compelling them to pay, find then saying, when they become widows or when they leave their children fatherless and motherless, or when they reach the age of 65: "Owing to circumstances over which you have no control, you will not get the benefit which you thought you would get when you paid your money."
  My Amendment proposes to bring all these people in and give them full benefits. I am aware, of course, that the Minister will say that that is actuarially impossible, and that it is far too large a financial claim to make on this Fund. I put it down in this form as the best means of raising the question, and I shall be perfectly satisfied if the Minister is able to make a substantial concession which will give to women under these circumstances a reasonable ground for thinking their contributions have not been thrown away. It must be a reasonable concession, and one which really does meet the case, but if he is able to do that, I shall not press the precise form of this Amendment. I suggest that it is not possible for the State to behave worse than any decent insurance company. It would be quite impossible for an insurance company, even under a voluntary scheme of insurance, to refuse benefits

  977
  under more or less arbitrary circumstances, and to refuse a surrender value to a policy, and leave people who have paid in considerable sums of money absolutely without benefit when the very risks against which they thought they had insured actually occurred. I am sure the Minister must recognise that it is impossible for the State in a compulsory insurance scheme to be more unjust to those who pay their money than any insurance company could be under a voluntary scheme.
  Mr. J. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, in view of the very important nature of this Amendment and the number of women affected, for you to see that at least one Member of the Liberal party may be present in the discussion?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment seems to me to be entirely inconsistent with the terms of Clause 1, which we have already passed, and also with the terms of Clause 8. The hon. Member said that if I were prepared to make a substantial concession, he would be satisfied, even if it were not in the form he had suggested. I think I am absolved, in the circumstances, from entering upon a repetition of the arguments I have already used in refutation of his statement that serious injustice would be done to women who choose to marry uninsured men, but I am prepared to make a suggestion, which I think should go a long way towards meeting the hon. Member's difficulties. The suggestion I owe to the ingenuity of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), and it is, in effect that when an insured woman marries an uninsured man, the uninsured man shall have the right to become a voluntary contributor by virtue of the contributions that have been made by his insured wife. That is certainly not going all the way, but it is going a very long way towards removing any sense of hardship on the part of these women, and I propose, when the time comes, which will be in line 35 of this same page, to move an Amendment which will carry out that suggestion. In those circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: While we, on this side, appreciate the desire of the
  978
  Minister to meet us as far as possible, we recognise, on reflection, that he has not met very fully the very strong case put up by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). When the matter was raised in Debate a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that reference was made to the case of women who may, from coming into the insurance scheme at the age of 16, be contributing at a fairly high rate for as long as 15 or 16 years before marriage and then marry an uninsured man. That brings us up against the point, already referred to to-night by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, as to whether there should or should not be, in the case of a scheme which the Government choose shall be contributory, a surrender value. I remember the very long discussions which we had in this House on the Industrial Insurance Act, 1923. There you had weekly contributions of insured persons for certain specified benefits, it may be as low as one penny a week, but if the insured person under that Act has been keeping up his contributions for at least five years, and the premiums have been paid in full for that period, an industrial insurance company under private enterprise is now compelled by the State to do one of two things, either to give a fully paid-up policy for a given sum or to make the grant of a surrender value.
  If you put that alongside a woman's contribution of, say, 2d. a week for 15 years under this scheme before she marries an uninsured person, it is true the Minister goes a little way along the road of compromise when he says the husband shall be given the opportunity of continuing the payments, but supposing he does not, then here is a married woman who has paid into an insurance scheme, which the Government are upholding to the country because it is an insurance scheme, she is paying for benefits, and, after having paid for 15 or 16 years, will lose the whole of the contributions. That seems to be very hard, and I do think the Minister—I know we are pressing him on a good many points—might consider whether there should not be some definite form of benefit accruing in these circumstances to a woman who has paid in for a long time. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be prepared to accept a compromise from

  979
  the Minister by having a longer period of time than is covered by 104 contributions. Having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's own Government in 1923 laid these burdens, if I may put it so, on insurance companies, they ought to see in the Government scheme that some more consideration is given to those cases than has yet been shown to-night.
  Mr. DAVIES: There is only one question, from the point of view of information, I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He has given what I regard as a concession of considerable importance. I understand it to mean, that where a woman who is insured marries an uninsured man, the uninsured man will be entitled to become a voluntary contributor in respect of the insurance of his wife. That, I think, is the point the right hon. Gentleman has met. What I want to know, however, is whether the qualification in that case is exactly the qualification that applies to a man who becomes ordinarily a voluntary contributor. That is to say, I take it that the man in this case will be entitled to become a voluntary contributor only if his wife was insured for 104 weeks, and 104 contributions had been paid in respect of her. The right hon. Gentleman nods his head, so that I take that to be the ease. As I said at the beginning, a substantial concession has been made.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In some ways the Minister has met us, but there are other points which, it seems to me, he has not taken fully into account, and one of them is that the woman herself has no rights in the matter. He has met us by allowing the man to become a voluntary contributor, but the man may not like to do that. When the right hon. Gentleman brings forward his proposal in the form of an Amendment, I should like him to consider whether it would be possible, in some way or other, to give the woman some right in this question, because the man gains an option, and the woman seems to have no claim. I should like the Minister to consider that. But I recognise the Minister has met us, and, in those circumstances, I had better wait for his Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, to leave out Subsection (2).
  This Sub-section deals, not with persons who may join for the first time as voluntary contributors but with 30,000 odd such contributors who are now attached to approved societies, and I want to call the attention of the Minister to what I think may happen. First of all, I might be allowed to explain that the Bill would not be disturbed in the least, in my view, if this Sub-section were eliminated entirely, because this Sub-section implies that, unless the person who is now a voluntary contributor acquaints his approved society that he desires to continue as a voluntary contributor, he will fall out automatically from the health insurance scheme, and this scheme which is combined with it. The point I desire to make is this. If this Bill, as it intends to do, compels about 13,000,000 or 14,000.000 people to be insured, although they may not desire it, I fail to understand why, automatically, in the same way, these 30,000 people: might not fall into the same category, that is to say, why should they be asked at all. The Minister of Health knows full well that many of these voluntary contributors send in their stamped insurance card each six months without any difficulty, and I have failed to understand, although I have looked up the subject from every point of view, why this Sub-section has been included.
  Let me carry the point a step further. The actuary anticipates that several hundred thousand will come into the scheme as voluntary contributors, in addition to the 30,000 who are now voluntary contributors. I should say with regard to those people who are not now attached to the scheme, it is quite proper to ask them to declare themselves in favour of joining this scheme. But, I fail to understand why people who are already under the National Health Insurance—30,000 of them—should be asked to declare their intention in this connection. I would rather reverse the order, and let them come under this scheme automatically. If they do not desire to come under the scheme, then they must declare that they do not desire to do so, but to reverse the order in the way this Sub-section does is, in my view, incomprehensible.

  981
  Might I put one or two other points? I would like to know, from an administrative point of view, what is actually going to happen when this Bill becomes law? It will operate as from January, 1926. Take my own society, in which we have, roughly speaking, about 100 voluntary contributors. I take it, it would be quite competent for our society, or any other approved society, to acquaint all voluntary contributors with the fact that this scheme comes into operation in January, and the voluntary contributors, having been acquainted with the fact, ought, in my view, to be included automatically within the scheme. I repeat that I fail to appreciate why this Sub-section is included in the Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The explanation is very short and simple. The hon. Gentleman says he cannot understand why it is necessary to make any change in the position of 28,000 voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Act. The reason is because we are now linking up the National Health Insurance Act with the Pensions Bill. These people having become voluntary contributors, not only under the national health insurance scheme, but under the Pensions Bill, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would be to enable them to remain as voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Bill without becoming voluntary contributors under this Bill as well.
  Mr. DAVIES: Might I put it in another form? The 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 persons now included in the national health insurance scheme are compelled to come in whether they like it or not. It is assumed by the Government that they are compelled to come into this new scheme for their own good. As these 30,000 people are attached to 'he national health insurance scheme surely they have shown a desire, at any rate, to continue their attachment to this scheme! Really, I am not yet convinced that the right hon. Gentleman has given a complete answer to me.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the sub-committee of the approved societies and the consultative council, appointed by the Ministry, have forwarded a resolution
  982
  to the effect that this Amendment should not be accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton), in page 11, line 34, to leave out from the word "contain" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "be deemed to be an insured person for the purpose of this Act but for no other purpose, and be entitled to pay contributions in accordance with the provisions of Section nine of this Act."
  is not in order.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
  "(4) Where an uninsured man marries a woman by or in respect of whom one hundred and four contributions have been paid under this Act he may, if he gives notice within the prescribed time, and in the prescribed manner, after the marriage, become a voluntary contributor under the Insurance Act."
  I propose this manuscript Amendment to meet the points made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think we understand the point of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has met the point put forward by saying that the woman's husband may at any time on account of past contributions become a voluntary contributor on his side; that, so to speak, the reserve value she has created may assist him.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend says "at any time." It is "within the prescribed time."
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: But the matter is one upon which I am not yet clear This ordinary voluntary contributor obtains in return for his contribution a right to a widow's pension, children's allowances, and an old age pension for himself. That, I gather, is the case. Now, in this case— perhaps this point has not yet occurred to the Minister of Health—that this Amendment will give him not only the right to an old age pension at 65 for himself, but will give his wife a right to an old age pension at 65. In the case of the employed contributor the Bill lays it down that if the employed contributor is getting

  983
  an old age pension at 65, that when his wife reaches the age of Go she will obtain that pension on account of his contributions. I am not at all sure, as I read this Clause, that as the Amendment is drafted that it will give the wife the right to an aid age pension at 65 in addition to himself. I should like to be satisfied that that will be the case, and that further Amendments required to make it clear will be put down.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I read this Sub-section there will be no doubt about it. It does not create a new special class of contributors, it merely adds to the existing class.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
  "Provided that where a person had on attaining the age of sixty in the case of a man, or fifty-five in the case of a woman, been continuously insured for a period of ten. years, or since the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve (whichever period is the shorter), this Sub-section shall apply as if for reference to thirty-nine contributions and forty-five contributions there were respectively substituted references to twenty contributions and twenty-six contributions."
  I move this formally because I have already discussed the matter on a previous Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, at the end, to add the words
  "Where a person is in receipt of a pension payable by the Minister of Pensions, the Minister of Pensions may, with the consent of the pensioner, notwithstanding anything in any Act, royal warrant, order in council, or order, pay any contributions payable by the pensioner as a voluntary contributor, and deduct the amount so paid on his behalf from the pension payable to him."
  The object of this Amendment is to meet the wishes of those concerned in it.
  Mr. MARCH: Might I ask if this is the time to raise the question with regard to seamen's contributions being paid through the office?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; there is an Amendment which specially deals with that which, I understand, will be taken later.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Before this Motion is passed, I think it is only right and proper that I should express our appreciation of the manner in which the Minister has met us on this Clause. The concessions he has made do not, of course, go as far as we would like—that would be more than we are entitled to expect—but I think in all the circumstances he has treated us very fairly, and I want to express our appreciation of the manner in which he has done so.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot say that I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who is appearing in a new role in offering the dove of pence to our comrades opposite, but I do not want to disturb the harmony of the two Front Benches. Being only a humble backbencher myself, that would be too great an infliction on this House. I wish to raise another matter which was discussed on an earlier Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) brought up the question of the exclusion from this Bill of men who are working in our great markets as slaughtermen, or, as they are called in some part of the country, killers, who are neither within the scope of the National Health Insurance Act nor of this Measure. I thought from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston that it was almost an olive branch that he was extending, and I appeal to the generosity of the Government Front Bench to give the benefits of this Bill to these men. Many of the men, who are working in these markets as slaughtermen, have no definite employment. Where they have a definite employer, where a meat salesman employs them regularly, from week to week or from month to month, they come under the National Health Insurance Act; but in some cases these men go from meat salesman to meat salesman asking if he has any cattle to kill, and they get engagements to kill so many head of cattle, and, when that particular task is finished, they transfer their services to another meat salesman, who engages

  985
  them to kill so many more. Repeated efforts have been made to include these men in the National Health Insurance Act, but they have failed, and now we are making another effort to secure their inclusion.
  There is no denying the fact that they are working men, their wages on an average are less than £250 per annum, they are liable to all the trials and troubles that afflict ordinary working class men, they have their periods of unemployment, and they themselves now ask that a scheme of this kind should be open to them. I understand the Minister of Agriculture, when replying to my hon. Friend, pointed out that those of them who had served for two years in the Army would be covered by this Bill, not because they were slaughtermen, but because they had served two years in the Army, and stated that a good number of men could come into the scheme in that way. I agree, and I suppose that we ought to be grateful for that, but may I point out that the men who are mostly in need of the provisions of this scheme, the older men, will not be included, because they wore not in the Army on account of their age. May I cite this example of what happens in the Glasgow and the London markets? In the Glasgow markets an undertaking like the Co-operative Society employs its own killers, paying them a standard wage, and they will all be under this Bill, because they pay national health insurance contributions, whereas other men, who have not been so fortunate to get steady employment, but depend from day to day on different meat salesmen to engage them, will be all excluded.
  One might liken their case to that of dock labourers. A dock labourer might be employed to-day by a man at the docks, and be idle to-morrow. He is in search of any employer who will give him a day's work or an hour's work. These men are in exactly similar circumstances to the dock labourers at the docks. They have no steady employment, but look diligently for a roan to engage them to work for him. I cannot see why the Minister should not arrange on Report stage for these slaughtermen to be included They are only working men, and, like all other working men, they want to secure their widows against the troubles and trials of widowhood, and they have made representations that they should be included
  986
  in the Bill. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary who is now in charge of the Bill to grant this concession in order that he may earn from the back benches an expression of thanks which will be far more valuable than one from the Front Bench. He will probably never have another chance of getting such testimony. But, speaking seriously, the men for whom I plead are faced with a great problem. They are outside the National Health Insurance Act, they are not included even under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and now they are to be excluded from this scheme, although their case differs in no way from that of dock labourers. There is nothing to baffle the ingenuity of the Department in dealing with this problem, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to include them in the Bill.
  Mr. HARRISON: I wish to point out that as this Clause now stands many thousands of share fishermen will not benefit by this Bill. In some cases their position is even more serious than that of the men of whom the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke just now. In some cases the share fishermen will have to pay employer's contributions in respect of the engine-room men and the cook of the vessel. If the vessel and crew are lost, the widows and families of the engine-room men and the cook will benefit, whereas the wives and families of the share fishermen will not benefit. I hope in those explorations which the Minister says he is going to make into the question of voluntary contributors, he will bear in mind the cases of the thousands of in-shore and share fishermen.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: On behalf of a large number of employed persons who will not come under this Bill, I wish to say one or two words. There is one class of workers which has not been mentioned, and would not have been raised except for a certain letter which has been addressed to hon. Members—I refer to ex-Government workers. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has seen the circular issued by this class. I hope the Government is not going to allow this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to be their excuse for neglecting other systems of superannuation to their employés. There is a large class known as ex-Government workers who were dismissed from Govern-

  987
  ment employment owing to the reduction of staffs who are almost the most necessitous of all classes now because they have not got even their little businesses. I want to know if the hon. Member has any plans in mind for dealing with ex-Government workers?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would like to have a Parliamentary statement on one point. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised the subject of the deposit contributors, and I still have a certain amount of anxiety on that point. The position is that the provision by which a man is not entitled to his old age pension at 65 unless he has been insured for the previous five years by itself would throw hundreds of thousands of men out of insurance. The answer has been that the Prolongation of Insurance Act enables the approved societies to keep these men in insurance and enables them to obtain the old age pension at 65. That Act deals with members of approved societies alone, and it is not applicable to deposit contributors. The answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave was that the rights of deposit contributors would be guaranteed by certain Regulations which either had been issued or would be issued. I am not satisfied that the rights of this large class should depend merely upon Regulations issued at the discretion of a Government Department. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether on behalf of the Government he could not say that the Government will put down a Clause of their own safeguarding the rights of deposit contributors by Statute.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am glad that this matter of the deposit contributors has been raised. It certainly will be necessary to meet the points which hon. Members have put in connection with the Insurance Act, to put forward a Clause probably on the Report stage in another place in order that it should not rest only on Regulations, but that there should be an enabling Clause in the Bill itself. We gladly accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in that connection, and at the appropriate time we hope to be able to put down a Clause which will leave no question at all as to the actual position. We will also take into account the representations which
  988
  have been made on behalf of the slaughtermen, the share fishermen and the ex-Government workers. I have endeavoured to indicate our difficulties, and I assure the Committee that there has been no lack of willingness or any lack of anxiety to bring as many people into the scheme as possible to obtain the very many undoubted benefits which accrue from joining. The difficulty has been to devise a scheme which would be actuarially sound, and would not adversely affect other contributors. If any hon. Member desires now or afterwards to put forward any scheme that will meet the situation I will undertake to give it the most careful and sympathetic consideration. It is only because of the manifest difficulties which arise directly you allow some to come in and others to stay out that you adversely affect the finance of the Bill. I undertake that the Government will do their best to meet the situation and endeavour to devise a practical scheme. I hope with that assurance the Committee will now be able to adopt this Clause.
  Mr. MacDONALD: I have no objection to the adoption of this Clause, but I would like to say that I hope the Clause which has been promised relating to deposit contributors will be brought in during the Report stage instead of being inserted in another place. The Parliamentary Secretary knows how difficult it is to discuss Lords Amendments, and a Clause of this importance ought not to be put before us under those disadvantageous circumstances.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: May I take it that the invitation which the Parliamentary Secretary extended to the Committee to suggest schemes for the inclusion of those classes which have been left out would mean that he would consider the inclusion of class by class. Suppose, for example, a practical scheme was prepared applying to costers, would he be prepared to consider such a scheme apart from other classes?
  Sir K. WOOD: We shall be glad to consider any scheme, but I do not think we ought to differentiate between class and class. For the case which has been suggested I see little prospect of devising a practical scheme, but any practical suggestions we shall gladly welcome. I am sure, however, that the hon. and

