Sitting of 8 July 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
West Hampshire Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Croydon Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be 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.
West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board (Superannuation) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
London Passenger Transport Board (Finance) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  INDIA (ADEN).
  Mr. PALINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the request made by the representative of the commercial interests in Aden and those in India connected in trade with Aden in connection with the desirability of maintaining the status quo of the existing residential, commercial, and industrial rights of the Indians in Aden, in the event of the administrative transfer of Aden from the Government of India to the Colonial Office under the new constitution, has been considered.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government have received certain representations on this subject. They have accepted in full the recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee in paragraph 162 of their Report for the safeguarding of the position of Indians at Aden in the event of transfer. Of those recommendations, that relating to the conferment of appellate jurisdiction from Courts in Aden upon a Court in India has been embodied in the Bill now before Parliament. The remainder relate to matters which are not appropriate for insertion in a Bill and which will fall to be disposed of as part of the detailed arrangements connected with any transfer.
  Mr. PALING: Am I to understand that, as far as the latter part of the

  3
  question is concerned, no decision has been arrived at and that the matter is still under consideration?
  Mr. BUTLER: Certain assurances were given by the Joint Select Committee, and it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to implement them when the time comes to transfer Aden.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state on what conditions the Italian Government are prepared to conclude a settlement of their dispute with Abyssinia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): No, Sir.
  Mr. SANDYS: Will my right hon. Friend be able to furnish the House with the information before the debate on Thursday; as without it it is difficult to estimate the gravity of the situation?
  Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking as to what I shall be in a position to say on Thursday.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Would it be fair to say that this country has a dispute with the Italian Government? If there is any dispute, it is between the Italian Government and the League of Nations.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the dispute has been dealt with at Geneva under Article 19 of the Covenant?
  Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member had better put that question upon the Paper, as it does not arise on this question.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House as to the proposals of the Russian Soviet Government for compensating the British Government in respect of the balance of the plate and other property taken by Soviet Government officials from the British Embassy, seeing that the Soviet Government have now stated that after further search they have been unable to discover any additional pieces of plate or
  4
  other property apart from what had already been restored to the British Government?
  Sir S. HOARE: The Soviet Government have made no such proposals.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Have not the British Government demanded immediate payment of compensation, having regard to the fact that this property was taken from the Embassy by Soviet officials and that British Embassy officials were taken to the State prison of St. Peter and St. Paul; and does not my right hon. Friend think that we ought to demand that compensation should be paid for such property as has not been returned?
  Sir S. HOARE: As I informed my hon. Friend last week, the claims of His Majesty's Government for compensation in this case have been referred to the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade. We could not treat the claims of the Government in any way differently from the claims of many individuals who also claim compensation from the Soviet Government.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that it is a different thing—the British Embassy raided by State officials; there is no question of irresponsible gangsters or marauders—from the ordinary claim for property taken throughout Russia?
  Sir S. HOARE: We have hitherto taken the view—and I agree with it—that it would be unfair to many private claims if we adopted an attitude in the case of Government claims different from the attitude which is being adopted in the case of private claims. It would be, in a sense, giving precedence to one claim over other claims.
  Sir W. DAVISON: What is the present position with regard to all the claims?
  Mr. THORNE: Wipe them out.

  AUSTRIA.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the progress of the monarchist movement in Austria and of the attitude adopted in certain neighbouring countries for many years past towards the question of a Habsburg restoration, he can state whether the policy of His

  5
  Majesty's Government to use their influence in support of the maintenance of Austrian independence is of general application, irrespective of the quarter from which that independence may be threatened?
  Sir S. HOARE: The importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the maintenance of Austrian independence is well known, but I do not think that a useful purpose would be served by any discussion of the application of their policy in contingencies which have not yet arisen.

  BRITISH SOMALILAND.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions were attached to the proposals to cede certain British territories to Abyssinia for the purpose of protecting the interests of the natives?
  Sir S. HOARE: Any definite proposal which His Majesty's Government might have made to cede to Abyssinia the Port of Zeila and a corridor of British Somaliland would have been accompanied by safeguards designed to protect the interests of the inhabitants of the territories concerned. In particular, the Ethiopian Government would have been requested to give a guarantee that such territory as might be ceded would not be utilised in any way for slave traffic. Moreover, the necessary steps would have been taken to ensure that grazing and watering rights already possessed by the tribes under British protection would have been unaffected by any transfer of territory.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the agreements of 1884 with the inhabitants of Somali territory and the terms of the Somaliland Order in Council, 1929, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts of 1890 and 1913, involve the assumption by the Crown not of full sovereignty but of a protectorate, upon the abandonment of which the inhabitants would resume their independent status; and whether the Crown has, by proclamation or otherwise, assumed in Somaliland sovereign rights which could, under international law, be transferred to another Power
  6
  in the manner set forth in 53 and 54 Vic., cap. 32?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me an opportunity to make a fuller statement on a matter which he raised in a supplementary question last Thursday.
  As regards the first part of the question, it is correct that British Somaliland is not British territory, but is a Protectorate. His Majesty does not possess full sovereignty there, but has for many years possessed full powers of administration and jurisdiction by virtue of usage and sufferance as well as under the treaties of 1884 to which my hon. Friend refers. These powers are at present exercised under the Somaliland Order in Council, 1929, made in pursuance of powers under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. Had circumstances arisen which required further consideration to be given to the suggestion made tentatively by my right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs consultation would have taken place with the tribe affected with a view to the transfer to Ethiopia of the necessary rights in the area concerned.
  As regards the last part of the question, this has, in effect been answered by what I have already stated, but I would like to explain that as there is no question here of the transfer of British territory, the precedent of the Act of Parliament relating to the cession of Heligoland, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend, is not in point, and I regret that in answer to a supplementary question last Thursday, I gave a contrary impression.
  Sir A. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the inhabitants of British Somaliland enjoy, in practice, the same rights and privileges within the British Empire as those of Kenya and Uganda; and whether they receive similar passports and consular assistance in foreign countries?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The inhabitants of British Somaliland are British protected persons. Their status is thus similar to that of the inhabitants of Uganda and the Kenya Protectorate. The inhabitants of Kenya Colony are, however, British

  7
  subjects. As British protected persons the inhabitants of British Somaliland do not enjoy in the Empire all the rights and privileges of British subjects. They receive passports as British protected persons, but in foreign countries they receive consular assistance similar to that given to British subjects.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Do I understand that these Somalis on entering Great Britain have to register with the police authorities as aliens?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I have made that plain in my answer. As protected persons they have to do that, unless they get special exemption in individual cases.
  Captain EVANS: Can my right hon. Friend say in what particular instances special exemptions are granted?
  Mr. MacDONALD: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question to the Home Secretary.
  Sir A. WILSON: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the precedent of the Treaty of 1925, whereby we ceded Jubaland without the consent or concurrence of the inhabitants, will not be followed in future?
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the area of the land in British Somaliland which it was proposed to hand over to Abyssinia, the number of wells and watering places in this area, and the name of any port included in it?
  Mr. MacDONALD: As regards the first part of the question I would refer to the reply which I gave on the 4th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. As regards the rest of the question, the area concerned, which includes the port of Zeila, contains about 30 permanent wells.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will my right hon. Friend place a map showing the area in question in the Tea Room or some other convenient place?
  Mr. MacDONALD: Yes, I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. THORNE: Were the natives consulted and asked whether they would rather stay where they are or be shunted over to Italy?
  Mr. COCKS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this was rather a silly offer?