  989
  gallant Member who has made this suggestion would be the first to say we ought not to make any differentiation between class and class. We have tried to devise some scheme by which all these classes should come in, but the difficulties on the actuarial side have been very great. I may say that anything which the hon. and gallant Member can suggest of a practical nature will receive our careful attention.
  CLAUSE 14 (Exempt persons).
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, line 25, to leave out from the first word "person" to the word "be" in line 32, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "then for such of the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed such contributions shall."
  This is merely a drafting Amendment, and its object is to make it quite clear that contributions paid in respect of an exempt person before the commencement of this Act under the National Insurance Act, and the period in respect of which they were paid should count as contribution for deciding whether the statutory conditions have been satisfied. I think that makes the object of the Clause plainer, and with those few words of explanation I beg to move.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words "weeks since the date of the entry of that person into insurance," and to insert instead thereof the words
  "any period during which that person was an exempt person or entitled to medical benefit shall be treated as a period of insurance."
  This is the rest of the same Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 12, lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words "with such modifications as may be prescribed."
  I move this Amendment in order to get some explanation from the hon. Member who has been in charge of this
  990
  Bill. This Bill is littered with such phrases as "with such modifications as may be prescribed." Although many people accuse Members on this side of running riot towards bureaucracy, it would seem that in this Bill there is a very large amount of uncontrolled power being left to the Minister to determine in practice the conditions under which this Bill is to work. The particular Clause which we are now considering reads:
  "Where an exempt person by whom a certificate of exemption is surrendered is at the date of the surrender of the age of 45 or upwards, the provisions of this Act relating to Old Age Pensions thereunder shall apply in the case of that person with such modifications as may be prescribed."
  Presumably these modifications are to be prescribed by the Minister, and we have put down this Amendment to make quite sure that the Department or the Minister is going to prescribe conditions and modifications which are reasonable. We would desire to be assured that the Minister is not, behind the back of this House so to speak, working this Bill by a series of administrative regulations of which this House has no knowledge. I move this Amendment in the hope that we shall get a fuller and more satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Sir K. WOOD: I quite recognise the course the hon. Gentleman has taken, because these words always call for question, but I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that they are necessary. He will see there that provision is made in the Clause generally to bring exempt persons within the provisions of this Bill. As he knows the exempt, as a. rule, are people who have some means of their own, and further it is some concession at any rate to bring them within the provisions of this Clause. All we desire to do by our regulations is, if at a very late date, after 45 years or upwards, some exempt persons come forward and surrender their certificates and by that means are able to claim the full provisions of the Bill, that in order to prevent abuse by people surrendering their certificates at the age of 60 by which we should not get a sufficient number of contributions, we should be able, if the necessity arose, to prescribe some conditions by which they should be regulated. We have not set them out in the Bill

  991
  because the event may not arise, and because it may be that no undue advantage will be taken of its provisions. If we get a flood of people coming in at a very late age then, I think the hon. Member will agree, in order to protect the finances of the Bill it may be necessary to take some steps to safeguard the funds. The event may not arise, and if we take that power in fairness to the other contributors to the scheme we could at any rate have the power to say that such late surrender must be in accordance with certain Regulations we may lay down. It is only on that account, in the event of such an event happening, and it is really in fairness to the other contributors to the scheme.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: If it be merely a question as to the possible surrender of certificates by people of 60, cannot the Government put an age limit on? Is it only intended to prescribe modifications in respect of age, and, if so, at what age? If an age is determined, why does not the Government put it in the Bill? Surely, that would have been much simpler than to have left this House suspicious of the bureaucratic powers of the Department.
  Sir K. WOOD: We do not want to do that. My hon. Friend has been in the Department and he saw very little of bureaucratic powers there. I know my hon. Friend will be one of the first to agree that we shall not take an undue advantage of this Clause.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: May I take it that this Clause deals with purely hypothetical circumstances that are only likely to arise in very rare instances? Is it not a fact that there may be a considerable number, small, relatively, to the total number of persons, but who absolutely at the age of 45 or upwards will surrender their certificates of exemption, and, if that be so, it is surely a matter of business and a matter of sound finance to have made provision for it in the Bill rather than have to wait until necessity arose to prescribe conditions of which this House will have no knowledge?
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not think so. It is only in respect of these people who surrender at the age of 45 or upwards. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is
  992
  impossible in a Bill of this kind to make provisions for every possible contingency. The House will have an opportunity of discussing any regulation that may be made, in order to see that we do not take undue advantage of a very small group of people. It is only with a view to safeguarding the funds that we make the suggestion.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from the point can he tell us whether these regulations will be laid upon the Table of the House in the ordinary manner as the regulations under the Health Insurance Act are laid?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.
  Amendment negatived.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 5. at the end, to add the words
  "Provided that if at the date of so becoming a voluntary contributor such person is of the age of forty-five or upwards, the provisions of this Act relating to old age pensions thereunder shall apply in the case of that person with such modifications as may be prescribed."
  The object of this provision is merely to ensure that voluntary contributors may be treated in exactly the same way as the compulsory ones.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Mr. C. W. Crook) and other hon. Members, at the end of the Clause to add the words
  "This Act shall nor, apply to any person who is employed in England or Wales—

  (a) as a teacher in recognised, or contributory, service within the meaning of the School Teachers Superannuation Acts, 1918 to 1925: or

  (b) as a teacher in re-corded service within the meaning of The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898; or

  (c) as a pupil or student teacher in a public elementary school; or

  (d) as a teacher in a public elementary school at any time after the person employed has undergone an examination in. order to qualify for the position of a certificated teacher in such a school and before the announcement of the result of the examination; or

  (e) as a teacher of any class which may be specified in a special order made after consultation with the Board of Education as being a class in the case of which the conditions of employment

  993
  are similar to the conditions of employment prevailing in the case of teachers falling within the foregoing exceptions relating to teachers,"

  would come more properly as an Amendment to the next Clause, Clause 15. The following two Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto), at the end of the Clause to add a new Sub-section:
  "(6) The widow of every person who has been engaged in any Civil Service employment for a period of not less than fifteen years, and who died before the commencement of this Act or who dies within two years after the commencement of the Act. shall be entitled to the widow's pension provided by Section one of this Act as if her husband had been a person who had complied with the statutory conditions of the Act, provided that the terms of his employment did not include the provision of a pension for his widow, and the rate of his remuneration at the time of his death or retirement from the service did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum,"
  and at the end of the Clause to add the words:
  "This Act shall not apply to any person engaged in clerical work under any banking or other corporation or company where the average salary of the clerical staff of the corporation or company paid to persons of forty years of age exceeds two hundred and fifty pounds per annum,"
  should come as new Clauses.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 15.—(Persons employed in excepted employments.)
  Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 13, line 9, to leave out from the word "employment" to the end of line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "to which paragraph (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section nine of this Act applies."
  The Committee will remember that we accepted an Amendment, moved, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), which provided that the Minister of Health might give certificates in respect of people who were employed in excepted employments. Under the National Insurance Act, certain certificates were given by the Minister, and to-day we have added a Clause to the Bill by which he can give other certificates. This is a drafting Amendment to permit certificates which have been given by the Minister to be made applicable to this Clause also. It is in order to keep the Bill in conformity with the Amendment which we passed this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how this will affect the Amendments which follow, proposing to leave out "(d), (e), (g) or (h)"?
  Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid there will have to be some saving here, if the hon. Members in whose names those Amendments stand intend to move them.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to '(d)' in line 12, stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Question proposed, "That the words '(d), (e), (g) or (h) of that Part of that Schedule' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. MacDONALD: Could the Government give us some guidance in this matter? Does not the manuscript Amendment, which was moved at the commencement of our proceedings to-day, run contrary to this Sub-section? I suspect that it does.
  Sir K. WOOD: The manuscript Amendment that was moved to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman doubtless followed, exempted teachers from the Bill altogether, and, therefore, it affects a number of the Amendments on the Paper, which were designed to meet that particular matter. There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) to insert at the end of Sub-section (2) the words
  "Provided that no contributions shall in any event be payable by those whose conditions of employment as civil servants, teachers, or otherwise, involve the loss of employment on marriage."
  It is right that I should point out to the Committee that the manuscript Amendment, which had the approval, I think, of Members in all parts of the Committee, dealt with the question of teachers only, and, therefore, if any hon. Member desires to raise the position of other persons, it will be open to him to do so. All that the manuscript Amendment did was to exempt teachers.
  Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask now, Mr. Hope, for some guidance from you? If you will call the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, it will be observed that it applies only to those persons in the various categories named who lose their employment on marriage. Therefore, I assume that, so far as teachers are concerned, it is out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so, but still, part of that Amendment will be in order.
  Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or within the prescribed period before."
  This is consequential on the new proviso that was added to Clause 13. It enables the excepted person to count, towards the period of JO years' insurance, the period of excepted employment immediately preceding the commencement of the Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 14, line 8, after the word "is," insert the word "was."
  In line 9, leave out from the word "then" to the word "contributions" in line 13, and insert instead thereof the words
  "for such of the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, to leave out the words "other than a married woman."
  The object of this Amendment, and a later one on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, is to put the person who ceases or has ceased to be employed in excepted employment in the same position as the person who ceases or has ceased to be an exempted person.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 21, leave out from the word "applies" to the word "he" in line 35. and insert instead thereof the words
  "not being a married woman or a person in respect of whom no contributions under this Act were, or would had he continued to be so employed sifter the commencement of this Act have been, payable whilst he was so employed, ceases or has before the commencement of this Act ceased to be so employed."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, to leave out Subsection (6).
  I move this for the purpose of obtaining an explanation in plain English of
  996
  what exactly the Sub-section means. I will read it to the Committee:
  Where a person is employed in an employment which is an excepted employment by virtue of paragraph (k) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act (which relates to employment otherwise than by way of manual labour and at a rate of remuneration exceeding in value two hundred and fifty pounds a year), he shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as employed in an employment which is an excepted employment by virtue of that paragraph and not in an employment which is an excepted employment by virtue of any other paragraph, or a certificate given under any other paragraph, of the same Part of the same Schedule, notwithstanding that the employment in which he is engaged is an employment which is an excepted employment also by virtue of such other paragraph or certificate, and his employment shall not be deemed to be an excepted employment to which this Section applies."
  I have a feeling in my mind that this is a protection for the beneficiaries under the Act, but the wording is so obscure that I feel quite sure Members of the House, and much more, members of the public outside, will fail to appreciate what its true inwardness is. I move in the hope that we shall obtain a simple and straightforward explanation.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not surprised that this explanation has been asked for. I agree that it is a little difficult to follow the meaning or effect of the Sub-section. The object of it really is this. There are people who are excepted from the Act by reason of the fact that they are employed at more than £200 a year and not by way of manual labour. There are same people who might also be excepted for some other reason, for instance, that they are employed by a local authority or something of that kind. Therefore you would get people who come under two different categories. What are you to do with those people? We want to make it clear that if they are above £250 a year they are outside the Act altogether, and the effect of this will be that if you get someone who is employed, let us say, by a local authority at a salary of £240 a year he would come within the Clause, because he is an excepted person by virtue of paragraph (k). If he were employed at more than £250 by a local authority he is outside this, because paragraph (k) applies to him, and that would be the ruling paragraph. It is in order to make that clear that this somewhat complicated language is used, but I think the effect of it is

  997
  reasonable and what the Committee would desire.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, after the word "shall," to insert the words
  "if the rate of remuneration does not exceed in value Three hundred and fifty pounds a year, be deemed to be insured."
  This Amendment raises a very important issue. When the National Insurance Act came into force it was laid down that any workman who followed an occupation by way of manual labour was compelled to be insured irrespective of the amount of his wages, and if he earned £5, or £10, or any number of pounds per week, if he followed an occupation by way of manual labour he was compulsorily insured. But, strange to say, if he was a clerk or shop assistant or was not following an occupation by way of manual labour he was not compulsorily insured if his income exceeded the rate of £160 per annum. The War came along and disturbed the values of wages and altered the standard of life, and an Act was passed later, which provided that no person whose income exceeded £250 per annum was entitled, if a non-manual worker, to be included in the scheme. That rate is £4 16s. 3d. per week, and the point we desire to make is that it is not fair to the non-manual worker to say that he shall fall out of the National Insurance scheme simply because his wage exceeds £4 16s. 2d. a week. That is not an excessive remuneration. Many of these people and their wives and children are as much entitled to this social insurance scheme as if they were manual workers in receipt of £7 or £8 a week. The idea has crept into the whole scheme that a man is above want simply because his income is beyond the rate of £250 and that he should not be entitled to sickness, disablement, maternity or medical benefit under a State scheme. We want to declare that that sum is too low by far, and we would like the opportunity taken to alter it and make it £350 per annum. I do not know how many such persons there are who were once compulsorily insured under the National Insurance Act, and have fallen out because their income exceeds £4 16s. 2d. I cannot understand anyone on that side of the House regarding £250
  998
  as a very large sum of money for the father of a family.
  The right hon. Gentleman will probably say this is not an opportune time to alter the law, and that this Bill docs not deal with the fundamental issue, but he has taken the opportunity of altering many points in connection with national insurance. He has altered many substantial points in connection with National Health Insurance. The time has arrived when the thousands of people who are compelled yearly to fall out of the scheme because of this narrow income limit ought to be removed from that stage, and included within the limit which I have suggested in this Amendment.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has already anticipated my reply. This Bill is interlocked with the National Health Insurance Act, in which Act the limit is £250. He seeks, for the purpose of this Bill only, to increase the amount to £350. That is a fundamental alteration in the law of National Health Insurance as well as pensions. My reply is that an alteration of that kind, going to the fundamental principles of insurance, is not a matter that we can deal with in this Bill. I agree that there is a. good deal to be said for the hon. Member's point of view. It has been represented to me on many occasions that the amount ought to be increased in order that people above the existing income limit may have the advantage both of National Health Insurance and of this Bill. That is not a matter which we can deal with on this Bill, and I hope the hon. Member having made his point, will not see fit to press the Amendment further.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to express disappointment at the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary. Could he not insert the provision increasing the limit to £350 in this Bill, and bring in another Bill next year amending the National Insurance Act? That is the easiest way out of the difficulty. He could get half the work done now and leave the other half for next year.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 260.

  Division No. 266.]

  AYES.

  [9.59 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hurdle, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)

  Harney, E. A.

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hayes, John Henry

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Snell, Harry

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford. T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Compton, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thurtle, E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  March, S.

  Warne, G. H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dennison, R.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Morris, R. H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Glbbins, Joseph

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Gillett, George M.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Groves, T.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Barnes.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Albary, Irving James

  Campbell, E. T.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fleming, D. P.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Christie, J. A.

  Forrest, W.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fraser, Captain, Ian

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Gates, Percy

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Couper, J. B.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Berry, Sir George

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bethell, A.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Goff, Sir Park

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Grace, John

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Grant, J. A.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Brass, Captain W.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Guinness Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hanbury, C.

  Brown. Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Harland, A.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Drews, C.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Burman, J. B.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  England, Colonel A.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  1000

  1001

  Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxfd, Henley)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D, Mol. (Renfrew, W.)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hilton, Cecil

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir S. J. G.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Storry Deans, R.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Neville, R. J.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Oakley, T.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Tinne, J. A.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Perring, William George

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Pete, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Preston, William

  Wells, S. R.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Rains, W.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Remer, J. R.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Looker, Herbert William

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Lougher, L.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Rye, F. G.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Lord Stanley and Captain

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Margesson.

  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move in line 15, page 15, after the word "employment," to insert the words "to which this Section applies."
  This Amendment and the two following Amendments substantially modify the Clause in the Bill, which is designed to provide for particular cases of persons who have been in excepted employment, or have been exempted themselves, who have retired on superannuation allowance and taken up thereafter insurable employment. If hon. Members will look at the Sub-section they will find that it divides itself into two paragraphs dealing with two classes of cases. Paragraph (a) is designed to deal with the case of the policeman who has had everything provided for him that will be provided under this Bill. If that ex-policeman, having retired from police employment, and having the benefit accrued to him from his superannuation allowance,
  1002
  including provision for widows and children, takes up insurable employment, he is out of the Bill. He pays no contributions, because he has already rights in respect of his own employment, which are equivalent to those of the Bill, but the amended paragraph provides that contributions shall be payable by his employer, because it is necessary that that man shall not enter employment at an advantage compared with other people in respect of whom similar contributions have to be paid.
  The second paragraph deals with cases like those in which there is the pensioned official of a local authority. This pensioned official was a pensioned official for widows' and orphans' pensions, or, at any rate, would have been so if his remuneration had not been altered. When he takes up insurable employment it will be on another rate of contribution, but he will be entitled to modified grants of old age pension

  1003
  because he has not paid contributions in respect of old age pensions. Therefore, we feel that we cannot give him fully the old age pension, but we will give him a modified right which is to be prescribed in Regulations, which are afterwards to be laid before the House. That is the substance of the Amendment, and I hope that they may be agreed to.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: In page 15, line 38, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "the provisions of this Act relating to old age pensions payable thereunder, or by virtue thereof, shall apply in the case of that person in such circumstances only, and subject to such modifications as may be prescribed."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. B. PETO: I quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's explanation in regard to his Amendment. It appears to be conclusive with regard to the widows of police officers who are fully covered at the present time. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that while those whose widows who are provided for should be left out of the Bill, it is equally clear that the widows of those police officers who retired before September, 1918, for whom no provision whatever is made, should be allowed to come under the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the converse of his proposition is as true as the proposition which is put before the Committee.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: Am I correct in assuming that the regulations governing these modifications will be given to the insured person beforehand, under the wording of the Amendment, so that the payment will be made in the ordinary way and that when the man comes to claim the pension he will not find that he is debarred from receiving the pension because of something else? What I want to ensure is that the regulations will be issued in such a way that every one of these people shall know exactly where he stands.
  Major HORE - BELISHA: I support what the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) has said. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to make some statement as regards the widows of
  1004
  policemen, because to-day these widows draw pensions, and a- police officer to-day draws a very much higher rate of pay than formerly, whereas the widows of policemen who retired before 1918 get absolutely nothing.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), the regulations will be drawn up and published and laid before the House, so that there will be no doubt about the matter. I am not certain that I apprehend the point that has been put by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, but there is a proviso, as he will see, which makes an exception to the general rule laid down in the first category of cases, which so that persons who have retired already on superannuation and have taken up insurance employment before the commencement of the Act will continue to remain on as fully insured persons with modified rights to an old age pension.
  Mr. PETO: That is the point as far as those who are able to enter into insurable employment are concerned. Many of these people are old people, and their widows are old women, and they have no provision whatever made for them. If the husband, after he has left the police force, and re hypothesi, before September, 1918, has left on superannuation, his widow does not get a farthing.
  Amendment agreed to
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 15, line 40. at the end, insert the words,
  "Provided that where a person to whom paragraph (a) would apply is a person who at the commencement of this Act was an insured or exempt person, he shall be treated as if he were a person to whom paragraph (a) did not, but paragraph (b) did, apply.
  "Where a person has been employed in an employment which would have been an excepted employment to which this Section applies had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded two hundred and fifty pounds a year this Section shall apply to him in manner provided in the Schedule of this Act."
  In page 16, line 12, leave out the word "this," and insert the words "the Insurance."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 16.—(Application of Act to persons in service of Crown.)
  Major HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 16, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (3).
  Briefly, the intention of the Amendment is to make the pensions scheme non-contributory, as far as the lower deck ratings in the Navy and soldiers and airmen are concerned. I am sure that, with their well-known and almost atavistic sympathies with the fighting Services, the Government will have no difficulty in accepting this Amendment. The grounds upon which I advance it are these: I have just looked at the Navy List, and I find that there are, roughly speaking, 100,000 men in the Navy, and only 5,000 officers. The widows of those 5,000 officers would receive £57,000 per annum in pensions, and the widows of the men would receive only £13,000. In other words, although there are 20 times more men than officers, the officers receive 4½ times more pension than the men, in prefect of their widows. There can be no possible cause whatever for this differentiation. If you give to the widow of an officer in the Navy, Army or Air Force a pension for which the officer has not contributed, you have no right to exact from the naval rating or from the soldier or airman, a contribution in respect of exactly the same right, and a light which is far less lucrative than in the case of the officer. It has been demanded for many years in the Royal Navy that the widows of naval ratings should receive pensions.
  You get disasters in the Royal Navy. You had one the other day, when men were returning from leave, and because they were not engaged immediately in a duty which caused their death they were deprived of pensions altogether. They have to fall within the ambit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and they have to be killed in an affair which is directly related to their duty before they can get any pensions for their widows at all. On the other hand, the officer, who pays no contribution whatever, receives from the Admiralty a pension at a high rate. I submit if we have any regard for logic and fairness we should put the naval rating on exactly the same basis as the officer. The widows of naval ratings are, often left in a very severe plight. They are left destitute
  1006
  and cast upon charity although the deaths of their bread winners have been caused by circumstances which in no sense differ from the circumstances in which the officer may die. An officer and a man may be killed in exactly the same mishap; the widow of the officer will get a pension while the widow of the man gets nothing. I know an officer's widow cannot demand a pension as of right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but it depends entirely on her circumstances. If the widow of an officer is in bad circumstances, then she can get a pension and in practically all such cases she does. I do not think there is any instance in which the widow of an officer has been refused a pension when she has been left in circumstances of destitution. The widow of a naval rating is almost always left in circumstances of destitution. I feel certain the Government will regard this case with sympathy, and knowing as I do their wish to do justice as between officers and men, I submit this Amendment in the confidence that it will be accepted.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member has made a very forcible appeal to the Committee, but he has raised the question which is not appropriate to this particular Bill. He has suggested that there is some differentiation—with which he is probably better acquainted than I am—between different classes of men who serve in the forces.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Officers and men.
  Sir K. WOOD: The discussion of this Hill is not the occasion to put these matters right if they require to be put right. All we have to see to here is that the appropriate contributions are made by the Admiralty and the men themselves.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: But not by the officers.
  Sir K. WOOD: All we are stating here is that the same contribution should be made by men engaged in these services as are made by other sections of the population. I know that the hon. and gallant Member would like to put all these matters right but we cannot deal with them here. So far as widows' pensions are concerned this is not an unfair provision, and it is appropriate to the Bill as a whole. I know the hon. and gallant