  CHINA (MARITIME CUSTOMS, TIENTSIN).
  Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the intentions of the Japanese Government regarding the contributions of Tientsin to the Chinese maritime customs revenues, in view of the non-contribution to those revenues by the Manchurian ports taken over by Japan in 1932?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have no reason to think that the Japanese Government have any special intentions in regard to the customs revenues at Tientsin which are not under their control and which, so far as I am aware, continue, in common with those of other Chinese ports, to be remitted to the Chinese Central Government.

  ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, owing to the delay in the publication of an award, he will now ask His Majesty's Minister in Argentina to ascertain the date upon which the President of the Argentine Republic will give his decision upon the disabilities under which the Argentine railways are being operated, in view of the hardship suffered by British subjects in relation to their investments in those railways?
  Sir S. HOARE: I understand that the award was expected to be issued about the middle of June and His Majesty's Representative at Buenos Ayres is being asked to report the latest information.

  CIVIL AVIATION (INTERNATIONAL CONTROL).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of the German Government towards the question of the internationalisation or international control of civil aviation?
  Sir S. HOARE: The German Government have not so far as I am aware defined their attitude on either of these matters since they withdrew from the Disarmament Conference in October, 1933.
  Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Conference they opposed the internationalisation of civil aviation, and am I to take it from his answer that there is no change in their attitude?
  Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member can look at the minutes of the Conference and see exactly what it was that the German Government then said, and I have nothing at present to add to my statement.

  PROPOSED WESTERN AIR PACT.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that a Western air pact should be negotiated up to the point of reducing it to terms and articles, but that it should not be definitely signed except as a, part of the general agreement envisaged in the declaration of 3rd February?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my predecessor on the subject in the course of the Debate in the House on 31st May.
  Mr. COCKS: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred me to this statement before, is he aware that the statement was not altogether definite in every detail, and that I gathered that that indicated generally that the policy of His Majesty's Government is as is laid down in my question; and could not the right hon. Gentleman confirm it?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, I think that my right hon. Friend, not for the first time, expressed the position very admirably, and I have nothing to add to it.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ABYSSINIA.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House what were the stipulations made by the British Government as a condition precedent to their withdrawal of their objection to the
    10
    admission of Abyssinia to membership of the League of Nations; and whether he can assure the House that such stipulations have been fulfilled by Abyssinia?
    Sir S. HOARE: The special condition upon which the United Kingdom, in common with other Members of the League, agreed in 1923 to the admission of Abyssinia was that that country should sign a declaration undertaking (1) to endeavour to secure the complete suppression of slavery and of the slave trade; (2) to abide by the rules which other countries with territories in Africa had already agreed to follow in regard to the import of arms and munitions; and (3) to provide the Council with information when so requested, and to take into consideration any recommendations which the Council might make about Abyssinia's obligations. I am circulating the text of this declaration in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    As regards the second part of the question, it would be difficult, on the information available, to express an opinion on the efficacy of the measures taken by the Ethiopian Government in regard to slavery. These measures have recently been reviewed by the Committee of Experts on Slavery appointed by the Council of the League. The Committee emphasised the importance of the supply by the Ethiopian Government to the League of particulars of the measures it was taking and the obstacles it was encountering in its action against slavery.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not well known that slavery has not been abolished in Abyssinia, and that our own Colonies have actually had raids not very long ago upon them for slaves; and does not my right hon. Friend consider that Abyssinia, not having fulfilled the express conditions on which she was admitted to the membership of the League, has forfeited any right she may have as a member of the League?
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend has raised a very wide issue, which will, no doubt, be dealt with in the Debate on Thursday, and meanwhile let me say to him that the League is seized of this question. Any complaints, if complaints are to be made, should be made to the League. Our responsibility is collective,

    11
    not individual, in this respect. Moreover, there may be a difference—I am not now arguing whether it is so or not—between the raids carried out by un-authorised individuals and raids that might be suggested to have had some connection with the Abyssinian Government. These are questions the League must consider.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that Abyssinia has taken, and is taking, steps to abolish slavery?
    Sir S. HOARE: So far as my information goes, the Abyssinian Government is doing its utmost to abolish slavery, but I say again that this question is essentially one for the League of Nations to consider.
    Mr. DICKIE: In the tentative proposals made by His Majesty's Government for the cession of territory to Abyssinia, was any statement made with regard to the slave traffic?
    Following is the declaration referred to:
    Extract from, 1923 agreement.
    "The Empire of Abyssinia, following the example of other sovereign States which have given special undertakings on the occasion of their admission to the League of Nations, makes the following declaration:

    1. Abyssinia adheres to the obligations formulated in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Convention signed at St. Germain-en-Laye on 10th September, 1919, amending the General Act of Berlin, dated 26th February, 1885, and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels, dated 2nd July, 1890.

    2. Abyssinia, recognising as binding the system at present established with regard to the importation of arms and ammunitions, undertakes to conform to the principles set forth in the Convention and Protocol signed at St. Germain-en-Laye on 10th September, 1919, and in particular to the stipulations contained in Article VI of the said Convention.

    3. Abyssinia declares herself ready now and hereafter to furnish the Council with any information which it may require, and to take into consideration any recommendations which the Council may make with regard to the fulfilment of these obligations, in which she recognises that the League of Nations is concerned."

    COVENANT.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any report on the decisions of the League Committee of
    12
    Thirteen, which has been studying measures to render the Covenant more effective in the organisation of collective security?
    Sir S. HOARE: As my predecessor informed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 29th May, the Committee of Thirteen, at the close of its first session, appointed a sub-committee of jurists and a sub-committee on economic and financial questions. The former sub-committee has already met, and the latter is now in session. The reports of these sub-committees will be presented on 24th July to the full committee, which will then proceed to draw up its report to the Council of the League.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Would it not be more successful if an additional member were appointed?

  AGRICULTURE.

    MILK MARKETING BOARD.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the hardship to producers of small quantities of milk resulting from the present scale of levies charged by the Milk Marketing Board; and, whether, in view of the narrow margin upon which such producers operate, he can state whether any steps are contemplated to improve their position?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I do not think that the provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme discriminate against producers of small quantities of milk. Producer-retailers, with not more than four cows, have the alternative of contributing either at the appropriate rate per gallon of milk sold by retail, or on the basis of ten shillings per cow per annum, whichever is more favourable to them. Producers with not more than four cows who sell only by wholesale are exempt from all the provisions of the scheme. Any representations which producers may wish to make on practical difficulties experienced by them can, I think, best be made to the Milk Marketing Board, who are the representatives of the producers, or to the Milk Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain who will no doubt give careful consideration to the position of

    13
    small producers of milk in formulating any recommendations for the improvement of organised milk marketing.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the levy charged now to support this business is so onerous that many of the producers have been forced out of business altogether?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The best place where they can make representations is to the producers' representatives on the Milk Board.

    IRISH CATTLE (WARBLE-FLY).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any action has been taken by the Governments of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland to insist upon the compulsory treatment of cattle against the warble-fly pest; and whether, in view of the importance of ridding this country of this pest, he will consider the desirability of making representations to these Governments to the effect that action should be taken in this matter at an early date?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that a few years ago a campaign of propaganda by experiment and demonstration was begun in the Irish Free State and in Northern Ireland by the respective agricultural departments, but there are no compulsory measures in force there. I am considering the suggestion made in the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing, at the port of entry the prohibition of entry, during the months February to June, of all cattle which bear the characteristic lump of warble-fly maggots upon them?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I could not answer that question without further consideration.

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORY, YORK (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Mr. R. J. RUSSELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the labour conditions at the York beet-sugar factory, where members of the staff are working 12 hours a day for seven days a week during the beet-lifting period from September to January, and where Sunday labour is
    14
    being largely continued during the rest of the year; and whether he will make representations to stop such unnecessary Sunday labour?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that, except when the day and night shifts are changed, only the salaried senior technical staff are required to work longer than eight hours a day during the beet-sugar campaign and that this is necessary to preserve continuity as between one shift of workers and the next. The beet-sugar manufacturing process is a continuous operation from the time the raw beet enters the factory at one end until it comes out as sugar at the other and during this process Sunday labour is essential. As regards the rest of the year, this factory refines raw sugar, the product not being entitled to subsidy. I understand, however, that no employé is required to work longer than eight hours a day and that only in exceptional circumstances is Sunday labour necessary.

    REGENT'S PARK (BOTANICAL GARDENS).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, as it is now unnecessary to let the old Botanical Gardens area in Regent's Park to pay the upkeep of the Queen Mary Garden, he will, on the expiry of contracts, forbid this garden being prepared, used, and reconditioned all through the hottest weeks of June and July for private parties, fairs, and fetes in which the lawns are covered with booths which injure the grass and gravel paths and make the garden untidy, disturbing the general public and depriving it of free access to the garden?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Queen Mary's Gardens are used, not for two months as stated by my hon. Friend, but for two days only, for the Theatrical Garden Party and the Post Office Orphanage fetes. The rose garden itself remains open to the public. For the rest, I can only refer the hon. Member to my full answer to him on 1st July.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has my right hon. Friend visited the Gardens in the past week? Did he see them yesterday and find two lawns covered with dismantled booths and

    15
    empty bottles and crates, spread over the lawns? Did he see men working yesterday to clear the paper and litter, which made the place look like a costermonger's Bank Holiday fete?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I have explained, for many years past these two fetes have been held at that place, and when I took over the Gardens I felt that I could not interfere with such a long user. I gave an undertaking that no other fetes would be allowed. I have visited the Gardens recently and have made efforts to ensure that us these fetes are held on a Saturday there will be a special gang employed on the Sunday to clear up the inevitable mess, and I am told that this morning the Gardens are admirably clear.

    STATUTE LAW (REVISION).
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Attorney-General whether and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce a further Bill to promote the revision of the Statute Law, in continuation of the Statute Law Revision Act of 1927?
    Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. A Statute Law Revision Bill is in course of preparation and, it is hoped, will be ready for introduction next year. The Bill in course of preparation deals with the early part of the Statute Book, and therefore involves a very large amount of research.

    TANGANYIKA (AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGES).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Attorney-General of Tanganyika territory arising out of a recent case of alleged arson, and laying down that a person in that territory who lends money on a mortgage is given possession of the hypothecated property from the date of signature of the mortgage bond and that, accordingly, no application is necessary to the court before foreclosure; and whether he will arrange for favourable consideration to be given to the introduction into Tanganyika of an agricultural mortgagors' relief ordinance on the same lines as obtains in Kenya?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have seen a reference in the Press to this matter, but I have no official information. I am asking the Acting Governor of Tanganyika to send me a report on the subject.

    GOLD COAST (MINES).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the rapidly increasing population employed in mines in the Gold Coast, he will consider the setting up there of a labour department?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: No such proposal is before me, but I am giving the matter my consideration.

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK PRICES.
    Mr. CHARLES TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the details of the price paid for liquid milk by the Milk Marketing Board when this milk is used for the manufacture of cheese; and whether the price paid by the Milk Marketing Board's factories is lower than the price paid by factories privately owned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The board make monthly payments to the producers at an average price per gallon irrespective of whether their milk is used for liquid consumption or for manufacture. The price debited to the board's own factories in respect of milk for the manufacture of cheese is the same as that charged to private manufacturers.

    MARRIAGES, GRETNA GREEN.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has come to any decision in regard to the marriage ceremonies performed at Gretna Green; and whether he will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of either making such unions illegal or else confirming their legality by some further machinery?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on this subject on the 25th June.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the dubiety which exists in the minds of those who have gone through this irregular ceremony as to whether they are married or not and the distress which is frequently occasioned in later years by those who have gone through this ceremony, will the right hon. Gentleman take early steps to have the whole matter regularised?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As I have told the hon. and gallant Member, I hope to have an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Church of Scotland and other bodies, and I can assure him that there will be no undue delay.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (DURHAM).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons under the means test who have been unemployed for one year, for two years, for three years, for four years, and for five years and over, up to the latest available date, in the county of Durham, including the boroughs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember this when making the draft regulations?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will remember all relevant facts.
    Following is the reply:
    Employment Exchanges in the County of Durham (including the Boroughs).
    Numbers of insured persons in receipt of Unemployment Allowances at 27th May, 1935, who had been continuously on the registers for the undermentioned periods.

    Period.

    Number.