  1007
  Member has many times raised these questions in the House, and I am not surprised that he should have raised them now, but in regard to this Bill we must in fairness to everybody concerned, especially the contributors, have some payments in respect of all classes who contribute on the same terms and receive the same benefits. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member, having put the case in such forcible terms, will not press his Amendment any further.
  Mr. HARNEY: I could not miss the opportunity of taking my stand beside my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Major Horen-Belisha) in accentuating the fact that the Services are not the monopoly of those on the other side of the Committee. It is delightful to feel that for once I am raising the standard of doing what is right for the Navy. The only difference between the hon. Members on this side and those on the other side is that when they do a good thing they are thinking of the officers, and when we do a good thing we are thinking of the men. I rather agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the Amendment is not perhaps quite logically appropriate, but this is an occasion for removing an anomaly. Judging from what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, it would appear that a naval officer may die comfortably in his bed and, if he leaves his widow destitute, she can claim sustenance from the State, but the poor man who serves under him, before he can make any claim at all either to the mercy or the justice of the State, has to die a violent death on the battlefield or by some accident in the course of his occupation. That is an anomaly that ought to be removed. The Under-Secretary said it was not appropriate to this Bill. It is not logically so, I agree, but this Bill deals with the giving of benefits in return for contributions. There are some persons who are asked for less contributions than others, those in the exception Clauses and those in the exemption Clauses, and what the hon. and gallant Member asks is that the subordinates in the Navy should form a third class and should get the benefits without any contributions at all, and if they do so it will bring about this very desirable result, that we, at all events, on the Liberal side will have voiced the
  1008
  universal sentiment that those who fight and die for their country should receive the benefits which it has to give without giving further contributions than the risks they run when they incur the chances of death or accident on the battlefield. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
  Colonel APPLIN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is bringing into this Clause the workers in the small arms factory at Enfield. They at present are without pension, and I should like to know if they come under this Clause at all. At the present moment they are working for the Government in very much the same position as the men in the Army and Navy, with this exception, that they are not entitled under the present Regulations to any pension at all, although in 1870 these workers were entitled to and did actually get pensions.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question comes under this Amendment.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I think that if there is any class which can establish a claim to have its contributions paid by the State, it is the soldier, the naval man and the aircraftsman. I have just put my hand on the Royal Warrant for pay, and I see some of the stoppages to which the paltry pay of the private soldier is already liable. He may be liable to stoppage for a. marriage allowance of 2s. a day; for mess and washing, 5½d, a day; and if be loses his medal, he is liable—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: May I submit that on this Amendment; a good reason why the State should pay these contributions, is that a private soldier is not in a position to pay, as I hope to show if you will allow me to continue my argument.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has nothing to do with a private soldier's pension in the Army.
  Captain FOXCROFT: I should like to congratulate the hon. Members opposite on the new-found keenness of the Liberal party for the Navy, but I think we must agree that, if anomalies are to be cor-

  1009
  rected, they should be corrected, not under this Bill, but by the Admiralty.
  Mr. BROAD: I want to support this Amendment, and in so doing to point out that the arguments of the Government amount to this, that it is a case always of jam yesterday or jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. We are, by this Clause, imposing charges on the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates and the Navy Estimates, and we are also altering the conditions of service in the pay of the men, by imposing this charge on them. Let the Government be a model employer, and pay the whole of this contribution on behalf of the men on the lower deck and in the ranks of the Army and Air Force, and then it is possible that some good employers may follow such a worthy example, and also pay the whole. I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment, because I am sure in some of these ranks the men are not too well paid at present, and I hope to see in future such pay as will enable them to marry and keep a decent home, because there is quite enough demoralising effect in barrack life without keeping these men single to such a late period of life, and I am sure the deduction of this money from their small pay will be another deterrent to their getting married.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Did I correctly understand you, Captain FitzRoy, to rule that I was not in Order in quoting the stoppages from a soldier's pay as a reason why the Government should pay the contributions under this Bill?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to discuss this question on this particular Amendment. If he wants to raise the question of stoppages from the pay of soldiers and sailors, he should do so under the Army and Navy Estimates.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: With all respect to your ruling, I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the stoppages made under the Royal Warrant. I was hoping seriously to show, and I think I can show, that a soldier's pay is not able to stand any further drafts made upon it and if you allow me to go on for a few minutes I think I shall show myself to be in Order.
  Mr. THURTLE: I should not have risen to take part in the Debate had it
  1010
  not been for the very moving appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Devon-port (Major Hore-Belisha) in favour of equality for officers and men. I am a passionate believer in equality, and I could not resist the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend in that regard. I discover, in looking up the Navy Estimates, that this equality which exists between officers and men is indeed most marked.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whether it is marked or not, it does not come under this scheme. That question should be discussed on the Army or the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. THURTLE: I find, at any rate, that the other ranks and the ratings of the Navy really do not receive sufficient pay to enable them to bear this fresh impost, and on that ground I would like to urge that the Government, with its well-known zeal for the. men of the Service, their desire to do everything possible for their benefit and comfort, should consider seriously whether or not they can accept this Amendment. We on this side are perfectly entitled to press this point as strongly as we possibly can. We sought to make this whole scheme non-contributory. We failed in our effort to do that, but if we can make one slight breach in the contributory system, it will be something, and we hope to be able to lead the whole of the embattled hosts on the other side with us in making this breach in the contributory system, because we cannot believe that they who are so zealous for the well-being of the services, the men of the Army and Navy, will be deaf to the justice of this particular appeal, and not support us on this occasion. If hon. Members cannot bring sufficient moral pressure to beat upon their Front Bench to get them to give way, I hope they will exert a more effective pressure in the Division Lobby.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: We on this side draw no distinction between the officer or the man either in the Army or the Navy. In the last Parliament the word "eyewash'' was ruled rot to be Parliamentary, but this afternoon it was accepted by Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that may account for some of the things we have heard from both sides. So far as I know the Army, in which I had the honour to serve, and also the Navy—and

  1011
  I represent the headquarters of the Fleet-I do not for a moment believe that either the Army or the Navy desire any charity on the part of the Government. I have had something to do, in fact a good deal, with the contributory scheme which was suggested before this Bill was brought in, and the men of the Navy were perfectly willing and ready to subscribe for their own insurance and advantage. I am absolutely persuaded that the men of the Navy and the Army do not desire charity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite interrupts me. I did not interrupt him. As between officers and men it is perfectly true that if an officer has a very small income, and he leaves his wife destitute, the Admiralty "may" give her a pension, they may, but she must have a very small income herself. I know many instances of officers who died, and who were receiving a £50 pension—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I desire, Captain FitzRoy, not to pursue my previous argument, having regard to your ruling, but I desire to point out that under the Royal Warrant at present in force it is possible for the whole of the soldier's pay to be deducted to within a penny per week. May I quote in support of that the Royal Warrant which says that the pay and other emoluments of the soldier, after meeting the actual expenses of messing and washing, are liable to meet any other charges that fall properly to be met, provided that one penny shall be lift to the soldier. Supposing, however, it happens that a soldier's pay is completely stopped for three or four weeks and there is no money left for this contribution] Is it not desirable to put in some safeguarding Clause to ensure any benefit should continue and not be endangered? Some provision ought to be made, to meet that contingency.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 257: Noes, 112.

  Division No. 267.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cadogen, Major Hon. Edward

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Albery, Irving James

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Forrest, W.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Christie, J. A.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Astor, Viscountess

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Clayton. G. C.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gates, Percy

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Gauit Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Banks, Reginald Mitchen

  Couper, J. B.

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Goft, Sir Park

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Grace, John

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Crook, C. W.

  Grant, J. A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bethell, A.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Rayton)

  Hanbury, C.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Harland, A.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Dixey, A. C.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Brocklebank, C. E. H.

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Hartington. Marquess of

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Drewe, C.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'rd., Hexham)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Elveden, Viscount.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  England, Colonel A.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col, V. L. (Bootle)

  Burman, J. B.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Burney Lieut.-Com Charles D.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Morden, Cot. W. Grant

  Smithers, Waldron

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Neville, R. J.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Storry Deans, R.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Oakley, T.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Jacob, A. E.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Perring, William George

  Tinne, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Waddington, R.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Preston, William

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Raine, W.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Reiner, J. R.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wells, S. R.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Lougher, L.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Rye, F. G.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Macintyre, Ian

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Womersley, W. J.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Savery, S. S.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Captain Douglas Hacking and

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Major Cope.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Groves, T.

  Owen, Major G.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Guest, Or. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hardle, George D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Barnes, A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Barr, J.

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Riley, Ben

  Broad, F. A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bromley, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Scurr, John

  Connolly, M.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sexton, James

  Cove, W. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kennedy, T.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lowth, T.

  Slesser, sir Henry H.

  Dennison, R.

  Lunn, William

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Duncan, C.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Snell, Harry

  Dunnico, H.

  Mackinder, W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Gillett, George M.

  March, S.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Gosling, Harry

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Montague, Frederick

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Greenall, T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Greenwood. A (Nelson and Colne)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Thurtle, E.

  1014

  1015

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Westwood, J.

  Wright, W.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Whiteley, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Warne, G. H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Mr. Harney and Major Hore-

  Watts-Morgan, Lt:-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Wilson, R. J, (Jarrow)

  Belisha.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Windsor, Walter

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions as to seamen.)
  Mr. B. PETO: I Beg to move, in page 16, line 37, after the word "Trade," to insert the words "and organisations representing the masters and seamen."
  The Committee will observe that this Clause deals with special provisions as to seamen, and it commences by saying that the Minister after a consultation with the Board of Trade shall make a special Order modifying in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of this Act in their application to masters and seamen. I do not think it is asking much to ask that the Minister of Health, as well as consulting the Board of Trade before he makes such alterations in this Act as he sees fit, should at least consult some of the organisations who represent the masters and seamen in the Merchant Service. I am told that it will be difficult for the Minister if I move this Amendment in exactly the words on the Paper because there are several different organisations representing masters and seamen, and the Minister might not know which organisation to consult. I am quite ready to meet that objection by omitting the word "the" and leave it to the Minister to consult organisations really representing masters and seamen. Every member of the Committee probably knows what those organisations are, and I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite know well enough what organisations really represent the seamen. Therefore it is quite easy for the Minister to agree with this Amendment, and I think he ought to. I can go further. The Amendment is so obvious, and if the Minister cannot see his way to agree with it I shall be compelled to go to a Division.
  Sir K. WOOD: I may at once assure my hon. Friend that in all these cases which arise in connection with the Mercantile Marine the Minister and the Board of Trade take all adequate steps to ascertain the opinions of the masters and the men, and I feel some hesitation in
  1016
  accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment for one of the reasons he himself has mentioned. As this Amendment originally stood, it said "consultations with the organisations of masters and mew." As he knows, I think it would be most invidious for a Minister to have to consult every conceivable organisation, some big and some small, in this connection. My hon. Friend, in order to meet that point, leaves out the word "the" and makes it "consult organisations." That, of course, can leave it to the Minister. He may consult the principal one, or two of the principal ones, or not, as he thinks fit, and it really takes the matter very little further than at the present time. I must point out to my hon. Friend that, much as I would like to meet him, the masters and men are not the only people to be consulted in this connection. There would be the shipowners—
  Mr. B. PETO: I am informed the shipowners agree with my Amendment.
  Sir K. WOOD: The Amendment would have to include all classes, including the shipowners. I hope my hon. Friend will accept the assurance that we give in this connection that we shall consult the appropriate organisations, and not impose conditions that would be difficult to carry out in practice.
  Mr. PETO: I am sorry not to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Only to-day I was informed by these organisations that they feel rather keenly that they are not consulted on these matters, which are vital to the interests of the masters and men in the Mercantile Marine. Therefore, as I am informed that the shipowners see no possible objection, and as the shipowners are not insured persons under this Bill, I cannot see any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  Mr. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman seems to me to have got into a sort of intellectual "doldrums" in regard to this matter. There are not more than three or four of those organisations, and, therefore, there is no great difficulty in consulting them. It is not as if the

  1017
  number of organisations were very large. There would be no difficulty in consulting the very few organisations representing the seamen, the masters, the officers and the shipowners, and I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should object to accepting this Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not think that this is an Amendment upon which the Committee ought to spend time. My hon. Friend has assured the Committee that in this case, as in all cases, the Board of Trade will always consult all the people concerned. That has always been the practice in the past, and it will always be the practice in the future. Why, therefore, should be put into this Bill in this particular case an instruction that they are to consult a particular section of those who are interested, and not others? It seems to me that that would only cause confusion in future, because it would suggest that no one ought to be consulted except those who are particularly mentioned. I think the Board of Trade ought to be able to consult anybody and everybody who is interested in this question.
  Mr. THOMAS: It seems to me extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should get up and say, "I accept everything the hon. Gentleman asks, but please do not force me to say so." That is the sum total of the speech we have just heard. My hon. Friend said that he anticipated the objection of the Government Bench, and was prepared to meet it by deleting the word "the," in other words, that it would be left to the discretion of the Ministry to consult the proper organisations. That is the object of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Why all this bother? That we do now; that we are always prepared to do; that was always in our mind." Very well; then what is the objection to the Amendment? The real difference is that, while the light hon. Gentleman is there he will give effect to it; when we are transferred from here to there we will give effect to it; but we have to legislate for those foolish people who may not give effect to it. Therefore, if the Amendment be accepted, that will be provided for.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. HANNON: I desire to support the Amendment. Really, the Mercantile
  1018
  Marine of this country deserve more consideration than haw been manifest from the Government Bench this evening. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is a very reasonable one, and I do not see any reason whatever, if these organisations are to be consulted, why it should not be put in the Bill. There is only a small number. They have all been actually engaged in looking after the interests of the seamen for a long time. The shipowners are not an insured body, thank God! I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to accept the Amendment and dispose of the matter.
  Sir K. WOOD: In order to meet my hon. Friend I will, on the Report stage, endeavour to put in words after "the Board of Trade" in a form which he would desire providing that we will invite observations from such societies, associations, or trade unions as it may think fit.
  Mr. PETO: I cannot say I think the hon. Gentleman's words are either more appropriate or more direct than my simple words. If the Committee are generally satisfied I do not wish to waste time, but if the Committee are not satisfied I am prepared to go to a division.
  Mr. HARNEY: I am one of those who are not satisfied. The phrase suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary is in all respects the equivalent, except that it is not so good as the phrase in the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in the past it has been the habit to do the very thing the hon. Member asks should be put in the Bill. I should have thought that a practice which has been sanctified by usage would really exult in the glorification of having a statutory halo put round its head. There can be no objection whatever to putting, as a matter of strict statutory right, what has been found in the working of the Department to be necessary in order to carry out its duties effectively. I think the hon. Member ought to persist in his Amendment and not allow the words "think fit" to rob it of all its force. It force is that it shall be done by the decree of Parliament, and that it shall not be left to the discretion of the Minister.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 232.

  Division No, 268]

  AYES.

  [11.3 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Hartley, E. A.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Rose, Frank H.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hayes, John Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L, (Bootle)

  Scurr, John

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Broad, F. A.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bromley, J.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snell, Harry

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Connolly, M.

  Lawson, John James

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Duncan, C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dunnico, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Tinker, John Joseph

  England, Colonel A.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maxton, James

  Warne, G. H.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Waits Morgan. Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Morris, R. H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Naylor, T. E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams. David (Swansea, E.)

  Greenall, T.

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Windson, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Basil Peto and Mr. Sexton.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Albery, Irving James

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Fairfax, Captain J. C.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Fleming, O. P.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Forrest, W.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Christie, J. A.

  Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cooper. A. Duff

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Balniel, Lord

  Couper, J. B.

  Gates, Percy

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. sir George L.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Bethell, A.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Grace, John

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W, R., Skipton)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Greene. W. P. Crawford

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Brass Captain W.

  Davies, A, V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Hanbury, C.

  Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Drewe, C.

  Harland. A.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Burman, J. B.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel CM.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Ht. Hon. B. M.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Murchison, C. K.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Homan, C. W, J.

  Neville, B. J.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Hope, Sir Hairy (Forfar)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hopkins, J, W. W.

  Oakley, T.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Templeton, W. P.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)

  Perring, William George

  Waddington, R.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Philipson, Mabel

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L..(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Jacob. A. E.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Preston, William

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Raine, W.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Remer, J. R.

  Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wells, S. R.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R,

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Rye, F. G.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wilson, Sir C. H (Leeds, Central)

  Loder, J. do V.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Winterton, Ht. Hon. Earl

  Looker. Herbert William

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  tougher, L.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Womersley, W, J.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Savery, S. S.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Scott. Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  McLean, Major A.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Major Cope.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 16, line 42, to leave out from the word "provisions," to the end of the, Pub-section, and to insert instead I. here of the words
  "may, on the consent of the Minister of Labour, provide by such order that in the case of masters and seamen serving on foreign-going ships—

  (a) at the end of every voyage a schedule shall be prepared by the employer in a form to be prescribed by the Minister, after consultation with the Board of Trade, giving such information as shall sufficiently identify each contribution with the master or seaman on account of whom it has been paid. The said schedule shall be delivered by the employer to the Board of Trade superintendent in the presence of whom the wages for the voyage are to be paid before such payment commences;

  (b) the total value of the contributions payable by the master and seamen and the employer shall be paid through the employer to the Board of Trade superintendent and shall be paid by the superintendent as may be prescribed;

  1022

  (c) the schedule shall be forwarded by the Board of Trade superintendent to the clearing house hereinafter described;

  (d) a clearing house shall be established under the supervision and direction of the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Labour, at which the information contained in the said schedule shall be analysed and statements shall be prepared at prescribed intervals and forwarded therefrom to each approved society of which masters or seamen are members, showing the amounts and dates of contributions paid on account of its respective members:

  (e) the order -hall provide for the payment of the expense of the clearing house out of the contributions with which it deals or otherwise as may be prescribed.