    1 year but less than 2 years

    13,188

    2 years but less than 3 years

    10,581

    3 years but less than 4 years

    10,668

    4 years but less than 5 years

    9,400

    5 years or more

    3,055

    A proportion of these persons will have had one or more short spells of employment lasting not more than three days
    18
    each within these periods of unemployment.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the amount paid per week in the county of Durham, including the boroughs, by the present administration of the means test; and the amount which would be paid if the recipients received unemployment standard benefit?
    Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The amount of unemployment assistance allowances paid at local offices of the Ministry in the County of Durham, including the boroughs, in the week ended 28th June, 1935, was about £97,000. The amount which would have been paid to the recipients by way of unemployment benefit is not known and could not be ascertained without an examination as to eligibility and a computation in each individual case, which I should not feel justified in undertaking.
    Mr. BATEY: Have not the Ministry of Labour given an estimate before of what has been paid under the means test. If they have done it before, why cannot they do it now?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. BATEY: Did not the late Minister of Labour give an answer to the effect that £15,000,000 a year had been saved, £45,000,000 in three years. If the late Minister of Labour could give an answer like that, why cannot an answer be given now?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think that I can be expected to answer that question without notice.
    Mr. BATEY: You will have to answer it.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the weekly cost for the present administration of the means test in the county of Durham, including the boroughs; and the estimated weekly cost for administration if standard benefit was being paid?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Separate accounts to show the cost of the administration of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit by areas are not kept. I regret, therefore, that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Is it not necessary to keep separate statements on this matter in view of its importance, in order that proper conclusions may be drawn?
    Mr. BATEY: When the Commissioners were in Durham we were told what they cost. Why cannot we be told the cost to-day when they are occupying the Commissioners' office?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I have told the hon. Member that the information for which he asks is not available.
    Mr. BATEY: It was available then. Why is it not available now?
    Mr. STOREYasked the Minister of Labour the number of insured workers in the general engineering, marine engineering, and building industries registered as unemployed at the Sunderland, Pallion, and Southwick-on-Wear Employment Exchanges at the latest convenient date; and what percentage these figures represent of the insured workers in these industries registered at those exchanges?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am having the figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (LOADING REGULATIONS).
    Mr. LOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the complaint by the Council of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce against foreign sea captains treating with impunity the loading regulations with regard to grain cargoes; and is he prepared to bring in, at an early date, an amending Bill to increase the penalties?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have received representations from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, but my information does not support the contention that the regulations are being broken with impunity. As regards the introduction of amending legislation, I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 4th June.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the comments of the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce in regard to overloading and the question
    20
    of the fines which are being paid for not taking any notice of the regulations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know that the matter was discussed, and I have said so in my answer.
    Mr. LOGAN: But what steps is the right hon. Gentleman going to take, knowing that these things are being done? What is he going to do?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say whether they are being broken, but, if there is any evidence to show that they are being broken, we will certainly take action.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these illegalities are being committed by the nationals of countries which have not yet ratified the Load Line Convention, and will he bring pressure to bear on these countries to ratify this Convention?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If those details can be brought to my attention, I will certainly look into them.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORTS.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade which of the principal commercial countries of the world show an increase in exports this year compared with the same months in 1933 and which show a decrease?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of the 24 principal commercial countries, 13 show an increase and 11 a decrease. I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said that this country was the only one to show an increase?
    Mr. WEST: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the countries which he quotes as showing an increase are all high wage paying countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not quoted them yet. They are to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WEST: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that these countries are all high wage paying countries?
    Following is the list:
    Of the 24 countries the value of whose aggregate import and export trade in 1934 exceeded 1 per cent. of the total of world trade (in terms of gold), the values, in national currency of the exports in 1935 have been greater than in the corresponding period of 1933 in the case of 13 countries and less in the case of 11 countries, as indicated below. The number of months to which the particulars relate in each case is shown in brackets:

    Increases.

    Decreases.

    United Kingdom (5)

    Germany (5).

    France (5)

    United States (4).

    Belgium (4).

    Japan (4).

    Netherlands (5).

    Canada (5).

    Italy (5).

    British India (4).

    China (5).

    Argentina (5).

    Switzerland (5).

    Union of South Africa (3).

    Soviet Union (4).

    Dutch East Indies (3).

    Australia (4).

    Sweden (5).

    Algeria (3).

    British Malaya (3).

    Spain (4).

    Czechoslovakia (5).

    Denmark (5).

    Brazil (3).

    COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the intimation which was given that the last ballot on the cotton spinning redundancy question was a ballot on general principles only, and that a further ballot would be taken on the details of the scheme before the Government would proceed to pass the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill into law, whether he will give an undertaking not to proceed with the Second Reading until a further ballot has taken place?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: On 19th December last I said, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) that, if the scheme for the elimination of surplus spindles received the support of a sufficiently influential proportion of the trade, I should be prepared to ask Parliament for statutory sanction for the collection of the necessary levy. The draft scheme drawn up by the Colwyn Committee has received that support, and, accordingly, the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill has been introduced. I am doubtful of the practical utility of a ballot of the industry on the details of
    22
    the Bill, and I fear I cannot promise to await such a ballot.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill was in progress Mr. Adamson the liaison officer between the industry and the Government, wrote a letter to the effect that they must vote on the details before they were finally committed to it; and is he aware that they have never voted on the details but only on the general principles?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that a vote on that subject must be regarded as decisive.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the Bill will not be proceeded with?
    Mr. CHORLTON: When will the Second Reading of the Bill take place?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECRUITING).
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Air how many men, in the various categories of personnel, have joined the Royal Air Force since the recent decision to expand that service; and how these figures compare with requirements?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Between the 22nd May (the date on which the decision of His Majesty's Government regarding the expansion of the Royal Air Force was announced) and the 6th July, the numbers finally accepted are as follow:

    Officer and airman pilots

    95

    Airmen for training in fitter and rigger duties

    646

    Airmen for training as armourers, photographers and wireless operators

    201

    Other airmen

    731

    The initial response has been satisfactory, but it is too early for any useful comparison to be made between the numbers actually accepted and the total requirements. My hon. Friend will appreciate that what is required is a steady and continuous intake corresponding with the execution of the programme of expansion.

    CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.
    Mr. HOROBINasked the Minister of Transport (1) what provision is made for obsolescence and renewals in the latest accounts of the Central Electricity Board;
    (2) what is the actuarial basis, including the anticipated sales and revenue, underlying the financial provisions which are being made to meet out of revenue as they become due the interest and sinking fund on the capital of the Central Electricity Board?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I will circulate such information as I have in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The Act of 1926, which set up the board, prescribed that the tariff should be so fixed that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners the receipts on income account should be sufficient to cover the expenditure on income account, including interest and sinking fund charges, with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow. The Electricity Commissioners have approved a term of 10 years and appropriate margins for the grid tariffs; and after consultation with the Treasury have also approved the suspension of sinking fund payments and the payment of interest out of capital in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
    As was explained by the board in their Fifth Annual Report (for the year 1932) in order to ensure an economic basis for the formulation of their tariffs, they made surveys of the probable increase in demand for electricity over the tariff decade.
    Mr. HOROBINasked the Minister of Transport what is the average revenue per unit sold in each area of general trading under the Central Electricity Board?
    Captain HUDSON: The Board is a national undertaking for the country as a whole, and they do not publish figures relating to individual areas. I understand that the average gross revenue per unit sold by the Board in 1934 was approximately 0.4 of a penny.
    Mr. HOROBIN: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that as the Act lays a responsibility on the Minister this information should be available?
    Captain HUDSON: I have given the hon. Member such information as we have; that is the average for the whole country. We have not figures for separate areas of the country.
    Mr. HOROBIN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early date on the Adjournment.

    DOCK CHARGES, SOUTH WALES.
    Captain A. EVANSasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered an application from the South Wales Coal Owners' and Coke Owners' Association, on 1st June, 1935, for an inquiry to be set up to investigate dock charges at South Wales ports; and what action has been taken?
    Captain A. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the terms of the Act under which the application was made my right hon. Friend has required the Great Western Railway Company, as the owners of the docks to which it relates, to show cause why the charges in question should not be submitted for revision to the Rates Advisory Committee.
    Captain EVANS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Great Western Railway Company have shown cause, and if not, when will the Rates Advisory Committee consider the matter?
    Captain HUDSON: I shall require notice of that question.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLOGERMAN AGREEMENT).
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he will submit to the House of Commons for approval the Naval Agreement made by the executive with Germany, instead of leaving a matter of such magnitude to be discussed on a Supply day?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As I informed my hon. Friend on the 3rd July last, it is understood that the Opposition desire to raise this matter on one of the allotted Supply days, which I consider to be an appropriate occasion.
    Mr. ADAMS: May I ask, in view of that reply, whether this House is precluded from effectively reviewing the treaty-making activities of the executive?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The position is that the ratification of such agreements is effected by the exchange of notes. The House is at perfect liberty, as always, to debate these matters, and, if the House is not satisfied with the agreement come to, it is always open to it to move a Vote of Censure. A Vote of Censure is usually moved by the leader of the Opposition.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Would not the appropriate occasion to discuss this matter, not in technical detail, be when the Foreign Office Vote is debated on Thursday next?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that is so, but I should not like to prejudge any reply that may be given to the limitation or extension of the Debate by Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the only people who can move a Vote of Censure are the Opposition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I think I safeguarded myself by using the word "usually." It is open to anybody to move one.
    Mr. ADAMS: Was not a precedent established some years ago by which international instruments were submitted to this House for its approval?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question, but I think that what I have said is perfectly correct.

    DISARMAMENT.
    B. Mr. WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the proposed meeting of the Disarmament Commission in the autumn, His Majesty's Government will make known its proposals on the matter of the reduction of military aircraft and the international control of civilian aircraft?
    Sir S. HOARE: No further meeting of the Disarmament Conference has so far been arranged, and on this matter I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for
    26
    Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 5th June last. The proposals of His Majesty's Government in regard to air disarmament are contained in the documents referred to in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs to a question put by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 5th June.
    Mr. WILMOT: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the key of European security is to be found in the Commission mentioned in the question, the Government will through their representative in Geneva take some steps to hasten the calling of this Commission?
    Sir S. HOARE: There is no such Commission. I imagine that the hon. Member is referring to the Disarmament Conference. If that be so, I dealt with the question on the 5th June and last week, and I pointed out the difficulty of summoning a conference to which at any rate one of the chief participants was not prepared to come.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) to answer these questions?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take if we suspend the 11 o'clock Rule?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the first four Orders and the two Financial Resolutions, the Criminal Lunatic (Scotland) and the University of Durham. While it is true that the National Health Insurance Bill will occupy some time, I think the other matters, which we desire to get through before the House rises, are not controversial.
Mr. ATTLEE: Although they may not be contentious, I take it some statement will be made in regard to them.
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
Motion made, and Question put:
"That the Proceedings on Government business 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, 201; Noes, 27.

Division No. 262.]

AYES.

[3.26 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

North, Edward T.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Goldie, Noel B.

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Patrick, Colin M.

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Percy, Lord Eustace

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Graves, Marjorie

Petherick, M.

Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Grimston, R. V.

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

Assheton, Ralph

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Powell, Lieut.-ol. Evelyn G. H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Power, Sir John Cecil

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Hales, Harold K.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rea, Sir Walter

Boulton, W. W.

Harris, Sir Percy

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hartland, George A.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Remer, John R.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Rickards, George William

Broadbent, Colonel John

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Ross, Ronald D.

Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

Holdsworth, Herbert

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

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

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Horobin, Ian M.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Burghley, Lord

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Burnett, John George

Hurd, Sir Percy

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Butler, Richard Austen

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Sandys, Duncan

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Lewis, Oswald

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Castlereagh, Viscount

Liddall, Walter S.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)

Llewellin, Major John J.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Clarry, Reginald George

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Colfox, Major William Philip

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

Strauss, Edward A.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

Strickland, captain W. F.

Cooke, Douglas

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Copeland, Ida

McKie, John Hamilton

Sutcliffe, Harold

Cranborne, Viscount

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Tate, Mavis Constance

Crooke, J. Smedley

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Cross, R. H.

Maitland, Adam

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

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Thompson, Sir Luke

Davison, Sir William Henry

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Martin, Thomas B.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Dickie, John P.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Drewe, Cedric

Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Worthington, Sir John

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Fox, Sir Gifford

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ganzoni, Sir John

Norie-Miller, Francis

Sir George Pennv and Lieut.-Colonel

Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Dobbie, William

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Thorne, William James

Banfield, John William

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Tinker, John Joseph

Batey, Joseph

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

West, F. R.

Bvan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Cleary, J. J.

John, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lawson, John James

Wilmot, John

Cove, William G.

Logan, David Gilbert

Daggar, George

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leigh Joint Hospital District) Bill, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEIGH JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 3 of Insurance Act with respect to free insurance period and extended insurance period.)
    3.35 p.m.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "an employed contributor or a voluntary contributor and."
    This is a drafting Amendment, these words being regarded by the draftsman as superfluous. Perhaps the Committee will allow me at this stage to say something about a number of the other Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. It may be convenient that hon. Members should know that a large number of these are drafting Amendments and are being made with a view to the ultimate presentation to the House of a consolidating Measure which is urgently necessary in connection with National Health Insurance. It is the intention of the Government, if time permits, to bring in a consolidating Measure which, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. J. Davies) knows, will be of great value to approved societies in their administrative work throughout the country. We have endeavoured in a number of these Amendments to anticipate such a consolidation. The first Amendment which I now move is purely drafting in character.
    3.37 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it is intended to introduce into the House a consolidating Measure in connection with National Health Insurance. I notice, however, that the right hon. Gentleman who is an astute politician was very careful to use the words "if time permits," and I rather thought that he underlined those words with undue emphasis. I would like him to answer a question which arises on this Amend-
    36
    ment. When I first looked at these words which it is proposed to omit, I thought they were intended to distinguish between the employed contributor or voluntary contributor on the one hand and the deposit contributor on the other. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the deposit contributor falls into a different category from those other contributors and is not a member of an approved society. Does not the omission of these words destroy the distinction usually made between the two categories of contributors?
    3.39 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I can best answer the hon. Member's question by reading the Clause as it will be if this Amendment is made. The Clause will read:
    "Subject as hereinafter provided where an insured person being a member of an approved society ceases to be employed, etc."
    The words, "an employed contributor or a voluntary contributor," in this connection are superfluous so far as legal phraseology is concerned. The question of the deposit contributor will be dealt with by regulation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "two," and to insert "four."
    I am grateful to be able to say that the present Minister of Health certainly understands his job. His knowledge of insurance matters is very well known in this House, and he will be able to see exactly what is meant by my Amendment. Special opportunity for preferential treatment is given in regard to the question of 10 years' insurance. In the case of any person insured for 10 years, a society has the power, year by year, to grant the concession of keeping him in, providing he can give alternative evidence and bring proof to the society that he was unemployed. With regard to those insured under four years, they are in a very belated category indeed, and while a society had the opportunity of keeping all classes in insurance under the prolongation provisions, without any question of whether they had been insured for four years, with 160 contributions paid, or whether they had been