  (2) In this Section the expression "foreign-going ships" includes ships engaged in regular trade on foreign stations, and fishing vessels proceeding to or beyond Rockhall, the Faroe Island, the White sea, and the coast of Portugal or Morocco.
  This Amendment is of substantial importance to seamen. I am glad that the

  1023
  Minister of Health has met one. of the two substantial points raised in this Amendment. I need therefore do no more than thank him for having done so. There is another point which we desire to impress upon him. National Health Insurance has never been that advantage to seamen which it ought to have been because of the administrative difficulties involved. The voyage card is not a treasured possession of the seaman, and it is unfortunately true, though large sums have been paid into the Health Insurance fund by seamen and shipowners, that those contributions have never really been used to pay benefits to seamen. For, with that carelessness that we often associate with seamen, these cards get lost or destroyed and discharge papers are useless as evidence, and it is unfortunately true that the Minister of Health is accumulating a fund at the expense of seamen's and shipowners' contributions.
  This Bill, if it is allowed to stand as it is at present drafted, will mean that seamen and shipowners will contribute additional funds in respect of widows' pensions, orphans' pensions and old age pensions, a great deal of which will simply swell the coffers of the fund of the Minister of Health, without accruing to the benefit of seamen. It seems opportune, therefore, to ask the Minister of Health whether in these circumstances he cannot see his way to simplify the administration so that seamen shall reap all the advantages that accrue under the law from their contributions. What is proposed is a simplification of the present method of administering insurance. I cannot speak for the shipowners, I speak rather for the organisations of seamen, hut I understand that the shipowners are prepared to be responsible for the collection of contributions and to submit to the Board of Trade a schedule of particulars. All that we are asking is that the Board of Trade should establish a clearing house, which should disburse to the various societies the funds that ought to stand to the credit of the particular seamen. If this were done, not only would seaman secure all the advantages that should be theirs by law under the National Health Insurance Act, but they would be able to enjoy to the full such advantages as are given under this Bill.
  The fact that this Amendment is supported from all quarters of the House
  1024
  should commend it to the Minister. I believe there can be no opposition to the proposal. It will do tardy justice to seamen. Unless something is done on these lines, I fear that seamen will be deprived of the rights and benefits given to them under this Bill. I move the Amendment in the hope that the Government, having met us half-way, will be good enough to come the rest of the way.
  Mr. LOUGHER: I am supporting this Amendment because I am convinced that it is sound. The card system by which the contributions are paid by merchant seamen under the present Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance Acts has broken down, or rather, it has proved to be very ineffective. It is recognised, that seafaring men should be treated differently from landsmen, and a different system of collecting cards is provided for collecting seamen's contributions. These seamen's contributions are made on what are called voyage cards. These cards represent the contributions for the voyage, whether it be one week or one year. They are distinct from the landsmen's cards which have to be stamped every week. The result of this is that when seamen are paid off, their cards are stamped and are given back to them. but, in the careless way in which seamen treat most things, instead of returning the cards to their approved society for registration, many of them keep the cards by them, and there are many cases of cards, covering several years, which have never been recorded, and, although the seamen have paid their contributions and are entitled to the benefits of the Act, yet they are deprived ox receiving any benefit because the cards are not recorded. It is proposed to adopt the same system in connection with the pensions scheme, and this Amendment is submitted in order to suggest a better system.
  The Amendment proposes to make the employer or owner responsible for the collection of the seaman's contribution and his own. He is to hand to the Board of Trade superintendent a list or schedule showing the contributions of each man and the schedule is to be sent to a clearing house where the return will be allocated among the various approved societies concerned. By this means every seaman will be automatically insured. There will be no risk such as now attaches to the non-return of cards, and if this procedure

  1025
  is adopted in connection with the present Bill, it can be adopted for the purposes of health and unemployment insurance as well. We desire to have the Amendment included in the Bill in order to establish the principle of the schedule system. As the last speaker explained the present system is ineffective and is doing a great injustice to a class of men whom we all admire. Our merchant service during a time of stress was the admiration not only of this country but of the world and these men should be protected in this matter of pensions as they are protected in other respects. We take measures for their safety on board ship and to see that they have proper accommodation and food on board ship. It is recognised by the authorities that they must be specially cared for, and we desire to see them specially cared for in the matter of pensions. For that reason I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing the Committee, in the first speech I have ventured to make in this assembly, on behalf of the merchant seamen, a body of men who are entitled to every consideration and who will, I am sure, receive every consideration from hon. Members.
  Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I feel sure the Committee will join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Lougher) on his maiden speech, because he has given in a short, sensible and pithy statement, the elements of the case and presented them clearly to us. It is a case which, I feel sure, commands the support and sympathy of the majority of the Committee. The Amendment raises a question of considerable social importance in connection with the administration of the Measure now under consideration. The seamen of the merchant marine, whom we all admire so much, have their faults— like Members of Parliament, possibly— and they require a great deal of looking after—also like Members of Parliament. It has been the principle of the Merchant Shipping Acts all through the last half century to take particular trouble to see that their wages are paid to them in conditions which ensure that they are paid those wages without unfair deductions and in circumstances which encourage them, so far as possible, to invest and, generally, to take care of the money which they get. This question of insurance really in that sense falls upon the same general plane and requires treatment in the same kind of way.
  1026
  Under the present system, which was adopted in order to meet the difficulties incident to the difference of length of voyage and so on that seamen had to make, was a system designed in order to make sure that their contributions would be recognised and have effect given to them by a system that would be successful. In practice, the system has failed. It is reckoned—Sir Norman Hill, giving evidence before the Royal Commission, dealt with the figures, speaking on behalf of the National Seamen's Approved Society—that something between a quarter and one-third of the contributions made by the seamen in our merchant marine fail, so to speak, to be recognised under the insurance system of the National Insurance Act, with the result that the men do not get the advantage of the contributions they make, and those who are entitled to benefit do not get the advantage of the contributions being actually paid into the Fund by those who ought to be contributing to it. I remember that in 1921 the Board of Trade admitted that, it had cards for seamen which had come in, but which could not be identified with the particular seamen contributing, to a total value of £50,000. If that was the value of the cards that had found their way to the approved society, and from the society ultimately to the Board of Trade, what was the value of the cards which had been unidentifiable or mislaid and never got returned at all] Something incomparably greater. If that is true of the present position, the card system has broken down as a piece of machinery.
  That is the essence of this case. The Amendment is designed to get over the difficulties that were incidental and inevitable in the system of cards. Cards went wrong because they were not made out with sufficient care by the master of the ship or by the agent of the shipowner, Christian names were omitted, names were illegible, they were not sent in by the men, identifying numbers were not attached, and for one reason or another—and "Jack" is always careless-cards have not succeeded. The proposal of the Amendment is that for the card system we shall have a different system, namely, that the employer shall be under obligation to send in to the Board of Trade superintendent a schedule containing1 a complete list of the crew, with a statement of all the contributions made

  1027
  by each man, and in that way enabling the approved society to have a complete list of the contributions in fact made. The machinery for carrying out that is a clearing house, as was stated by the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood). That system will enable analyses of the figures to be made, so that the approved societies will in the result know the actual total contributions received; there will be approximately no leakage in the arrival of contributions at their proper destination, for the future the seamen will get the full value of the contributions they make themselves, and all will get the value of the contributions made to the Fund by others.
  I, therefore, support the Amendment, but I would like to add one word. I understand that the system is one that is difficult to apply to this Bill unless it is applied concurrently to national health insurance also. It may be that the Government will say that they cannot deal with it piecemeal, and what I say upon that is that if the Government to-night say they cannot accept it for this Bill here and now, but will introdue the Amendment next year in a Bill dealing with national health insurance and this insurance at the same time, the Committee ought not to part with this Amendment without having it quite clear that that Bill will be introduced next year.
  Sir BEDDOE REES: I very much agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Lougher), but there is more in this system than the card system or the schedule system. As I understand, this Amendment takes out of the Bill another big section that would otherwise come under it. The Amendment seeks to leave out the non-domiciled seamen from the operation of the Bill, because it seeks to omit from the Bill the words dealing with the non-domiciled seamen. I am not quite sure that those words ought ever to have gone into the Bill. The non-domiciled seaman receives no benefit whatsoever under the Health Insurance Act, but the shipowners have continued to pay for the non-domiciled seaman, with the result that the shipowner is paying something like £100,000 a year more than other employers of labour are called upon to pay, but with this very important result. There has been built
  1028
  up a fund out of which aged seamen are paid a pension from 65 to 70 years of age, precisely the same as is now proposed for land workers under this. Bill. That has been going on, and. therefore, I see no reason now why the shipowner should continue to pay for the non-domiciled seaman as is proposed by the Bill as it is drawn. It take it that this Amendment would take out entirely the non-domiciled seaman, and, in so far as that is concerned, I think it would meet with the approval of the Committee.
  The only argument that can be used in favour of the non-domiciled seaman being brought in is the fear that the shipowner in this country might have a preference for the non-domiciled seaman if no contribution had to be, paid. That was a fear that was expressed when the Health Insurance Act was under discussion. We have had some years of experience, and I think it will be generally agreed that the number of foreigners employed— the non-domiciled men—is very much less that it was ten years ago. I think to-day it is only one-third of what it was 10 years ago, and I am sure I am speaking the opinion of the Committee when I say we want that third to go also, and have none but British sailors on British ships. They are getting very near to it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Lascars."] Lascars are Britishers, and I do not think you could ever get to the point at which no Lascars were employed, and I do not see why we should get to it. We should have serious trouble with India if we did any such thing. Anyhow, I do not think there is any incentive to the British shipowner to employ non-domiciled men merely because they may save money under this Bill. There is already a very good reason why the British shipowner does not like employing foreigners. The Aliens Act is a sufficient consideration to make that undesirable. I should like to read a statement made by Sir Norman Hill:
  "The Ministry of Health ascertained that in 1921 the total amount received in foreign-going contributions by all the Approved Societies was £101,987, and that the average rate actually paid in that year was 7"597d. per week. It follows that the £101,987 represented the employment of 61,000 insurable seamen per week throughout the whole fifty-two weeks. On the other hand, the returns of the Board of Trade for the same year showed that the ships that were employed could not have been manned without from 90,000 to 100,000 insurable

  1029
  (seamen being on articles constantly throughout the whole of that year. If 90,000 be taken as a minimum figure, then at 7·597d. per week the total contributions paid to the Government during 1921 must nave been £148,141, of which the seamen benefited only to the extent of £101,987. The loss in that year alone was therefore £46,154 equalling 31 per cent.
  Any system with a loss of 31 per cent. is surely wrong? We may start now by putting that right so far as this part of the matter is concerned. I am quite sure the House will not be satisfied with a mere promise that when the Royal Commission has reported that a Bill may be introduced. We ought to have something more definite than that. So far as the Pensions Bill is concerned I think that the returns published can be sent to the Board of Trade. I suggest that in this Amendment we will have a very good argument when the Royal Commission has reported if you now start the principle. I hope, therefore, the House will press the Amendment.
  Sir K. WOOD: I rise to say a few words upon the latter part of the matter. The hon. Member who has just sat down has suggested a remedy for the present position in regard to the insurance of seamen so far as National Health purposes are concerned. It is perfectly true to say that the administrative machinery has not run over-smoothly. I do not say it has completely broken down, but there is no doubt about it that a radical alteration is required. Might I however, venture to say this: that to a large extent the difficulty has arisen through the members of the service not belonging to one or two great societies. A very large proportion of these men, it is true, belong to one or other of the great societies which specially cater for there needs, but, unfortunately, a small percentage of the remaining men are dotted in and out among 1,700 other societies. That makes the administrative machinery even more difficult still.
  What is really required more than anything else at the present time is, without interfering with their rights under the national health insurance scheme, to get them into one or two of the great seamen's societies. The alteration that is really required and the amendment that must be made, in the opinion of everybody, including my right hon. Friend and myself, is an amendment in connection with national health insurance in
  1030
  the first instance, because this Bill, as has been frequently stated is based upon our national health insurance machinery. Therefore, I come to this suggestion, which I make to those Members who have put their case so well to-night. There is a Royal Commission now sitting to inquire into alterations required in the national health insurance law and its administration. It is under the chairmanship of a very eminent man, and is an expert Commission. That Commission, we anticipate, will report at the end of this year. My right hon. Friend is pledged, not only in connection with the report of the Commission, but by the mere fact that many portions of the Act need amendment, to bring in legislation in connection with national health insurance next year. It will have to be done, it must be done. I can say this, as far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, that he is in full sympathy with the proposals which have been made by hon. Gentlemen to-night. Ho proposes, in the evidence to be given to the Commission, to support the suggestions which have been made in all quarters of the Committee to-night.
  Supported as the proposals are by my right hon. Friend, I believe, having the approval of most people who are concerned with the administration of national health insurance, there is little doubt that the Royal Commission will recommend alterations which will certainly secure a much more efficient machine than we have at the present time. If that is done, my right hon. Friend undertakes to-night to see that in the Bill he will introduce next year he will give effective support to the suggestions which have been made. I think this will be the best and most effective way of dealing with what, I admit, is a matter which certainly needs a remedy. I think most Members will agree that it would be out of place for us to-night to introduce new machinery, so far as widows' pensions are concerned, and to leave the national health insurance machine as it is, inasmuch as the national health insurance machine is the machine we adopt for widows' pensions. I suggest, therefore, in view of the undertakings, and the no doubt almost immediate effect which will be given—as I have not the slightest doubt will be the case—to the recommendations, that we should leave

  1031
  this matter to be remedied in our Bill next year; and I will give the assurance that when the new arrangement is made so far as national health insurance is concerned we will see that the consequent alterations are made so far as widows' pensions are concerned.
  Sir L. SCOTT: Having regard to the fact that this Bill will come into operation in January, will it be possible to introduce the National Health Insurance Bill quite early in the year?
  Sir K. WOOD: I cannot, of course, give an undertaking as to that, because we do not know when the Commission will Report, but I am given to understand that their Report will be available, it is hoped, at the end of this year, and certainly with a view to getting our legislation through my right hon. Friend will take the earliest opportunity of introducing a National Health Insurance Bill. With that assurance, I hope hon. Members will not press this matter further. I want them to believe that the Government are as anxious as they are to put this matter right, because we believe this is a class of men who are deserving of every consideration at the hands of this House.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I am a member of the Council of the Chamber of Shipping, and it is our wish to protect seamen as far as we possibly can. We have found that the National Health Insurance system inflicts an injury upon a large number of seamen. What we propose is the simplest system possible. It is that at the end of every voyage the captain of a steamer should hand to the representative of the Board of Trade at the shipping office where the crew is paid off a list of the members of the crow showing the amount of wages due to each seaman. What we ask is that, instead of giving to each seaman a card which is liable to be lost, that a similar list on a sheet of foolscap paper should be handed to the representative of the Board of Trade Shipping Office giving a list of the amounts contributed to the Pensions Insurance Scheme so that a record would be kept of amount due to every seaman,
  1032
  the amount paid by him. and also the contribution made by the shipowners. This record would give the amounts and could be handed to the insurance societies in which the seamen have entered. It is well known that an enormous number of seamen go away every year and lose their cards, and under this proposal the Board of Trade would have a record when these men came back to put in their claims as insured people, and these men would be able to prove their claims by the records kept at the Board of Trade.
  Mr. HANNON: Are we to understand that the National Health Insurance Amendment Bill will be introduced early next year?
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 16, line 43. to leave out from the word "provide," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "for determining in the case of a ship registered in Northern Ireland the owner of which resides or has his principal place of business in Great Britain or of a ship registered in Great Britain the owner of which resides or has his principal place of business in Northern Ireland, whether or not persons employed on the ship are to be treated as being insured for the purposes of this Act."
  This is to deal with a position which arises under the National Health Insurance Act. Under the Schedule of that Act you may have a case of a shipowner residing at say, Liverpool, while his ship is registered in Belfast, and the question arises whether the employment is or is not employment under the Act. The Amendment provides that the Minister may make an Order determining that the place of choice may be the place of residence of the owner. I am only following the precedent of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, under Section 20 of which will be found a somewhat similar provision.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I notice that in moving this Amendment the Minister of Health did not draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, although he is providing for this purpose the words to be inserted, he is actually leaving out from line 43 of page 1C to the end of that part of the Sub-section on page 17. I just want to draw attention to what he is leaving out. A point has been raised