    37
    insured for 10 years, now, by this Bill, we find that the 10 years, from the point of view of the valuation of a society, will be a determining factor with regard to the next quinquennial valuation, and some of us feel that an injustice is being done to those members who have not been in more than four years or who come under the 10 years.
    When one remembers the great amount of unemployment and the many thousands of people who have been out of work, and realises that they may lose their contributions and not get an opportunity of establishing themselves unless they start employment again and reenter in the ordinary course of joining an approved society, it appears to me, who have been managing the affairs of an approved society since 1912, that a great injustice is being done. The Minister must remember that they are giving a concession to those with 10 years' insurance and over, and they are giving optional power to the society to make certain concessions, and it appears, from the equity of the case, that these other people are not being fairly treated. With regard to differentiation, who can say that 10 years must definitely be the starting point? If we are not going to allow any concession to be given by the societies under that period, the State ought to step in and make it possible to take the middle course. The middle course will not do the Minister or the Government any harm, but it will certainly give an opportunity to many people to be retained in the membership of their societies. When all is said and done, a work of such great national importance, catering for many millions of people, is a real benefit conceded to the people, and the protection given under the national health insurance scheme is essentially beneficial. It is a great institution, and I do not think any of these benefits ought to be taken away from the people.
    I do not think we ought to consider the question of conceding one or two years as being detrimental to the finances of the societies. I know that the approved societies look after the money, but any society that is administering the Act is not a vested interest, but is being worked for the interests of the State, and although the State has conceded the
    38
    right to the societies of governing themselves in the main, it must not be thought that they are given a vested interest to manipulate and administer simply for their own advantage. It may be that some societies can give greater advantages than others, but that does not mean that the State has not the right to step in and to see that what crept in as a national institution in 1912 does not now become monopolised, with great injustice to a number of people as a result. I am not concerned about what my own approved society may say, but I am concerned about members of my own society getting the advantage of an extra two years' insurance. This Amendment will not cost the State anything, but it will leave to a society the power of giving an opportunity for the extension of insurance.
    I think the right hon. Gentleman might grant this concession. I know that it is of no use trying to tell the Minister fairy stories. He has been in this business from the very commencement, and I know he knows, and because I know he knows, I am telling him, in case some Members do not know. My observations are for those who do not know, because I am aware that in this House there are plenty of Members who do not know anything about this subject. This concession for which I am asking is for the benefit of the nation. It is not a benefit for which we are asking from the Labour benches only. It is a benefit that will deal with the whole mass of the unemployed, whether they belong to one party or another. Therefore, it cannot be said that in putting this plea forward from these benches we are advocating only the policy of the Labour party. We are advocating the welfare of those insured who will possibly otherwise go out of insurance, whereas if they are retained for the extra two years, I feel that an opportunity will be given of bringing these people back into one fold, especially if we have the great rise in national prosperity under this National Government which is talked about.
    3.50 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: It is not possible for me to place before the Committee such knowledge and experience as that of my hon. Friend, but, coming from one of the distressed areas, I Can

    39
    assure the Minister that this is an Amendment which he should consider with sympathy. There are many thousands of young men who have been idle for four years who may be able to obtain employment again. They are comparatively young in the insurance sense, and they ought not to be deprived of the free period up to four years because they may obtain employment some time in the future. The National Government are now proclaiming that prosperity has returned, that it is not just round the corner, but here. If it is here, we ought to have a restoration of the status quo.
    3.51 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) for his kind references to myself. I wish that I had a little clearer recollection of a good many of the matters about which I used to know long ago, but I am endeavouring to renew my acquaintance with this interesting subject. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is an experienced administrator of an approved society, and he spoke with a good deal of courage and conviction. I would like to point out one or two considerations which the Committee ought to bear in mind and which I am afraid destroy a number of the arguments which have been used. The provision that every insured person on ceasing work has a free insurance period of, on the average, some 21 months has been on the statute book since 1928. Therefore, there is no question of restoring the status quo. The effect of the Amendment would be to extend that free period from 21 months to three and three-quarter years. I want the Committee to realise that cover for cash benefits, medical benefits and pensions goes to every person on ceasing insurable employment, irrespective of the reason for giving up work; and the man who passes out of insurance for one reason or another is as entitled to this free period as a man who loses his employment. One of the effects of the Amendment would be to extend the period, not only to the men who have been referred to, for whom we have every sympathy, but to a large number of others who have not that claim.
    40
    The reason I cannot accept the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made in all good faith is that the cost of the extension would fall upon the balances of the approved societies. I must say, with some knowledge of approved societies, that I very much doubt whether they would be prepared to agree to the suggestion that they should shoulder this considerable burden. In fact, I go further and say that I am advised that at the present moment, with the considerable contribution that the societies have to make towards the proposals of this Bill, it would not be a reasonable or a safe thing for them to contemplate carrying it further. Of the cost of the proposals in this Bill, one-half is being borne by the Government and one-half by the approved societies. The approved societies have met the situation very fairly and in a statesmanlike way, and I do not think that they could be expected, nor would it be right to ask them, further to deplete their funds by this proposal. If they did, it might seriously affect some of the benefits which some of the societies give. In order to do the generous thing to a certain body of people, they might very well do serious injury to their members.
    Mr. LOGAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered allowing the societies to grant this prolonged period where their funds will allow them to do it? That could be done without applying the principle all round.
    Sir K. WOOD: I should have to be satisfied about the views of the approved societies before I made any observations about that. The hon. Gentleman was very careful to say that he was not speaking for his society but for himself, and that this was his own idea. I think he will realise that I cannot impair the funds of the approved societies in this way, how-every much we may desire to benefit a further number of people. I appreciate the hon. Member's intention, but I feel, on behalf of the approved societies, that it would be unwise to press the matter further.
    Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 31.

    Division No. 263.]

    AYES.

    [4.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Penny, Sir George

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Petherick, M.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Hales, Harold K.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Hartland, George A.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Blindell, James

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Boulton, W. W.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rea, Sir Walter

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Remer, John R.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Rickards, George William

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Burnett, John George

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Sandys, Duncan

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Liddall, walter S.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Clarke, Frank

    Little, Graham, Sir Ernest

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Cooke, Douglas

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Stones, James

    Cooper, A. Duff

    MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Copeland, Ida

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

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

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Dickie, John P.

    Maltland, Adam

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mollor, Sir J. S. P.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Gaibraith, James Francis Wallace

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Worthington, Sir John

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Norie-Miller, Francis

    Goldie, Noel B.

    North, Edward T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Gravel, Marjorie

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    and Major Llewellin.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Reel (Giamorgan)

    Thorne, William James

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    West, F. R.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cleary, J. J.

    John, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawson, John James

    Williams Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Cove, William G.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

    Daggar, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Dobbie, William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out "of some."
    This is a drafting Amendment. The words "of some" are not in the definition of the principal Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.8 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after "sub-section," to insert:
    "but subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of this section."
    Perhaps it would be convenient if this Amendment and the first four Amendments on page 2760 of the Paper were discussed together, because they are all more or less related to each other: In page 3, line 32, to leave out from "until," to "during," in line 34, and to insert:
    "since the end of his free insurance period he has been employed within the meaning of this Act."
    In line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to a person who is employed within the meaning of this Act at the beginning of an extended insurance period and would, if he had ceased to be so employed immediately before that date, have then been entitled to a new free insurance period."
    In line 40, to leave out from the beginning, to "until," in line 44, and to insert:
    "(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section—

    (a) a person who has been continuously employed within the meaning of this Act since before the beginning of an extended insurance period shall, on ceasing to be so employed, become entitled to a new free insurance period if he would have become so entitled had he ceased to be so employed immediately before the beginning of that extended insurance period;

    (b) in any other case a person who is so employed during an extended insurance period shall not, on ceasing to be so employed, become entitled by reason thereof to a new free insurance period unless and."