  1033
  already by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), and it is a very important one. I am not at all sure that hon. Members would agree with the point expressed by the Member for South Bristol. The proposal being left out is the one that was made by the Minister in his draft Bill, that seamen domiciled in Great Britain or Northern Ireland might be brought within the terms of this Bill tinder regulations to be made by the Minister. He has said that this Bill is based on the National Health Insurance Act; he hardly needs to be informed that under the National Health Insurance Act, in its provision with regard to seamen, in the case of seamen not domiciled in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, these se-;amen are not regarded as employed for the purposes of the Act, but nevertheless the employers have to pay the employer's contribution in respect of such seamen and out of the fund created from that contribution by the employer provision has been made in the past for pensions for aged British seamen. It seems to me that that was a real deterrent against employment of alien seamen upon British ships, and I am not at all satisfied—I am willing to hear any explanations the Minister has to give—that the Amendment now proposed by the Minister will not make it easier for British shipowners to employ alien seamen at a lower rate than is paid to British seamen. I do not say the contributions are very high each week, but it will make it easier from that point of view. Moreover, I am strengthened in my view on this matter by the reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Mover of the last Amendment, for he said that, while ho would not be able to meet their point of view with regard to that Amendment, yet the Controller of Health Insurance would put forward such views to the Royal Commission as a result of which the National Health Insurance Act is to be amended by a Bill to be brought in by the present Minister early next year. May I put the categorical question: Is it proposed, by the views which are to be expressed by the Controller of Insurance to the Royal Commission, to wipe out the present provision in the Health Insurance Act with regard to the contributions of the employers for alien seamen? Is that to be included in the recommendations? Is there to be a binding promise to-night from the Minister that there is to be no disturbance whatever of the present conditions
  1034
  laid down in the Health Insurance Act with regard to employers' contributions in respect of alien seamen? We ought to be satisfied as to what effect leaving out of the Bill as drafted by the Government this provision with regard to alien seamen, is going to have upon the employment of alien seamen by the British shipowners. We should be glad to have an answer.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I deliberately left out an allusion to this point because I saw our time was getting short and I did not wish to raise any other question unless it was raised by some other member of the Committee. It is quite clear what the effect of leaving out these words is. It dons what the hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees) was alluding to. It takes these seamen who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom out of the Bill altogether. All I would say about that is that I understand the seamen's organisations are quite satisfied that that should be so. With regard to the categorical question whether this is only the first step, and that it is intended that the Controller shall, in giving evidence before the Commission, recommend the writing off of the contributions already paid in respect of insurance, I can give a categorical No to that question. I hope this answer will satisfy the hon. Member that he has nothing to fear from the Amendment.
  Sir B. REES: It will probably satisfy any probable criticism raised on these benches when I say this proposal for leaving out non-domiciled men is an agreement entered into between shipowners on the one side, and the representatives of the Trade Unions on the other. At least the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union and the Shipowners' Association agreed, because it was understood that it was unfair to take payments on behalf of men who could not possibly derive any benefit from them. At the same time we realise that there is already a big fund created for the payment of these men under Health Insurance when they are in receipt of pensions now similar to what is provided in the Bill, and it is generally understood that there was no need for any further contributions on behalf of non-domiciled seamen. Seeing that it is an agreed matter, I think the Committee should agree to the Amendment.
  12 M.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I know this has been agreed between the Sailors' Organisation and the employers, but I do not want it understood that it is generally agreed, or that representatives here have lost their right of criticism. This is a very dangerous question. You have to bear in mind that our folk are competing with these people in the labour market, and if you let an employer off from having to pay contributions for those people you are to an extent subsidising a cheap form of labour as against a dearer form. You already have the case of young women who have not yet come to the age where they have to pay Health or Unemployment Insurance. You find that the employers are prepared to employ these young female workers, but the moment they reach the age when extra money has to be paid for them they are dismissed and younger women are again taken on in their place. That is what occurs at present. If you say that merely because a man is a foreigner no contribution is to be paid for him, to that extent you are subsidising that employer, or at least letting him off paying contributions as against our own people. It is true the foreign sailor gets no benefit from the fund, but I am not sure that that is a good thing, because there are a largo number of lascars and other people employed on ships who come to our ports who ought to receive benefit under the National Insurance Act, and because they do not receive benefit either the burden is thrown on the local authorities or the man is not treated as he ought to be while he is in a British port. Any alteration in regard to the Health Insurance Fund will receive my uncompromising opposition. I think the shipowners ought to be asked to pay a quota for the foreign workmen the same as he pays for British workmen.
  Mr. SEXTON: I do not think the question of employing cheap foreigners affects the case at all, because in many cases the shipowner will employ the cheapest labour if he is allowed to do it. It is the business of the union to see to that. The general tendency of the employer is to go for the cheapest labour. Leaving the foreigner out of the Insurance Act does not alter the fact that he is cheaper than the Britisher all the time. Leaving him in or out of the Act does
  1036
  not make the slightest difference. During the last 10 years there has been a considerable decrease in the employment of foreign seamen on British ships.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to mention a matter affecting particularly officers of the merchant service. For some years, through their two principal organisations, they have been pressing for a superannuation scheme. They are prepared to contribute to it. The shipowners also would welcome some such scheme. In some of the regular lines there are very efficient and generous superannuation schemes, but in a great many of the smaller lines, especially the cargo lines, I am informed that it is difficult for one owner to start such a scheme if his competitors do not. The officers say that it is necessary for the Government to move in the matter. I do not know whether it is possible to do anything on the Report stage, but I could not allow the Clause to pass without directing attention to the matter and asking whether the Government are doing anything in regard to it I have raised this matter by question in the House, and I have raised it on the Estimates, and have been told that the matter will be taken into consideration. The position is very unsatisfactory. It is very extraordinary that in a calling which is so hazardous, and where the risk of life is so much greater than in many other occupations, there is no provision for the officers either for a pension or superannuation scheme, in ease of an officer breaking down in health or having to retire from the service through advancing years. In the French merchant service there is a compulsory superannuation scheme, and the Gorman merchant service had such a scheme before the War, and I am not sure that they have not such a scheme still. Why should not we, the principal maritime power, have this very natural and desirable method of insuring our mercantile marine. Ninety per cent. of the officers wish for such a scheme and are prepared to pay their fair share towards it, and most of the owners agree and are prepared to work it.
  Sir K. WOOD: This is not a matter directly appropriate to this Bill. I appreciate the force of the observations which the hon. and gallant Member has made, and I will undertake to convey them to the particular Minister who is more concerned with the matter than the Minister of Health.
  The CHAIRMAN: I was wondering whether the hon. and gallant Member was in order. I now rule that he is not in order.
  Ordered "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." —[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

  SUDAN.
  SUDAN.
  INDIA (POLICE AND PRISONERS).
  INDIA (POLICE AND PRISONERS).
AGRICULTURE.
  STRAWBERRIES (PATCH DISEASE).
  STRAWBERRIES (PATCH DISEASE).
  MARKET GARDENERS AND GLASSHOUSE WORKERS, HERTFORDSHIRE (WAGES).
  MARKET GARDENERS AND GLASSHOUSE WORKERS, HERTFORDSHIRE (WAGES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GERMANY (BRITISH COAL).
  GERMANY (BRITISH COAL).
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
  STATE INSURANCE SCHEMES (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  STATE INSURANCE SCHEMES (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (HOLIDAYS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (HOLIDAYS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN PACKETS).
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN PACKETS).
  TUBERCULOSIS (MILK SUPPLIES).
  TUBERCULOSIS (MILK SUPPLIES).
  HOUSING (CONTRACT PRICES).
  HOUSING (CONTRACT PRICES).
  MIDWIVES (REGISTRATION).
  MIDWIVES (REGISTRATION).
EDUCATION.
  CERTIFICATED TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  CERTIFICATED TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  MUNICIPAL TECHNICAL CLASSES (BORSTAL INMATES).
  MUNICIPAL TECHNICAL CLASSES (BORSTAL INMATES).
  EMPIRE STUDY.
  EMPIRE STUDY.
  English Towns (Teachers).
  English Towns (Teachers).
  ALMSHOUSE INMATES, BIRMINGHAM (FRANCHISE).
  ALMSHOUSE INMATES, BIRMINGHAM (FRANCHISE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (CONDUCT SHEET).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (CONDUCT SHEET).
  POLICE TELEPHONE BOXES.
  POLICE TELEPHONE BOXES.
  MOTOR BICYCLE ACCIDENT, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
  MOTOR BICYCLE ACCIDENT, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, with reference to this Bill, will the noble Marquess the Leader of the House be good enough to confer with me as to the date of the Second Reading?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I shall be quite ready to study the convenience of the noble Lord in regard to all stages of the measure.

BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the order made in the 10th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 30th of June next," be dispensed with and
2
that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a.

BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill. Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: An Amendment proposed by the Committee made.

COMMITTEE OF CIVIL RESEARCH.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY had given Notice to ask whether His Majesty's Government is now in a position to make public the details of the proposed Advisory Colonial Council as announced by the Lord President of the Council on May 20 last; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on May 20 of this year the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, referred, in his speech during the Kenya debate, to a proposal for setting up a Committee analogous in character, though not, of course, in functions, to the Committee of Imperial Defence, to deal with the multifarious topics which arise in the course of the administration of a great Empire. He illustrated his intention by referring to one or two subjects, such as transport, scientific research and other matters of the sort.
In drawing an analogy between the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Committee which it is proposed shall be set up, he pointed out that it would be like the Committee of Imperial Defence in that it would perform no executive action of itself; that it would advise the Cabinet and provide machinery for examining problems with which there was
4
at present no departmental method of dealing; and that it would deal with civil questions as defence and military questions were dealt with by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The noble Earl said it was desirable to have a permanent Committee, though, as I understood, fluctuating in composition, to which should be referred the various problems which might arise, not in one Department alone but in several Departments, and it would exercise co-ordinating functions between the different Departments in regard to such problems. I understand that the proposed Committee could advise the Secretary of the State for the Colonies upon such subjects as research, education, transport, possible economical developments and, possibly, migration.
In making the Motion which stands in my name I desire to ask whether we can have in rather more detail than was possible on May 20 in the Kenya debate the exact functions, the exact position and the exact duties of this proposed Committee. The first thing that strikes me in regard to the analogy between the Committee of Imperial Defence and such a Committee as it is proposed to set up is that the Committee of Imperial Defence, though it advises the War Office, the Admiralty, the Air Department, and so on, has no objective functions and therefore has no control over expenditure. Presumably, then, if this new Committee is set up with a view of carrying out analogous functions in regard to civil matters, it will merely advise and will have no functions of expenditure, though it may devise schemes which will involve expenditure. But there is this great difference between the two Committees. Defence is one of the most expensive functions of government. We have no hesitation in spending, and probably spend wisely, sums running into millions and tens of millions sterling on defence. I imagine that the Committee mentioned by the noble Earl would not, in the advice it gives to the various Departments, approach in lavishness the expenditure advised by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The sums necessary to be spent in connection with advice on the civil side would not, I take it, amount to much more than a few thousand pounds. Transportation is an expensive matter, but it does not compare now, and probably will not for many years to come, with that

5
involved in defending ourselves against material foes for which we have created a War Department, an Admiralty and an Air Department.
One might urge, perhaps, that we should be doing well in concentrating rather more on defending ourselves against the natural enemies of mankind—the insects, the microbes, the invisible animalcules—if that is the right scientific phrase—the ills which take off mankind indiscriminately, rather than spend large sums of money, which only create a rival expenditure on the opposite side of the Channel, or the opposite side of the world, in defending ourselves against enemies who ought not to be enemies but who ought to be co-operators. However, I propose to make no particular point of that, except to urge that if the Government do desire to develop these scientific investigations of our Empire by means of a Committee or by means of public expenditure, such work, such expenditure, will be not only for the benefit of our own selves and our own Empire but will be for the benefit of the world at large, and if we do have rivalry in that expenditure it will be rivalry of a healthy and useful character, whereas the rivalry which we see in the rivalry of armaments of defence is ruinous.
I would like to suggest for the noble Lord's consideration whether, in fact, there is not another Department recently set up which might be perhaps better as an exemplar for this Committee to follow than that of the Committee of Imperial Defence—I refer to the Development Commission that was set up in pre-War days by the Government which I supported when I was in the House of Commons, a Committee which, for the United Kingdom, expended money in various directions for the investigation and development in all its stages, but for the development I think entirely, of industry and enterprise in the United Kingdom. Would it not be possible to extend such Committee's work or to re-create a Committee dealing with Imperial development as the Development Commission dealt with home development. There is already scope for such a Committee to carry out work in regard to entomology. Two very closely inter-related sciences call for intensive investigation in relation to the possibility of carrying disease, putting
6
down and, even more important, destroying the causes of disease. Much has been done in the last twenty or thirty years in that direction. The triumph over malaria and over Malta fever has shown that science, properly applied and with but a humble expenditure, can do a great deal in a way that has improved the condition of the world a thousand-fold. There remain problems similar in character still to be solved. As to the problems of tropical disease some of the causes, indeed, have been discovered, but, others are left unsolved.
The noble Earl, in speaking on May 20, referred to the tsetse fly, a devastating though minute influence throughout the whole, or practically the whole, of tropical Africa. If you could only get rid of the tsetse fly you would re-create economic possibilities in Central Africa which would add enormously to the resources of our Empire, and well would it be if such a Committee as the noble Earl suggests could devise or discover a method by which that one economic evil could be destroyed, even though the Committee did no more than that alone. There are, one might say, hundreds of other fruitful channels which might be investigated. Only last week we debated in this House on the problem of transport in Uganda. We were told by those who were acquainted with the economic problems of that country that the whole transport system of Uganda is out of date, inefficient, and very irritating and disastrous to traders. I have no doubt that entered the mind of the noble Earl when he moved on this subject. There, again, such a Committee as he proposes might deal fruitfully and wisely with the question.
A week ago I had the honour to be a member of a deputation to the Colonial Minister on the subject of a school of tropical agriculture. The deputation was moderate in its demands. It put forward, it seemed to me, a case of great urgency for practical agricultural investigation and asked for a small sum as things go now, a very small subsidy of £25,000, to enable the college to be continued in the West Indies. We received a favourable reply from the Secretary of State—as favourable as any Secretary of Stale can give, having in view the possibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer looming behind his chair. But

7
there was no promise that anything definite would be done. All we got was an undertaking from the Secretary of State that he would represent the case as strongly as he could to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he hoped to be able to persuade him.
I do not know if it is proper, I do not know that it is wise, that the possibilities of economic development and economic research should be dependent year by year on the good will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It might well be that as a sum of money was annually voted for the Development Commission in the old days (I am not quite certain whether that sum of money is still voted) a sum might be given to an Imperial Development Commission, a Committee of Imperial Development, rather than a Committee of Imperial Defence—I would not say "rather than" but in addition to a Committee of Imperial Defence—and to that Commission might be assigned within the limits of its function a substantial grant, not such a grant as we give to our Army and Navy but such a grant as would produce very fruitful results indeed.
So far I have dealt with subjects which cannot be considered by any one to be within the realm of political controversy and, perhaps, it might be well to form the Commission in such a way that it should have the support of men of public Parties of all kinds and not introduce the more burning questions which involve differences of opinion between different schools of political thought. Yet such a Committee, if it were merely confined to scientific investigation, would, I think, not be fulfilling all its objects. There are two closely inter-related subjects which might also be made topics of inquiry and investigation by such a Committee—migration and the relations of different races settled in different parts of the Empire. We have been discussing migration throughout the Empire for the last four or five years and the results from the various Acts passed have not been equal to the expectations raised when those Acs were first brought forward. No doubt migration is a plant of slow growth and, having been checked or absolutely stopped during the War by other more urgent calls upon the young men of the country, it has been difficult to re-establish it. But those who are acquainted with the problems of migration between the Mother
8
Country and the daughter nations of the Empire must be aware that the emigration movement from England to Australia, New Zealand or Canada during the past five years has not come up to what we expected, and has not satisfied either the Dominions or ourselves. It certainly has not relieved the over-burdened population which exists in this country.
It is a thorny question, it is a question full of difficulties, it is a question where feelings are very often aroused and hot words passed; yet it is a question of urgent importance, not only to this country but to every Dominion throughout the British Empire, and it might be that the question of furthering the matter and making more effective the money we spend on migration might be referred to such a Committee and such a Committee might be of service in bringing together the various interests. There it would more closely resemble the Committee of Imperial Defence in bringing together the Departments, not merely of this country but of the self-governing Dominions across the sea. There is no doubt that such a Committee would have to be purely an advisory one. You could not put upon any Committee of this country the duty of settling the policy of the Dominions. Such a course, though it may be logically argued, is politically impossible. I should not for a moment suggest that such a Committee could have anything more than a co-ordinating and unifying influence on the Departments concerned. But such a Committee would act as a very effective link—and we are all searching for links—between the Mother Country and the Dominions.
More difficult perhaps is the problem of coloured race migration within the Empire—the problem of how to deal with your Indian population which is moving out from India into the various self-governing Dominions and Colonies and which is a source of constant irritation to a large section of public opinion in India and, equally, a source of irritation to a large section of public opinion in the Dominions and the Colonies. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that at present there are difficulties which have not been overcome in dealing with the problem of Indian migration within the Empire. There is also the problem of the coloured races within the Dominions, and fiat is a subject which might well be

9
investigated by the Committee. Again, the dangers and difficulties are so great that I, for one, should prefer to be excused attendance on the Committee when this subject was under discussion.
I do not need to enlarge upon the various duties which such a Committee might undertake. I have given one or two examples, and it would be perfectly easy to multiply them. But in asking the Lord President of the Council to enlarge a little the sketch which he made some six weeks ago, I am asking him to give us this information not in any captious spirit, not with any desire to create embarrassment—I do not think any single word of mine can be said to be dictated by any political or Party prejudice—but with a real desire to know, in this country and also in the Dominions, what is proposed. I believe there are great possibilities in the suggestion made by the noble Earl, and I should like to see the sketch filled in.
Like all constitutional and political developments in this country we begin with one idea, one political idea, and it develops perhaps in a very different way to that which we expected. It grows by use into something newer, perhaps something better, and I therefore welcome the announcement which has been made that such a Committee may be set up. I trust it will be set up very soon and will have functions assigned to it of real importance, functions the exercise of which will do something to improve the condition of the people of this Empire, enable trade to be developed and the producing power of our Colonies to be greatly extended. It is with this object in view that I put the Question which stands in my name, and I trust the noble Earl will be able to give us full information on the subject, as it will be of real interest, not ony to members of this House, but to the Empire as a whole. I beg to move.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I hope one of the tasks which will be given to this Committee will be that of attempting to co-ordinate the different systems of administration which are now in force in British Colonies. I propose to deal with the question of Central Africa. Our Colonies in the Tropics extend from the Sudan to Rhodesia and from the Gambia to British East Africa, and, broadly speaking, they are all inhabited by the same
10
kind of people living the same kind of life. Nevertheless the systems of government in force in these Colonies are astonishingly different. In some of them the legislatures are elected by the people; in others the people have no voice in the government whatever. In some of them all the executive officials are British; in others there are no British executive officials. In some of them the Chiefs have unlimited power; in others the Chiefs have no power whatever. In some of them no European may own land; in others no native may own land. In the same way, in the administration of the law, there is every possible confusion of British law, Indian Mahomedan law, and tribal law.
What has happened is that these systems have grown up more or less haphazard, and they appear to be like the laws of the Merles and Persians, for the attitude taken up by the Colonial Office is that whatever system happens to be in force in any particular district is not only the best possible system but the only possible system, and any criticism of it amounts almost to blasphemy. It may be wrong, it may be right, it may be wise—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord will forgive me. I do not make a practice of rising to a point of order, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he really thinks this is relevant to the question of this particular Research Committee? The noble Lord is discussing at length the method of government in the African Colonies of the British Empire.
LORD RAGLAN: I did so in order to suggest that these various systems should be discussed by this Committee which it is proposed to set up. I suggest that if the Committee could employ itself in co-ordinating these various systems it would perform an extremely useful task.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I am a little puzzled with regard to the Question that has been asked and the observations of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He seems to think, or at least I gathered from his example that he does, that any question which can by any possibility come before the Committee of Civil Research might be dis-