    In page 4, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to a person who becomes a voluntary contributor immediately on ceasing to be so employed if he would have been entitled to a new free insurance period had he not become a voluntary contributor."
    These five Amendments deal with the question of requalification either during the free insurance period or the extended period. Perhaps the Committee will allow me briefly to explain the position
    44
    in the Bill as drafted, and how we propose to deal with it. The Sub-sections affected are (2), (4) and (5). Subsection (2) says that during a free insurance period a man can requalify for a new free insurance period by eight weeks work in two consecutive contribution half-years. On the other hand, in Sub-section (4), if a man has passed out of his free insurance period, and is in the extended period, he is not entitled to sickness benefit, and is not entitled to a new free insurance period, until he has done 26 weeks' work in two consecutive years. As the Sub-sections are drafted inadvertently, the case of a man who is working at the end of his free insurance period, and carries on working into the extended period, is not dealt with. In Sub-section (4), for example, a man does not get entitled to benefit until having again become employed.
    Let us assume that a man got a job at the beginning of December in the free insurance period which ended on 31st December. He then goes right on until 4th July in the following year. He has done 26 weeks in the extended period. Nevertheless, as the Clause is drafted, if he then becomes unemployed he does not qualify for a new insurance period. The first thing, therefore, is to enable all weeks from the beginning of the extended insurance period to count towards the 26 weeks. The second thing is this. If a man has done eight weeks work at the end of his free insurance period, and carries over, that man is not within that free insurance period qualified for a new free insurance period. He has not ceased work in the free insurance period. The first two Amendments on page 2760 make it quite clear that in such a case a man who has done his eight weeks work down, say, to the end of his free period, 31st December, even if he goes on for another two weeks, he carries with him into the extended period the full right to cash benefit, and when he ceases employment, even although it is in the extended period, he shall thereby start another free insurance period.
    The third thing that happens is this: It is provided in the last of the five Amendments that if a man has done his eight weeks at the end of the free insurance period and continues his employment into the extended insurance period, and then wants to become a voluntary

    45
    contributor, from the moment he becomes a voluntary contributor he continues to be entitled to full benefits by virtue of the eight weeks he worked in the free insurance period. I hope I have made that clear. We are simply doing what, obviously, was the intention, that is, to treat everyone fairly, to see that eight weeks really gives a man full entitlement to the new free insurance period and 26 weeks in the extended period exactly the same thing.
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am glad the hon. Gentleman is taking all these Amendments at the same time, because they relate to the same problem. He mentioned, however, something about a person becoming a voluntary contributor, and perhaps, Sir Dennis, you will be good enough to tell us how these Amendments affect the proposal in my name, and that of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), in page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided also that an insured person who has been an employed contributor and has since become a voluntary contributor shall, in the event of ceasing to be a voluntary contributor and being available for but unable to obtain employment within the meaning of this Act, be deemed to be an employed contributor for the purpose of this sub-section."
    Having asked that question, perhaps I may be allowed to say one thing on the Amendment before the Committee. The Bill was introduced by another Minister, and we have a new Minister now in charge of it. I have an impression that the new Minister is a little bit ashamed of the Bill of his predecessor. He shakes his head, but the more he shakes it the more I believe in what I have said. Having said that, I would add that I believe the proposals he is now making are an improvement, and that the administration of them will prove easier for the approved societies when dealing with persons who are usually called "the ins and outs." We hope the effect of this Bill will be to keep the "outs" more "in" than has been the case in the past. I would like a word from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that he will not lose sight of the very important point we desire to raise under my Amendment.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can satisfy my hon. Friend on that point. This Clause deals only with those who become voluntary contributors in the conditions I have mentioned after the passing of this Bill. The people about whom the hon. Member is concerned are part of those 200,000 who became voluntary contributors and are thereby prejudiced. They are being dealt with by a later Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.17 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "free insurance period during which he became so employed," and insert "contribution half-year following that in which the first-mentioned period began."
    This Amendment has been designed to lessen, if possible, the work of the approved societies. Under the Sub-section as it is worded the societies would have to record in great detail the total number of weeks, and the particular weeks, during which the unemployment existed. We think such very extensive records might be dispensed with.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. DUNCAN: The position here is apparently governed by the preliminary words in Sub-section (1), which refer to an insured person "being a member of an approved society." I should like to ask what happens to insured persons who are not members of approved societies.
    Sir K. WOOD: We deal with the case of deposit contributors by regulations.
    Mr. DUNCAN: But are the benefits which are being conferred under this Amendment being conferred on deposit contributors?
    Sir K. WOOD: We come to that point a little later.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 27, leave out "during" and insert "in respect of."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided also that an insured person who has been an employed contributor and has since become a voluntary contributor shall, in the event of ceasing to be a

    47
    voluntary contributor and being available for but unable to obtain employment within the meaning of this Act, be deemed to be an employed contributor for the purposes of this Sub-section."
    This Amendment deals with a point which is of very great importance to those who have been unemployed for a considerable period. Unfortunately, we have a very large number of such persons in the distressed areas. I know of nothing which gave the unemployed greater concern than the withdrawal of the benefits in 1932, for it can be truly said that the health insurance scheme has become a part of the lives of the people. It is of vital importance to them to be kept in benefit so that they can qualify for everything to which they are entitled under national health insurance. Ever since 1932 we and they have been very concerned about the withdrawal of those benefits, which in my opinion was the most cowardly action of this Government since it came into office. The unemployed were in no way responsible for the condition of affairs which existed, but for all that a great injustice was inflicted upon tens of thousands of them. The short point of the Amendment is this: When the benefits were withdrawn in 1932 a number of insured persons, particularly those over 40 or 45, were very anxious about what would happen to them at the end of 1935 when, as was provided in the legislation of 1932, even their pension rights would be withdrawn. A number of my friends and I openly advised those persons, wherever possible, to become voluntary contributors, notwithstanding the fact that they were unemployed at the time, and a very large number paid their 1s. 6d. a week out of the very small amount of unemployment benefit they received—some out of the 26s. which they received for themselves and their wives, and some even out of the 17s. which they were getting for themselves. They did that simply to safeguard their benefits under the health insurance scheme, and particularly their pension rights.
    That has now been going on for some three years, and the Minister must admit that it represents a great sacrifice on the part of those unemployed persons. The Bill as drafted excluded voluntary contributors from the benefits which it gives to those persons who did not become voluntary contributors, and when the matter was mentioned to the Minister of
    48
    Health who introduced the Bill he frankly agreed to give it very sympathetic consideration. I think the present Minister has put down a new Clause to deal with this matter, but we are anxious to ascertain whether there is any difference between what we are now proposing in this Amendment and his new Clause. I know that this Amendment covers all voluntary contributors who become unemployed, and if he accepts it it will cover the case, amongst others, of a few colleagues who, like myself, are voluntary contributors. We took advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1925. We had been insured persons previously, and thought it was a good speculation. From then up to the present time we have been voluntary contributors, and I am sure the Minister would not like to penalise us if, as a result of his propaganda at the next election, some of us may become unemployed.
    One thing I have noticed about the propaganda of the right hon. Gentleman is that National Health Insurance and the withdrawal of the benefits in 1932 is not mentioned, and I feel he might add that to the long list of things that the Government have done—that they took from the poorest of the poor the benefits which they had received up to 1932. However, that is by the way. The Bill as it stands we welcome, though we think it might go much farther than it has gone. I am pleased to think that the Minister has met us in some degree over this matter, which affects not only those of us who are speaking in the House but thousands of insured persons who became voluntary contributors, because their pension rights and medical benefits will be safeguarded once this Bill has been passed.
    4.26 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman has stated with precision the difficulties of a number of persons, and I propose to indicate the course the Government are taking in that connection. I do not propose to apply myself to the other observations which he made, which are not particularly material to this Debate. A certain number of unemployed persons took what I regard as the very wise course of becoming voluntary contributors, because they were doubtful about their pension rights after 1935, and I do not think any one would desire