11
cussed on its merits on the question as to the constitution and purpose of the Committee. But I think he will feel that that would extend the bounds of the Question beyond any reasonable limit and that your Lordships could not conveniently be asked to discuss on their merits questions which might be submitted to the Committee of Civil Research. I think the particular example he chose is not very felicitous even from that point of view. He seemed to think that it would be the business of this Committee to co-ordinate the British Empire; that only one system of government and one system of law should be applied throughout its wide extent to every race, to every stage of culture, to every tradition of history to which every part of the Empire has been subjected.
I think he will feel—at least I should feel—that, in the first place, that was a topic far beyond the scope even of the most flexible and far-reaching Committee; and, in the second place, the object that my noble friend has in view, which is that of securing that the British Empire, with all the varieties of race, religion and geographical position that I have indicated, should be brought under one simple law, a law evolved by one particular race in that vast Empire, with institutions which, as he truly said, vary enormously from area to area and from continent to continent, but which in all cases have some relation to the historic continuity of the districts with which they deal—I do not know that it would be wise for any Committee to undertake such an object. I am not sure that it is an object at which we should aim, and, in any case, my noble friend seemed to me to be wholly irrelevant to the particular Question put to me by the noble Lord who initiated this discussion.
If I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, he seemed to be rather afraid that I should regard his observations as being of a Party or partisan character and should criticise the spirit in which he put the Question to the Government. That is very far from being my view. I think nobody could complain of the spirit of the noble Lord, and nobody could complain of his objects or of the tone and temper of his observations. If I have a cause of complaint against the noble Lord it is of a very different kind. It is that he has
12
not made himself acquainted with the debates in your Lordships' House which have already taken place upon this subject. He was good enough to send me a very courteously worded letter with regard to his Question. The tenor of that letter a little surprised me, but I imagined that when he spoke he would elucidate the problem which, I confess, in his letter itself was left unsolved. But his speech has not helped me more than his letter for, so far as I can make out from what he said, he has never even heard of the debate of June 30.
Every observation that he made related, so far as I could see, to some incidental observations—I do not say unimportant observations, but incidental observations—that I made with regard to the Report on the British Dominions in Central Africa in a debate which took place in May. That was, no doubt, the first indication made in public of the intentions of His Majesty's Government. It was incomplete, it was necessarily incomplete, it was deliberately incomplete, but the noble and learned Viscount opposite—I am sorry to have to remind your Lordships of an event which occurred so very recently, but I think it is unknown to the noble Lord who asked me the Question, so for his sake, if not for anybody else's, I feel bound to refer to it—the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, with a view of expressing his own very valuable views upon this subject and eliciting from the Government a more complete account of their views, initiated a debate upon this new Committee, and the result was a discussion of considerable interest which. I should have thought, answered every one of the questions and dealt with every one of the topics upon which the noble Lord who asks the Question desires information.
He will find that the debate, which took place on June 30, begins in column 872 of Volume 61 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is the column on which the noble and learned Viscount opposite explains his views on the subject, and, if the noble Lord wants to know my views, he will find them set out in column 879 and succeeding columns of the same volume. I really believe that there is not a single sub-question which the noble Lord has asked which does not find its answer in the speech which I then had the honour

13
to make to your Lordships. The noble Lord has himself more or less misconceived the character and objects of the Committee. I think he would not have misconceived that character and those objects if he had read these speeches. For example, he suggested that the Committee of Civil Research should be a Committee endowed with a large sum of money which it would be its business to allocate among the different Imperial and domestic questions which it might think worth considering. Anything more utterly antagonistic to the whole character, object, purpose and constitution of the Committee I can hardly conceive. The noble Lord thinks that the, Chancellor of the Exchequer should, for certain purposes, be dispossessed of his authority by this Committee, that it should not be left to the Treasury and Cabinet to deal with these problems, that they should be relieved of some of the most difficult of their functions and that those functions should be handed over to the new Committee, amply endowed out of public funds. As I have repeated, I think almost to weariness, this Committee is to have no executive functions, least of all the function of saying authoritatively what sums are to be spent out of public monies on what objects. That is not the object of the Committee, and the Committee is wholly unfitted to carry out such an object.
That, perhaps, is all that I need say as relevant to this particular inquiry, but I may remind the noble Lord opposite that there are already bodies in existence which have done and are doing most admirable work in relation to disease, to the development of medicine and to other great causes upon which the noble Lord dwelt with great eloquence and great sincerity and on which, I am sure, he carried the sympathies of the House. But, in the first place, they have nothing whatever—as he put the Question—to do with this Committee; and, in the second place, there are already, as I have said, institutions in existence which carry out much of the work which he desires to see carried out. Of course, I do not mean that the Committee of Civil Research is not to deal, in its own way and under its own limitations, with these problems. Take the tsetse fly, which was mentioned by the noble Lord and which
14
figured so largely in the first debate—the debate which the noble Lord has read—upon the subject of the Committee of Civil Research. This would be enough to show that disease is, of course, one of the subjects which may well come under its purview, which is coming under its purview.
The reason is quite plain. This Committee of Civil Research is, as I have said, an addition to our administrative machinery specially required to deal with problems with which more than one Department is concerned, and certainly these problems of tropical disease come under that category. They certainly may do and, I hope, will do and, indeed, are already setting to work to do really valuable service in advising the Cabinet upon these administrative problems, but it would be, and is, a complete misinterpretation of the functions of the Committee to suppose that they are an independent or semi-independent body of fixed constitution, endowed with large sums of money which they are to spend even on the most admirable objects in accordance with their own sweet will and pleasure. That is not the business of the Committee; that is not the sort of work its constitution fits it to do; and it involves a complete misapprehension of its character and its functions to suppose otherwise. I am certain that if the noble Lord will take the trouble to read the speeches—not very long speeches as speeches go—delivered by my noble and learned friend opposite and by myself, on behalf of the Government, in the last debate on the subject, he will feel that all his points have really been dealt with. In particular, I was amazed to hear him say that one of the defects which he would like to see removed in this new Committee was that it should include the self-governing Dominions. If he will take the trouble to look at column 882 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that the participation of the Dominions in any inquiry which concerns them is provided for by the machinery of the new Committee and is one of the objects for which the new Committee has been set up.
In these circumstances I really hardly think that it is necessary that I should further detain your Lordships on this matter. The noble Lord gave a list of the subjects with which he thought the Committee ought to deal and with

15
which, as I understood him, he thought that with its present constitution it could not deal. The noble Lord's list was a long one, but surely it was far shorter than a list of the subjects that may be looked into and may deserve to be looked into. All that can be dealt with under the constitution of the Committee. The flexibility of this Committee, which differentiates it from all other such Committees, except the Committee of Imperial Defence, gives it a latitude which will enable it, whenever the Government of the day desires it to take into account all these considerations, to call in all the experts it desires and the heads of all the Departments, and to bring the whole of the administrative machinery of the country into consultation and thereupon and thereafter to advise the Cabinet as to the course which it will be desirable to pursue.
I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I have at all ignored his Question or that I have endeavoured to evade any of the problems he put before me, but I do assure him that if he will take the trouble to go through the speeches which, however wearisome, certainly were not long, delivered on the occasion to which I have more than once referred, he will, I believe, find all his misconceptions removed. He will obtain a real view of what the work of the Committee is, what its instruments for carrying it out are, what relation it bears to the Executive of the country, and I hope and believe that when he has made himself acquainted through the ordinary sources of information with all these facts he will find that the Committee is nearer to his ideal than apparently it seems to him to be at the present moment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I cannot differ from the noble Earl in his criticism of the terms of the Motion and the grounds on which it has been supported. At the same time I should like to say this, which I think he, in effect, said also, that we have reason to congratulate ourselves when a noble Lord takes so much interest in science and in knowledge of this kind as to bring the matter to the attention of the House and open up a discussion upon it. Having said that, I am bound to agree with the noble Earl opposite that there really was no question which needed putting. There is not only the debate of June 30 last in
16
which the noble Earl explained everything in a way that left, so far as I can see, no ambiguity; there is this in addition—I am speaking from memory but I am nearly certain—that on June 13 last a Treasury Memorandum was circulated to Parliament and laid upon the Table of this House in which the whole thing was explained quite shortly and definitely. In these circumstances it is strange that, so little is the interest in the machinery of government in this country, that the debate and the Memorandum could both have been overlooked in connection with this Motion.
There are many Committees already in existence and I have no doubt there will be many more. They deal with many subjects; they are invested with more or less authority. One with a great deal of authority is the Development Commission to which my noble friend referred. The Development Commission is a very different body to the one we are discussing and, indeed, to any other of the kind that I know. It took its origin in the fact that the Departments kept putting in demands to the Treasury for money for agriculture, for development of roads, and so on. The Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day discussed it and got the Government to appoint a Committee of experts, containing representatives of different kinds of knowledge, who should sit together and should definitely recommend what grants should be made and in what proportions. They sit and make very careful inquiries and the policy of the Treasury in distributing money among the different Departments is largely based on the recommendations of the Development Commission.
That is a very different body from the one we are discussing. That is a body with very nearly executive functions. But in this case the Committee of Civil Research will not have a single executive function. My noble friend seemed to think that the Committee of Imperial Defence had to deal with large sums—
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said it advised on subjects which involved large expenditure. That is a different thing.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It advises on subjects involving large expenditure, but on the sums it never advises. It

17
keeps itself clear of finance. So, in this case, the new Committee of Civil Research is clearly analogous. It has not to go into the sort of exact details with which a committee that was to advise the Government as to how much money they were to spend on this or that, would be concerned. It is, in effect, a Committee to give knowledge to Ministers and to give knowledge, in particular, to the Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers, a most worthy body of people, bring up propositions which occasionally are not based on much exact knowledge or very exhaustive research, and there is no way at the present time of getting them the overhauling which is necessary unless by the appointment of a special Committee, which may be very difficult to appoint. I myself have seen millions and millions wasted because of the want of accurate knowledge on the part of the government of the day.
Well, this is a new instrument of government, under which the Cabinet, when a question of that kind comes up to it, will be able to say from the lips of the Prime Minister, who is president of the new Committee: "This is surely a matter which should go for research to the new civilian Committee." The new civilian Committee will be under his eye, and in the end will devolve its functions to a sub-committee of experts, if it follows the analogy of the Committee of Imperial Defence. When the new Committee has assembled then there will come up a Report—a Report, the progress of which and the collection of material for which have been assisted by the services of the members of the secretarial staff of the Cabinet, who are there to guide it and to keep the Prime Minister in intimate acquaintance with what is going on.
In that way, and through the Chairman of the new Committee of Imperial Research, you will have an organised body, the function of which is solely and entirely to provide Ministers with an amount and a kind of knowledge which they do not get at the present time. That is the whole object of this Committee. It has had a predecessor of the same kind in the Committee of Imperial Defence, which has entirely succeeded, and now the same method is going to be applied in another direction. Thinking costs nothing, and that is a maxim that is very often forgotten in government, and which has been too much forgotten by our-
18
selves. Now, I hope, we shall have more of it. We cannot have too much. If that be so, my noble friend will see that, however right he is in the views he has put forward, he is not right about this body, which is not directed to any of the purposes of which he spoke, but is directed solely to informing the minds of the Cabinet.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, in withdrawing the Motion which I have put before the House, I have only to apologise to the noble Earl for having, as he has rightly discerned, missed his speech of June 30. I must plead guilty of having been unaware of that speech. It is my own fault, but my attention was not called to it. May I suggest that when the noble Earl's secretary asked me for information as to what the Question was about he might perhaps, if he had thought of it, have called my attention to the debate of June 30, and thus have saved your Lordships' time in the moving of this unnecessary Motion? I have to throw myself on the mercy of the House, therefore, for having wasted the time of the House.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Not at all; you have not wasted our time.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, this Bill is designed to give a measure of protection to quite a large number of persons whose livelihood is in the main dependent upon giving dramatic and musical performances. As your Lordships are well aware, during recent years there has grown up in this country quite a big and potential industry in the making of gramophones and of gramophone records, and performers and artists look for a considerable part of their incomes to sums from the manufacturers of records, and the fees payable for performing for mechanical reproduction to these artists are of quite a substantial character.
Now a new situation has arisen—one of the many situations that are constantly cropping up in these days, owing to the

19
rapid progress of science and of mechanical invention. The position is that broadcasting can be used by any person who is in possession of a receiving set and a loud speaker, for purposes which were certainly never intended by the Broadcasting Company—namely, the illicit mechanical reproduction of a performance transmitted by the Broadcasting Company. If you and I were the happy possessors of a recording instrument and also of a wireless set with a loud speaker, by placing the recording instrument in close proximity to the loud speaker we could get a record of any performance, and we could make that record into quite a number of gramophone records. This has been quite clearly demonstrated by the Gramophone Company. Last year His Majesty's speech at the opening of the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley was recorded by the Gramophone Company from their loud speaker, and that record was made use of also for demonstration purposes the same evening by the Broadcasting Company for the transmitting of that speech to the public.
How does that situation affect artists? It affects them in this way. Artists are becoming apprehensive, and increasingly apprehensive, of performing for the Broadcasting Company, for, in so doing, there is a large danger of their earning capacity in performing for manufacturers of records being lost. If the record is illicitly made by the process which I have described, and if that record proves, when made, to be as saleable an article as a record made by the manufacturer of records—who pays the performer—then the artist's prospect of obtaining further employment from the manufacturer of records will be jeopardised, and, in fact, it may altogether cease. Again, there is another side to it from the artist's point, of view. Supposing that record which has been illicitly produced is proved to be of an inferior quality, then it is the artist's reputation that will suffer, and will suffer to a serious degree.
A considerable part of the remuneration of artists in these days is derived from the sale of gramophone records of their voices or of their instrumental playing, and if there is no law against the listener-in who makes a record and multiplies it, as I have described, by the usual processes, and offers it for sale to the public, artists are hound to suffer.
20
The listener-in having no cost of remuneration to the artist and having nothing to pay for rehearsals or for accompaniments, the cost of production to him is infinitely lower than it would be to the gramophone company, which is making similar records. And if his costs of production are lower, then he is certainly able to offer the record on sale to the public at a considerably lower price than the manufacturer of records. Therefore it follows that the gramophone company can no longer afford to pay the fees to the artists that they are now earning, and this source of their income must immediately cease and be closed to them.
There is one more point, and I think your Lordships will appreciate it. There is really a great feeling amongst artists that the recording of their voices and their instrumental playing for posterity is a matter that should be done with great precision and great skill. For this reason they are thrown, for the continuation and perpetuation, for perpetuation it must be, of their art on to one or other of the gramophone companies. The gramophone companies and the Broadcasting Company are equally affected by this situation and are most desirous to see this measure placed upon the Statute Book.
This Bill endeavours to deal with this new situation. Clause 1 makes it an offence to make records for the purposes of sale without the consent of the performer and it inflicts a penalty for so doing, upon summary conviction. The other clauses of the Bill merely amplify the principle laid down in Clause 1. The Bill has been thoroughly considered in another place and it comes before your Lordships having been properly hammered into shape and thoroughly digested, and I hope it will meet with the general approval of this House, especially of His Majesty's Government, of noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite, and noble Lords who sit above the gangway. There is only one other point that I wish to make. During the discussion on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, two points were raised, both in the form of technical objections. One was that this situation should have been dealt with under the copyright law and the other was that it would be preferable to deal with an offence by a civil action through means of an injunction with damages,

21
rather than under criminal procedure. I do not want to detain your Lordships upon these points. I merely say that if they find their counterpart in your Lordships' House I am prepared to deal with them at length. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think this is a Bill which ought to pass. Somebody with a beautiful voice gives a performance, perhaps lives by giving such performances, and as things now stand a gramophone record can be made perhaps indirectly and then reproduced and published, with the result that the people do not go to the performances a great many of them, at any rate, are content with the record and what it reproduces. I think that is very wrong. It has been suggested that this might be dealt with under the Copyright Act. I had the privilege of piloting the Copyright. Act through your Lordships' House. It was a gigantic Act and to put in such as would require to be put in to cover this would be to make it still more gigantic. I much prefer to deal with this simple case in a simple way. And I do not think there is any hardship in it, because at then end of Clause 1 there are these words:—
"Provided that it shall he a defence to any proceedings in respect of an alleged offence under the foregoing paragraph (a) if the defendant proves that the record in respect of which the offence is alleged was not made for purposes of trade."
If the thing is done innocently or harmlessly there can be no offence committed under the Act. If it is done, as it is generally done, for the purpose of enabling people to put money into their pockets by stealing the talents of their neighbour it is an offence. I think this is a harmless Bill and I think it is right that it should proceed by way of a criminal law. I see no reason why there should not be a special Bill on the subject, and so far as I am concerned I shall support the Second Reading.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I ought perhaps, to say one word on this Bill from the point of view of the Board of Trade. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury is a very interest-
22
ing one as showing, as he said, the development of the gramophone industry That development leads to new methods. I will not say illicit methods because they are not at the present time condemned by Parliament. But the records made by gramophone manufacturers already enjoy of course, as the noble Earl knows, copyright as musical works under Section 19 (1) of the Copyright Act. Under that subsection it would be a breach of copyright for any person to make a record from a performance broadcast from the manufacturers' records.
I understand that at the same time the artist may desire to give the same performance for the purpose of broadcasting If from that broadcasting some ingenious person takes a record, obviously that would compete very seriously with the record of the performance which the artist has already sold to the manufacturers. I understand that this Bill is to the advantage both of the record makers and the artists, because, obviously, the manufacturer has a depreciated article in his hands if another and competitive record is made. At any rate, the artist is not likely to get such a good price from the record manufacturer if that record manufacturer finds that in return for the contract he has a depreciated article. Therefore it seems to me to be certainly to the advantage of both those sets of people. It appears also to the Board of Trade equitable from the point of view of the general public, which is of course the point of view I am specially representing here. Therefore, from that point of view, the Government not only do not offer any opposition, but are ready to give support to the Bill.
There is only one other point to which I might allude, and that is the question of making this a criminal rather than a civil liability. The matter was raised, of course, in another place, and it was raised by the Solicitor-General to the late Labour Government, but after hearing the authoritative statement of the noble and learned Viscount on this point I presume I may consider that the objection, anyhow of the Solicitor-General in his own Government, has been overruled, and, therefore, I refer to it no further.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not read it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then the noble and learned Viscount unconsciously overruled the Solicitor-General in his own Government.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Unconsciously.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the point that under the Copyright. Act certain breaches of copyright, if committed for the purposes of trade or profit, are the subject of summary proceedings. The noble and learned Viscount has pointed out that if it is done merely for private purposes it does not come within the ambit of this Bill. Therefore, from the point of view of the Government I have no opposition to offer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH CLAIMS AGAINST TURKEY.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the claims of British subjects against the Turkish Government for losses sustained by them during the War, and to ask what progress has been made by the Assessment Commission at Paris. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question is one of a certain amount of complexity. Two Government Departments are really concerned. I understand that I am to be answered by the representative of the Treasury, but I am glad to observe that my noble friend the Earl of Balfour is present this afternoon, and I look to him to give us the Foreign Office point of view. This is a question which cannot possibly be dissociated from what has happened since the War. All the post-War Treaties contain an obligation to recoup private individuals, and that is accomplished by sequestrating, or, as I prefer to call it, confiscating, the property of enemy aliens. It never seemed to me a very moral proceeding, but on the whole British subjects have not done very badly out of it, If I am not mistaken, British claimants against the German Government will get something approaching 20 s. in the £ The creditors of Austria and Hungary will receive pretty much the same amount, and I believe the creditors of Bulgaria have been paid in full, or are about to be paid in full, and are also to receive the accruing interest.
The only people who get nothing at all, or next to nothing, are the creditors of Turkey who, perhaps, have suffered more than anybody else. The original Sevres Treaty, as the House is well aware, contained the same provisions as the other Treaties which were negotiated at Paris, and it made provision for the compensation of British subjects, but owing, if I may say so, to the vagaries of Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson, the Treaty of Sevres went to the wall, and was succeeded by the Treaty of Lausanne. In the meanwhile Turkey, which was almost literally ground into the dust, has more or less recovered. Its position is now, without exaggeration, a nuisance to the whole civilised world. The first draft of the Lausanne Treaty fixed the claims of the creditors of the Turkish Government at £13,500,000 sterling. Eventually, by a process which is well known to everybody here, this sum of £13,500,000 was reduced to a sum of £10,800,000, and the Turks who, whatever may be their other failings, are never wanting in impudence, put forward two counter-claims. One was for £4,500,000, representing the gold which had been deposited in Berlin and Vienna as security for their loans. The second counter-claim was one for what is known as the battleship money, which amounts to £6,300,000.
I leave the battleship money alone for the moment, and deal first with the deposit money. This, which is called deposit money, consists of a fund amounting, as I have stated, to £4,500,000. It is vested in an International Commission which has been set up at the instance of the Turkish claimants, and, so far as I am aware, this Commission has made no payments whatsoever. I should like to remark that although the £4,500,000 sterling sounds a very imposing sum, it does not amount to much from the point of view of Turkish creditors when you examine it completely, because this £4,500,000 is a fund for which there is a kind of international scramble going on at the present moment. We are not the only claimants. There are French claimants, Italian claimants, Rumanian claimants and, I understand, even Japanese claimants, and all these people are represented on the Commission.
The circumstances are further complicated by the fact that the Smyrna claimants, who have nothing whatever to

25
do with the War, have also been brought before this Commission, for what reason I am unable to discover. The two cases were entirely dissimilar. In the one case, the case of the War claims, we were belligerents, and each national considered that he was entitled to compensation for the loss which he had suffered. The Smyrna fire was a totally different matter. We were not at war with anybody at the time. The destruction of Smyrna was the result of hostilities between the Turks and the Greeks, and we had nothing whatever to do with it. It seems to me quite illogical that these two sets of claimants should be dealt with simultaneously. I may add that the prospects of getting anything substantial are most unsatisfactory. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that I believe the claims of the British nationals alone amount to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, although they have never been actually assessed. These claimants were first of all told to wait for the Treaty in order to get their claims settled, then they were told to wait for the ratification of the Treaty, and finally they were told to wait until the Commission made its award. As I hive already observed, no payments so far as I am aware, have been made at all.
I shall probably be told when the answer is given that the British claimants, on the other hand, have got another sum to fall back upon in the shape of that sum of £5,000,000 associated with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner which is a kind of ex gratia fund that was founded for the purpose of compensating British sufferers in all these belligerent countries. I understand that out of this ex gratia fund a considerable sum has been paid over to the claimants against the Turkish Government. I believe something like £600,000 has been paid. Here I would like to emphasise the fact that these payments from the ex gratia fund really amount only to a loan, because any money that these claimants obtain from the ex gratia fund will have to be refunded as soon as they obtain any payment from the deposit fund now administered at Paris. Therefore the prospects of these unfortunate people receiving any substantial sum are as unlikely as unlikely anything you can conceive. I am acquainted with one gentleman who put forward a claim to, I think, £43,000,
26
and who has received from this ex gratia fund something between £600, and £700, and he thinks it extremely improbable that he will ever receive anything more, unless I am able to make some impression by my statement this afternoon. So much for the so-called deposit fund.
I pass to what is known as the battleship money, which raises a much more important and a much more contentious point. This fund concerns British subjects only, and it is a much larger fund than the other. It amounts to no less than £6,300,000. The House will recollect that in 1914, when War broke out, there were in the English building yards three ironclads, two Turkish and one Chilian. The British Government, exercising their rights, appropriated these three ships. In the case of the Chilian vessel they paid full value for it, but in the case of the Turkish ships they refused payment, and, therefore, the ships were acquired for nothing. This action of the British Government at that time—I am not finding fault with it—naturally created extreme exasperation in Turkey, and created especial exasperation for this reason. These ships ere not built in the ordinary way by the Government, but were built largely out of private subscriptions provided by the population of Turkey. It was a kind of patriotic appeal to them, and I believe everybody in the country subscribed towards the battleships.
Naturally the greatest exasperation was caused by their appropriation by the British Government, and the people who are good judges of politics in the Near East have often maintained that if we had not effected this seizure it is quite conceivable the Turks would never have gone to war, and that the extreme exasperation and irritation caused by this proceeding enabled Enver Pasha and his friends to work up a violent agitation against us which eventually brought Turkey into the War. But it is no use discussing this particular point. The fact is we seized these vessels and we refused to pay for them, and the immediate and natural result was that the Turkish Government at once seized all the property of British subjects that they could lay their hands upon.
The question as to whether the British Government were entitled to seize then battleships without compensation has

27
never been actually made clear. Recently, in questions which have been put to the Government, the Government representatives have constantly denied that we had incurred any liability at all or were liable for any compensation. On April 13 of last year the late Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when interrogated on this point, replied as follows:
"I am aware that Ismet Pasha renounced, On behalf of Turkey, any claim to the value of these battleships, but in doing so he was renouncing a claim which His Majesty's Government never recognised as valid."
That sounds plain enough, but if you look at Article 58 of the Lausanne Treaty, you will find these words:
"Turkey also agrees not to claim from the British Government or its nationals repayment of the sums paid for the warships ordered in England by the Ottoman Government."
There is here, therefore, a flagrant contradiction.
How can you renounce a thing which does not exist? The Lausanne Treaty was not a dictated Treaty like the Treaty of Paris. It was a negotiated Treaty on even terms, and if you admit an Article of that character and put your name to something to which you have given your agreement, it certainly looks, on the face of it, as if His Majesty's Government at that time realised that if the Turkish claim was not substantiated there was a good deal behind it. In order to fortify that view let me read to your Lordships v hat the late Lord Curzon is reported by the Blue-book of the proceedings at Lausanne to have said on this subject. The Blue-hook contains the following, under date February 4, 1923:—
"Let Ismet Pasha"—
he was, of course, the Turkish representative—
"realise quite clearly that in making a concession to Turkey regarding the payment for the ships which Great Britain had requisitioned in 1914, Lord Curzon had taken upon himself a responsibility which he would he obliged to defend before British public opinion. He had made this concesson and assumed this responsibility in order to please Ismet Pasha. It was by far the greatest concession Great Britain had made, and Ismet Pasha should fully appreciate its magnitude."
All this can be found in the Blue-book.
Further, Lord Curzon pointed out—and this is absolutely vital to my point—that
"The concession is made at the expense of British nationals in Turkey who have
28
steadily ever since the Armistice held the view that this money was in the hands of the British Government and have asked that it may be used to pay something on account of admitted claims."
Here, as I have already said, the validity of the claims is practically acknowledged, and it was on the basis of this acknowledgment that Turkey consented to sign the Treaty. I do not want to throw any blame on the late Lord Curzon, for I consider he was, perhaps, the most valuable statesman this country has possessed of recent years, and it must be remembered that he was fighting this battle by himself and with absolutely no support from any of our Allies on any important point. The long and short of all this is that His Majesty's Government have got two very valuable battleships for nothing, and, on the other hand, the claimants upon Turkey, who have very strong claims, get nothing whatever. That is really the whole case.
I only desire to point out in conclusion that these are claims on the part of British merchants in the Near East who have been the mainstay of British trade in that part of the world for centuries. They suffered severely during the War. At a moment's notice many of them were turned out of the country, their property seized, their houses seized, and everything they enjoyed seized. They are now in an impoverished and crippled position. On the other side you hear laments that the trade of this country in the Near East is diminishing. In former years, indeed only a short time ago, British trade in Turkey was predominant and was, perhaps, as important as the trade of most of the European nations put together. If there is any real desire to recover that trade the most practical means of attaining that object is to enable these British merchants in Turkey, who thoroughly understand the question, to be allowed to recover; and we should try to set them on their feet again. It is only by obtaining some measure of compensation for the heavy losses they have sustained that anything of the kind can be effected.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord divides itself into two parts. The first part consisted of a criticism of the policy of His

29
Majesty's Government so far as British nationals' claims against Turkey during the War are concerned, and the second part was merely an inquiry as to the progress of the Paris Commission which has been formed to deal with these claims. I will deal with the first part of his speech first. The claims were, as the noble Lord has said, divided into two classes—first, those for damage which was suffered during the War with Germany, and for which Germany as an Ally of Turkey is partly responsible; and, secondly, that damage which was suffered during the Nationalist régime in Turkey from 1920 to 1923. I do not intend so enter into an argument with the noble Lord as to whether these claims should be admitted at all in so far as the Paris Commission is concerned, but at any rate the damage was suffered during the War between Turkey, our late enemy, and Greece, our late Ally; and it was just as important to the people concerned as the previous damage
The first class of claims, damage suffered during the War with Germany, was treated in exactly the same way as damage due to German action itself. The noble Lord was quite right. In May, 1920, the Government decided to allocate a sum of £5,000,000 for compensation for War damage, and a Royal Commission was subsequently set up, of which Lord Sumner was Chairman, to deal with the distribution of this sum of money. The country owes a very great debt to that Commission for the extremely successful way in which they performed a very difficult task. It is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with the details and the conclusions and the rates that the Commission laid down. So far as British nationals' claims against Turkey fire concerned, these payments were made as an advance recoverable out of awards which were to be made by the Paris Commission later on. The claims, I think, amounted to something like £2,000,000, and so far about £750,000 has already been paid.
I now come to Article 58 of the Lausanne Treaty. Under this Article Turkey renounced her claims to a sum of approximately £5,000,000 which had been given by Germany and Austria to Turkey during the War. This money remained in Berlin and in Vienna during that time and it was transferred to the
30
Allies under the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty with Austria. It was decided to set up an inter-Allied Commission to deal with the distribution of this sum of money and there were British, French and Italian claimants, as well as a small claim from Japan, which, I understand, is to share in the distribution. I should like to say a word about the second class of claimants—namely, those who claim for damage done during the Nationalist régime later on in Turkey. For this damage Germany naturally has no responsibility, and therefore the claims under this heading are not eligible for awards from Lord Sumner's fund, but their claims will rank against the stun held by the Paris Commission. I understand that there are claims amounting to something like £1,000,000 and, although it is difficult to give an exact estimate at the present moment, that means that altogether there are claims of about £3,000,000 by British nationals.
Before I say a word or two about the progress that the Commission has made, I think it would be right, to refer to some of the criticisms which have been levelled against His Majesty's Government with regard to the arrangements that they have made on behalf of British claimants. The first and most important point to which the noble Lord referred was undoubtedly the question of the requisitioned battleships. His Majesty's Government have never admitted any claim for compensation from Turkey with regard to these battleships, and the argument that the requisitioning of British property in Turkey was a direct result of the requisitioning of these battleships does not, I think, hold water because this requisitioning was made, not against British nationals alone, but generally against all enemy nationals in Turkey. Payment would undoubtedly have been made to Turkey if she had remained neutral, but it was common knowledge at that time that Turkey was not very favourable to our cause and, when she joined the Central Powers against us, all her rights with regard to this claim were confiscated under International Law. To pay such a sum as the noble Lord refers to would involve a separate Vote by Parliament, and in view of the provisions which have been made—namely the Sumner Fund and the Paris Commission—successive Govern-

31
ments, including the present Government, have not felt justified in advising that such a course should be taken.
With regard to what happened at the Lausanne Conference, I would like, first, to say this. It is suggested that originally a sum ranging from £12,000,000 to £15.000,000 was claimed for, and that finally a sum of approximately £5,000,000 was accepted on condition that Turkey renounced her claim with regard to these battleships. I wish to repeat that this claim was never admitted. The reason why this considerable sum—namely, £12,000,000 to £15,000,000—was originally claimed was that it was obviously necessary, in order to negotiate with Turkey, to ask for a sum of money which it was not expected to obtain in the end. The second reason why this £5,000,000 was accepted rather than the larger sum, was that, in view of the fact that Turkey was then and still is in a very impoverished condition, it was no good asking her for a great deal more than she could pay, because the result would have been to lead to endless discussions and to cause a further delay which would not in any way have helped the claimants.
The noble Lord has referred to the part that Lord Curzon played at the end of the first part of the Conference, but I think it is only fair to say that the sole reason why Lord Curzon made his offer was that the Reparations question was the only outstanding one at that moment and he felt that, if this matter could be settled, it might be a question of averting a fresh Mar with Turkey. I only wish to emphasise the fact that, not only did it not entail a liability to contribute to the Reparations pool, but far less did it admit the claim of compensation upon the part of the Turkish Government so far as the requisitioned battleships were concerned. The noble Lord referred to the fact that German property in this country was sequestrated with a view to helping British claimants against Germany for damage suffered during the War, whereas claimants against Turkey did not have the satisfaction of seeing Turkish property in this country sequestrated in the same way. The explanation of that is really comparatively simple. It is that there was, to all intents and purposes, no Turkish property in this country to sequestrate. In the circumstances which I have tried as briefly as possible to
32
explain to your Lordships, His Majesty's Government, like successive Governments before it, does not see its way to ask Parliament to vote further money for compensation to claimants under this head.
The noble Lord asked what progress the Commission had been making, and before I sit down, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon that point. The Commission referred to, which is now known as the Paris Commission, was set up almost immediately after the Treaty was ratified in August last year and delegates from three countries—Britain, France and Italy—were forthwith appointed. They drew up their budget, which was then submitted for approval to the respective Governments. I do not think it is at all necessary to trouble your Lordships with the details of this budget. They invested the sum at their disposal—namely £T5,000,000, which amounts to something over £4,600,000 in British gold—in various bonds, nearly all in dollar securities. With regard to the collection of claims, the Commission put advertisements in the Press, both in Europe and the Near East, and furthermore the British delegate made arrangements with the Reparations Claims Department and the Dominion and Indian Government and other bodies to ensure that all documents emanating from claimants should be sent to that Commission, so that the claimants should be able to put their case before the Commission in as favour able a light as possible.
The claims up to the present moment number 4,820, and it is estimated that by August 6, 1925, the final date for sending in claims, there will be about 5,000 claims. There still remain important questions of principle to settle, and, in these circumstances, it is impossible yet to make any definite statement with regard to the aggregate number and amount of claims which are likely to rank against the Paris Commission. There are still outstanding questions of protected persons, which involve, I understand, a large number of French claims: the position of Cypriots, a matter which involves at least 500 British claims and some Italian claims; the position of religious and other unincorporated bodies; of limited companies where the members do not all belong to the same nationality; and various other questions of that kind. Some important

33
decisions have been reached. The question of damages to the person have been settled, and the question of how far the legal personal representative can be admitted, which is very important seeing that the damage was in many instances done as long as ten years ago. In fact, tables have been laid down with regard to these matters and progress has been made.
There is the question of the Smyrna fire, to which my noble friend referred is a rather strong terms, which is a rather complicated matter owing to the fact that a good many war damage policies have been paid there. The position is improving and, in view of a final settlement, the Commission sent out a sub-Commission to Smyrna to consult with the local experts. They have made suggestions to the Commission which have been adopted and which, it, is hoped, will prove of considerable value. In order to pave the way to that Sub-Commission and to other Sub-Commissions which it is hoped may be sent out, the Commission decided to pay a visit to the Near East this year. They left Paris in March and visited Constantinople. Smyrna, Rhodes, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and the British representative took the opportunity of going to Malta as well. They were able to glean a large, amount of useful information, to discuss the general situation with the people on the spot and to explain their views with regard to the system under which compensation should be paid. Furthermore, claimants were allowed to meet their delegate if they 60 wished to do, and in that way to make it unnecessary to secure further proof later on in matters which are generally accepted to be facts and to be true.
That is as far I think as I can go. It will be admitted that to deal with something like 16,000 claims in a reasonable time is an immense task for any body of men and this task has been immeasurably increased by the fact that much evidence has been lost in the course of time which has elapsed. Claimants in many eases have died or are untraceable, but nevertheless His Majesty's Government are very conscious of the necessity that the work of this Commission should be completed at the earliest possible moment. The British delegate has always pressed this view upon his colleagues, and it is hoped that the work of the Commission
34
will be accelerated and His Majesty's Government will, if necessary, suggest the taking of any steps for distributing this fund which may be required in order that it may be distributed at the earliest possible moment.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, a Question has been raised by my noble friend Lord Newton that is of an extremely complicated character, but I must congratulate the noble Earl on the lucid way in which he has replied to it. His closing remarks were, I understand, completely devoted to the work of the Paris Commission. The only observations I wish to make are in regard to the money that our traders claim in respect of the requisition made on their property owing to the seizure of those Turkish ships at the beginning of the War. Here, it seems to me, the Government are extremely unsatisfactory. These two ships were seized when they belonged to a nation with which were at perfect peace at the time. All the Government say is that they never recognised this claim. That is a peremptory way of dealing with the question when the Turks retaliate and seize the property of our British subjects in Turkey. Apparently the only redress due to those unfortunate people of our own nationality is that the Government do not recognise that they did anything of a high-handed nature in seizing those ships.
Lord Newton said that he would not go into the legality of the action, but undoubtedly that act provoked Turkey later on to enter the War against us. Many people felt that the action was of a very provocative character. It is owing to that act that our people have, lost any claim to redress. It is extremely unfortunate for our fellow citizens that the Government should deal with a subject in this very inconsequential manner on the principle that "might is right." I only hope that my noble friend will press his Question on this particular point and will get some compensation paid to those whose property was seized owing to the direct action of His Majesty's Government immediately after the outbreak of War.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, if the appeal is made to me, which I gather it is I am afraid I have very little information to give my noble friend. I

35
would ask him to remember this. In the first place, I understand that it is a complete misapprehension to suppose that the requisitions made at the outbreak of War upon British subjects were in consequence of the seizure of the ships. They were made upon the nationals of all the Allied Powers. They were not directed towards British subjects chiefly or alone. The other point I have to make is one that is constantly forgotten. Though it is perfectly true, if my memory serves me aright, that His Majesty's Government had not conclusive information that Turkey was hostile to the. Allied Powers when the War broke out, they had strong suspicions that that was the case, and those suspicions turned out perfectly accurate because Turkey had made a secret Treaty with Germany prior to the outbreak of War which committed her to the Central Powers. In those circumstances there is no case that the British Government acted harshly towards Turkey in seizing those ships, or that British subjects suffered owing to the action with regard to the ships, or that Turkey had the least right to complain of our taking the ships and not paying for them, considering that at the time they were taken they belonged to a Power which had actually entered into a Treaty directed against this country.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is only by the leave of the House that I can comment on what has been said by the two noble Lords on the Front Bench, but I confess that I am positively shocked at the immorality of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, more, especially in one so young. The view of my noble friend is, if I interpret him correctly, that it is quite right that the creditors of Turkey should be sacrified for the purpose of obtaining a Treaty and, in the second place, that it is quite unreasonable for these creditors of Turkey 10 expect to be recompensed because there wore not a sufficient number of Turkish subjects in this country to rob. That argument might have been applied to the creditors of the Bulgarian Government and the Austro-Hungarian Government. You could not seize an equivalent amount in those cases and the difference had to be made up out of reparations.
Lord Balfour is not quite accurate as to the retaliation exercised by the Turks when the ships were seized. I am
36
informed that the Turks retaliated almost exclusively on British subjects and that other nationals did not suffer at all, or if they suffered it was to a very small extent. I must emphasise the fact that the contention which I made has not been disputed at all. It is all very fine for the two noble Lords to say that there is no responsibility and no liability for these battleships. That liability is clearly admitted in the Treaty.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is not admitted.
LORD NEWTON: I refer my noble friend to Article 58.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I contend that that merely emphasises the attitude which His Majesty's Government have taken all along. It was merely to make it absolutely definite and certain.
LORD NEWTON: There is nothing in the Treaty saying that you do not recognise this liability. What you do is to ask the Turks to renounce it; it is no good denying it, nor is it any good denying the facts that we have obtained these two very valuable warships for nothing at all, and that the creditors of Turkey may, with a certain amount of justice, and stretching the argument to its utmost, almost contend that they are the people who have to pay for them. I hope this subject will be revived in another place and by people who can make more impression on the Government than I am able to do personally. At all events, I hope it will not be lost sight of.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, it is quite unnecessary to make a long speech on this Bill. The Bill was passed unanimously on both Second and Third Readings in another place. It was promoted in the first place by the Municipal Corporations Association, but it is equally strongly supported in its present form by the Association of County Councils, the Association of Urban District Councils and the Association of Rural District Councils, a very unusual combination. My noble friend Lord Derby, who is the president of the Association of Municipal Corporations,

37
ought to have introduced the Bill, but he is unfortunately unable to be here. That is why I, as one of the vice-presidents, inn venturing to do so. The measure is also supported by His Majesty's Government, particularly by the Ministry of Health. Successful efforts have been made to safeguard the interests of any organisation specially affected, and I am able to tell your Lordships that such bodies as the National Federation of Property Owners, the Central Landowners' Association, the railway companies, the Canal Association, and the National Gas Council, composed of the gas, water and electricity authorities, are all satisfied with the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to collect into one Act, subject to certain restrictions and limitations, and to make available for the whole country, provisions already enacted in local Acts which have stood the test of experience over several years. Every clause of this Bill is founded upon local precedent except some that were introduced on the Committee and Report stage on the initiative of the Government in another place. The Bill follows the principles of sanitary and local legislation which have grown up in this country. All through the last hundred years Private Bills have been passed giving special powers to the local authorities. After the provisions of those Bills have been tested by experience they generally assume a stereotyped form and when that is the case they are collected from time to time into General Acts such as this.
These Acts are of two kinds,—one consisting of such Acts as require another Act in order to incorporate them and apply them locally. Examples of that are the well-known Lands Clauses Act, 1845, the Gas Works Clauses and Markets and Fair Clauses Act, 1847, and many other Acts. The other kind of Acts consist of those which are either of general application or are adopted by the localities on a resolution of the local authority. Examples of those Acts are the Public Health Acts of 1848 and 1375 and the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, of 1689, once adoptive but now compulsory. I could mention many others. It is to the latter class of Bill that this Bill belongs. I can assure your Lordships that it is quite in accordance with precedent that a Bill of this kind should be introduced by a private member. The
38
greater part of our sanitary and local legislation in its original form has neon introduced by private members both in this House and in another place, acting, as the promoters of this Bill are acting, as a rule with the co-operation and advice of the Government.
It is eighteen years since the last measure involving Public Health provisions was introduced—the Public Health Acts Amendment. Act, 1907. Many new provisions have been inserted in local Acts since that time and have been found useful in practice and the time seems ripe for putting those into more general form. That is the opinion of the Local Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee reported in 1921 as follows:—
"The Committee is further of opinion that a consolidation and extension of the Public Health Acts would be extremely beneficial and if consolidation cannot be attained at an early date they urge the immediate extension of the Public Health Acts to include all powers which are now regularly granted in Private Bills of local authorities."
In 1922 and 1923 they made similar observations in their Reports for those years.
It is hardly necessary for me to go through the clauses of this Bill in detail. They deal, on the lines that I have explained, with many subjects which are ripe for general legislation. I must, however, say one or two words of general description of the Bill. The Bill is divided into nine parts. Part I deals with the machinery for bringing the Bill into operation. The Bill does not apply to Scotland at all and only Part IX applies to London. Parts II, III, IV and V are adoptive; but with certain limitations. For instance, Clauses 21, 22 and 24 can only be put into force in a borough or an urban district council area of fewer than 20,000 inhabitants if they get the consent of the Ministry of Health. It cannot be put into force in those places simply on the motion of the local authority. Those clauses, as well as Clauses 17, 19 and 35, also require the consent of the Ministry of Health in order that they may be put into force in rural district council areas.
Part VI of the Bill deals with recreation grounds. It is an extension of Part VI of the 1907 Act, and it is proposed that this part of the Act shall operate where that

39
Act operates. There was considerable discussion on this Part of the Bill in another place on the Report stage, and I imagine there may be some discussion here when we come to the Committee stage. It is a matter for the Committee to settle. All I can say is that I do not desire to give any unduly extended powers to local authorities, and I should be glad to listen to any reasonable proposal that is brought forward in regard to this somewhat contentious matter.
In regard to Part VII of the Bill, dealing with infectious diseases and hospitals, this is to come into operation at once. So far as I know, there is nothing contentious in the proposals made, and no opposition has appeared in regard to them. Part VIII contains a number of miscellaneous clauses. There is one inserted on the suggestion of the Ministry of Health to allow local authorities to do something to assist to prevent blindness, as well as to treat it when it occurs, in localities. There is a clause dealing with parking places for tars. Clause 71, which has also led to a certain amount of discussion, deals with the, question of cold storage. I have met the representatives of the Cold Storage Association this afternoon, and, although the arrangement we came to was only verbal, and has to be reduced to writing and to print, I may say that we did agree verbally, and I shall hope to have this clause in an entirely non-contentious form, so far as they are concerned, in the Committee stage. I shall have a word or two to say later on with regard to Clause 74, which deals with offences in regard to driving motor cars and other vehicles.
Part IX deals with baths and wash-houses and this is the only part which applies to London. It gives greater powers to increase the charges. The scale of charges allowable in regard to public baths and washhouses was fixed so long ago as 1878 and has never been altered. It also gives power to meet other uses of baths sanctioned by precedent. I do not know of any objection being raised to that part of the Bill. Such, shortly, is the scope of the Bill. I have described its origin, the care taken in its preparation and the attempts to meet all well-founded criticisms. I repeat that it is supported by all the great associations of local authorities and by the Ministry of Health. It is on the lines suggested by the Local Legislation Committee of another place,
40
and I would fain hope that it will have the support of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of this House, who has unique experience in regard to Private Bills. It only remains for me to refer very briefly to the two Motions for the rejection of this Bill of which Notice has been given. One stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I at once inform the noble Lord that I am not moving?
LORD EMMOTT: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I will not take up your Lordships' time in dealing with what I imagined was the cause of this objection. The other Motion stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. I have often admired hi another place the ingenuity with which he found arguments to oppose Bills, and I have no doubt he will have ingenious arguments to offer against this measure if he pursues the Notice he has given. I do not know what his reasons are, but it is possible that he thinks this Bill might make local expenditure rather easier than it is. There are some clauses only that can possibly be used in that way. I would venture to remind your Lordships that the Bill is also meant to save money inasmuch as it will lessen the cost of promoting Private Bills and reduce the number of such Bills. I might also remind your Lordships that whatever may be said about local extravagance—and Heaven knows the rates are high enough—the rates have not gone up as much as our taxes have done, and I think there are often more genuine incentives to economy in localities than there are in regard to Imperial expenditure.
Has not our sanitary legislation been justified? In the decade 1891 to 1900 the death rate was eighteen per thousand. In the last three or four years it has come down to between ten and twelve, or an average of somewhere about eleven per thousand. The death rate for infants in the earlier decade of which I speak was 153 per thousand, and I am informed that to-day it is less than half of what it was then. Those are results that must be stated in favour of some of the sanitary legislation which this country has adopted.
It may also be that my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam prefers the

41
system of Private Bill legislation to incorporating these stereotyped clauses in General Acts. If so, I would venture to remind your Lordships that the people who seem to know most of this question—such as, for instance, the Local Legislation Committee in another place—take, a different view. In fact, I may say that this Bill gives no reason for complaint by anybody, so far as I am aware, except three classes of people possibly. One consists of the Parliamentary Agents and another the Parliamentary Bar: and these gentlemen have hitherto managed, somehow, to find profitable occupation in spite of a long course of legislation of this kind. The third class of people who may possibly complain are members of your Lordships' House who are such gluttons for Committee work on Private Bills that they would regret to see anything done to curtail the number of such Bills. That being so, I ask your Lordships with some confidence to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Emmott.)
LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was only a short time ago that we listened to a very powerful speech from the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in the course of which he pointed out that this country must exercise economy if it was to return in any kind of way to its ancient prosperity. The noble Earl pointed out, as the noble Lord has just said, that taxation had increased enormously and that the rates had also increased to a very great extent. I think we all know that whereas we used to pay something which varied from 2s. to 5s. or 6s. in the £, the rates are now somewhere between 15 s. and 20 s. in the £. After the noble Earl's speech I hoped that there would have been some signs of a return to sanity and a little attempt at any rate to stop increased expenditure. But, as has always happened, I find that this is not going to take place and that whenever anybody wants to spend money he can always find excellent reasons for doing so.
This Bill is brought in by a private member of another Place who has only been for eight months in the House of
42
Commons. So far as I can see from the names on the back of the Bill, there is not one who had been more than, if as much as, three years in that House and all but one of them were, I believe, connected with municipalities. We all know that the officials of municipalities are anxious to interfere with our private life and to impose fresh burdens upon us. It may be the case, and I think it is, that there are a few provisions in this Bill which might be advantageous if this country was still rich and prosperous. As it is a poor country, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and to do everything we can, not only to avoid increasing expenditure but to diminish it.
The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, will excuse me, I do not want to misrepresent him in any way but I rather gather that he laid it down that this was a consolidation Bill.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT indicated dissent.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It has been said to me that it is, after all, only a consolidation Bill, which combines certain Acts which are already the law of the land. As a matter of fact the title is: "An Act to amend the Public Health Acts … and the Baths and Washhouses Acts … and for other purposes relating to public health." It is true that there might be a number of municipalities—as a matter of fact, there are some ten or twelve—which have power at present to provide amusements, theatres, concerts, etc. But that is under special Acts which were given to these particular municipalities because they were either seaside resorts or watering places; and I do not think it is wise at any time to extend those powers and certainly not at present. We are now getting into the position of ancient Rome shortly before her downfall. We are providing panem et circenses at the public expense. I hope that your Lordships will take warning from ancient Rome and give up what, to my mind, are very foolish extravagances.
Allow me now for a few moments to direct your attention to the Bill. There is another very bad feature in this Bill in that it allows a Minister of Health to do all sorts of things without the authority of Parliament. One thing that it allows—I will come to it presently—is that the Minister of Health may authorise

43
municipalities to spend any sum of money, and to levy any rate, without limit. We do not know how long the present Government is going to exist, but it is not without the bounds of probability that we might have a Labour Government in power. Are we prepared to give to a Labour Minister of Health that power? Assume that the Minister of Health was a woman—not an unlikely event—what on earth might she not do, moved no doubt by the most excellent reasons, and a desire to improve the health of the country, though how theatrical entertainments and cold meat storages are going to improve the health of the country I do not know.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 4:
"The Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place therein, any provision in Parts II to V of this Act, in the same manner as provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, which apply to urban districts, may be applied to rural districts."
That is to say that though this part of the Bill only applies to urban districts, the Minister of Health, without going to Parliament, may on his own initiative apply it to rural districts. It is true that there is a clause saying that notice must be given of the Order once at least in one or more of the newspapers circulating within the area to which the application relates in each of two successive weeks, but that of course is a perfectly illusory safeguard. Clause 14 says:—
"The local authority may, in proper and convenient situations in any street or public place, erect and maintain seats and drinking fountains for the use of the public and troughs for watering horses or cattle."
A most excellent thing, but up to the present time a very considerable number of drinking troughs for horses and cattle have been provided at private expense. Why alter it, and put this expense upon the rates, especially at the present time? My noble friend the Earl of Balfour says "especially when there are no longer any horses." I venture to disagree with him there. There are still a few.
I would like next to direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 22, which says:—
"The urban authority may give notice to the owner or occupier of any lands abutting upon any street within their district which is repairable by the inhabitants at large, requiring him, within fourteen days
44
after the service of the notice so to fence off, channel or embank the lands as to prevent soil or refuse, from such lands, from falling upon, or being washed or carried into the street, or into any sewer or gully therein."
That clause can again be applied by the Minister of Health to a rural district so that you may have a farmer being told, because there is a certain overflow of water from his land, that he has to go to this expense. There is no appeal against the decision of the surveyor Jacks-in-office, as they very often are, who come down and think they are doing something very fine if they compel an unfortunate inhabitant of England to fall in with their order.
Subsection (8) of Clause 33 allows a local authority to enter into land speculation. It says:
"The local authority may purchase any land not occupied By buildings lying between the improvement line and the boundary of the street, or any interest in such land—"
It does not actually confiscate the land, I will say that for it, but why should a local authority enter into a land speculation? Land speculation is sometimes remunerative and sometimes is the very reverse. Then Clause 39 says:
"It shall not be lawful for any person to repair, reconstruct or alter the course of any drain, which communicates with a sewer or with a cesspool or any other receptacle for drainage, without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours previous notice in writing of his intention so to do except in case of emergency."
This is no longer a free country. We cannot do anything. We cannot see that a drain into a cesspool is put right without asking the permission of the gentlemen whom the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, so ably represents.
Now we come to verminous persons and premises. In the Act of 1897 there was power to the local authorities to wash and clean a verminous person if the verminous person was diseased, but that is not enough for the local authority at present, because they say that if a person is verminous under certain circumstances they may take him and wash him against his will and detain him for a period. Perhaps I had better read the words, which are to be found in Clause 48:—
"(2) Where it appears to the local authority, on a report from the medical officer, that any person, or the clothing of any person is infested with vermin, or is likely to be so infested, if that person consents

45
to remove to a cleansing station the local authority may cause him to be removed to such station—"
How on earth is the local authority to know whether the clothing of any person is likely to be so infested? The clause goes on:
"and, if he does not so consent, then a petty sessional court, if satisfied on the application of the local authority that it is necessary that he or his clothing should be cleansed, may make an order for his removal to a cleansing station and for his detention therein for such period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order."
Really what are we coming to in these days when a person who may have given some offence to a medical officer or some local person may be, when in their opinion he is likely to be infested at some future time with vermin, hauled up before the magistrates, who, so far as I can see, have no option in the matter if the local authority say that is their opinion—no proof is apparently required. Then the person may be detained for any time and under any conditions that the local council may impose. There is power to enter any house and order it to be re-papered and painted if the local authority thinks that possibly vermin may come in. There is no definition, by the way, of vermin.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHM0RE: Clause 50, page 27.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes, I see it says:
"The expression 'vermin,' in its application to insects and parasites, includes their eggs, larvae and pupae, and the expression 'verminous' shall be construed accordingly."
I was wrong; there is a definition, but it is rather an involved one. Then Clause 56 provides for theatrical entertainments. It is a fact that in ten or twelve places the municipal authorities have power, which was given to them in the old days when we were more or less prosperous, to provide theatrical entertainments. It is one of the worst features of the present day that when once something has been done, whether it is right or wrong, and when some power has been given, everybody else seems to think that he ought to have the same power. My idea is that these powers should be taken away from these ten or twelve municipalities. The local authority, or the persons responsible for this Bill, had a more or less economical fit at the beginning, and they said
46
that for the purposes of this Bill no rate more than one penny in the £ could be imposed, but then they had another feeling, and they said that the Minister of Health may alter this and may allow them to impose any rate they like. With the Minister of Health possibly a wild Socialist woman, what on earth can you expect, and what mercy will the ratepayers get? And you must remember that they are not the people who have the votes. The majority of electors do not pay rates, but they have the votes; and if you are going to open up a vista of public entertainments to be provided at the expense of the small minority who pay rates I do not know what the financial position of the country may be in the future.
Then Clause 62 says that where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court of summary jurisdiction that any person suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is in an infectious state and that the lodging or accommodation provided for that person is such that proper precautions to prevent the spread of infection cannot be taken, the court may make an order for the removal of that person to a hospital or institution. That may be all right, but we got on very well without it before. All this costs money and at a time when we ought not to spend money. And there is another clause, Clause 71, which enables a local authority to provide cold air storage, but I understand that on this point some arrangement has been arrived at. What it all comes to is this. These local authorities are anxious to extend their powers, and an extension of their powers means the spending of more money and the raising of the rates. I sincerely trust that in the interests not only of the ratepayers but of the finance of the country as a whole your Lordships will reject this Bill. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved:—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, though I am sure you have all been delighted with the speech to which we have just listened and would have been very sorry if you had not had an opportunity of

47
enjoying it. I did my best to follow the noble Lord and as far as I could make out, on a rough calculation, he only objected to eight proposals in the Bill. There are 81 clauses in this measure, and basing it on that one fact alone I think I shall be justified in asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I need not follow the noble Lord in all the points on which he made a criticism. They are all Committee points, and I am sure the promoters themselves would welcome the criticism of your Lordships in Committee.
This Bill is not a big general scheme. In its essence it is a number of detached points, many of them of great importance, which have been discussed by Parliament in individual cases. As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, what this Bill provides is a procedure by which facilities which have been found of advantage in many individual cases can be conferred in a cheap and inexpensive manner on authorities similarly situated. Take, for instance, the clause which so much alarmed the noble Lord, the clause dealing with the cleansing of verminous persons. I admit that the language is not very picturesque, but it does not deal with a very picturesque subject. They are all clauses which have been common in Bills for Sessions past. I do not think the noble Lord need be alarmed. Take the theatre clause. I admit that many people hesitate as to how far municipalities should be allowed to give public entertainments, but it is done now, and most successfully done, and the artistic side of music would be much poorer—I quote a case of which I have some personal experience as a member of the audience—but for the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra.
But I want to emphasise the fact that these are all Committee points, and they ought to be discussed in Committee, as they have been discussed in Committee over and over again. I regard this Bill
48
really as eight or ten years late. We ought to have had it long ago, and if we had we should have saved a great deal of public expenditure and public money. I have no doubt that certain of the clauses will come in for criticism in Committee, and possibly they can be improved. I have no doubt your Lordships will welcome opportunities for discussing various points in the Bill, just as the noble Lord desires to discuss cold meat storage and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Clause 74, which deals with penalties for the neglect of traffic directions and for dangerous driving. I hope, however, that Lord Montagu of Beaulieu is satisfied. I can assure your Lordships that I am speaking with a full sense of responsibility when I say that by passing this Bill with the majority of the clauses in it you will be saving the ratepayers thousands of pounds of money, and you will therefore be going a long way towards meeting the views even of the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill.
There is one personal point I desire to mention. I agree with Lord Emmott in the description he gave of the origin of this Bill, and I am giving away no secret—we do not generally refer to the draftsman of a Bill by name—when I say that the late Sir Francis Greer had a great deal to do with the drafting of this measure, and, in fact, that this was the last work of his extremely useful life, I believe that in consecrating last winter at any rate to assisting those who are now engaged in the promotion of this Bill, he performed the last of very many valuable public duties on this and the other side of the Irish Channel.
On Question, Amendment negatived, and Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.