    49
    to penalise them for exercising a certain amount of caution. To meet the situation the Government have put down a new Clause, "Transitional Regulations." Under the terms of this Clause these voluntary contributors may be treated as, from 1st January, 1936, as if they had not become voluntary contributors, and they will be dealt with under the new provisions which relate to employed contributors—they will be put in exactly the same position. This question can only arise when the new provisions in relation to the continuance of insurance come into operation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that it is better to deal with this matter by an amendment of the law in the form in which it is set out in this new Clause, and I hope he will agree with me that all the points he has raised are met by it.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. HALL: Could a provision be inserted that these voluntary contributors shall not have to continue to pay as voluntary contributors until the end of the year? It is six months from now to the end of the year, and I suggest that the Clause might be drafted to provide that these voluntary contributors shall be transferred in the way suggested "as from the passing of this Bill." That would mean a saving of eighteenpence a week to those people, who can ill afford to pay it, for a number of weeks.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will look into that point. I think it is necessary that they must continue as voluntary contributors to the end of the year, but I will look into it to see what it is possible to do in that matter.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find himself in some difficulty in drafting these regulations—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is beginning to discuss the Minister's new Clause, which we have not yet reached.
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) will withdraw his Amendment, I will deal with the question.
    Mr. HALL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. G. MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5).
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make a discontinuance of cash benefits impossible. I realise that the Minister will say that to do this would create great difficulty for many approved societies, but he will also agree that the discontinuance of cash benefits involves many insured persons in far greater difficulties. The person dealt with in this Sub-section is one who has been unemployed for a very long period, and is reduced to a poverty-stricken condition. He is the likeliest person to fall sick, and, having fallen sick, is the likeliest person to remain sick for a very long time. He is the person who, in addition to medical benefit, needs cash benefits. Nobody can expect a sick person, merely because he receives medical benefit, to recover from sickness in a very short time. To continue his cash benefits would enable him to get better much sooner and to be fitter for his job. The Minister of Health cannot disregard the matter from the point of view of enabling a sick person to get better at as early a date as possible. We believe that cash benefits are essential.
    That is true also of disablement benefit, and when we come to maternity benefit, the case is even stronger. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will deal with that aspect of the matter, but I would point out that maternity been fit is vital for a person who has been unemployed for a long period. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the point that it is very difficult for a family to face that trying ordeal without cash coming in from somewhere. The Minister will say that he is not leaving the matter undealt with; I know, but it is dealt with in a very strict proviso. He may think it is not strict, but, as a miner from Lancashire, I can assure him that it is very strict. When a pit closes down, a man cannot be expected to pay 26 weeks, and I could give the Minister plenty of instances from Lancashire of men who have no hope of 29 weeks' contributions. The Amendment might create difficulties for many approved societies, especially for miners' societies, but whatever those difficulties, there are far greater difficulties for the

    51
    unemployed person at the present time. It is very important that unemployed persons and their families should be kept in a decent state of health, in order to enable them to get better quickly when sickness overtakes them.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I desire to support the Amendment. I should be the first to realise the very practical difficulties in the way of its acceptance, and am as fully conscious as the Minister of the difficulties which will confront some of the approved societies. There is, nevertheless, a grave injustice to men who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed, after the great majority of them have given their best days to the service of the community and of their employers. There are thousands of men in approved societies who have drawn no sickness benefit for many years. In our own society there are thousands of members who have never yet drawn sickness benefit. A man may have entered insurance at 16 years of age, and have worked at his trade probably for 35 years, during the whole of which time he has had good health and has not drawn sickness benefit. In modern industry, a man may find himself thrown out of employment when 51 years of age through no fault of his own. He is ready and anxious to work, but the precise age at which he is thrown out is also the age at which he will need sickness benefit. During 21 months that man gets no work, and no stamps are put on his card. He drops out of insurance. Steps are taken under the Bill to safeguard his pension rights and his medical attention, but he is denied sickness benefit, even though he has paid contributions during all those years.
    There is an unanswerable case on behalf of the vast majority of those men. They have a moral claim. The difficulty which the Minister will put forward will be, I am sure, that, however good the Amendment may be, the financial condition of many approved societies is such that they would be unable to pay. I am satisfied that some approved societies could not possibly pay benefit of this kind, but other approved societies have substantial balances and assets, and could afford to pay to members who bad been in insurance for many years. Here
    52
    is a direction in which help might be given by the State in conjunction with the approved society. We cannot forget that a few years ago millions of pounds were taken from the funds of the approved societies which would be very useful in this connection.
    The case could only be met by the Minister realising that sooner or later the existence of thousands of approved societies with varying benefits, some in trades where sickness is very high and additional benefits consequently cannot be paid, and some in trades where sickness is comparatively rare, will have to be considered. The fundamental purpose underlying national insurance is the wellbeing of the people, irrespective of trade or calling. I do not know whether the Minister would be inclined to look into the suggestion as to the pooling of funds of the approved societies in order to find the necessary money for sickness benefit. The case for maternity benefit will probably be stronger still. From the financial point of view it could be in no way so expensive. I have had many cases of decent men who have given service to this nation but have been thrown out of employment at 50 years of age, or even at 47 or 45. They have not been shirkers, and surely when, in these circumstances, a child is born into a family, the man and woman concerned are entitled to maternity benefit and some help and assistance. I know very well the line which the Minister will take on this Measure. The difficulty is particularly one of finance, but the injustice which is being done raises the whole question of national insurance and its administration, as being worthy of reconsideration with a view to their entire reorganisation.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) can read my thoughts and knows the speech which I am going to make, I suggest it means that he admits that the line taken by the Government is right and that that taken by himself could not be sustained in argument. I appreciate the interest and the sympathy shown by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) in the sort of case he mentioned, particularly among miners. We are entitled to claim that the provision we are making here is a great

    53
    step forward. The present position under the law is that when a man falls out of work he has his 21 months, subject to arrears, but no cash benefit if he has paid no contributions in the previous year. Then there is the further extended year, again subject to arrears, and no cash benefits. He would have had, after 1st January next, a year's pension, but what we are doing here is to say that everybody shall have his 21 months free insurance, subject to no arrears and with full cash benefit, irrespective of what he has paid during the previous year, and that thereafter, year by year, subject to a simple test which the great bulk of insured persons over 27 years of age will be able to satisfy, he will be kept in insurance, in an approved society, and kept in medical benefit and in full pension rights, even if he never does another week's work, until he is 65 years of age.
    We realise the difficulty of men in middle life falling out of work owing to the intervention of machinery or reorganisation, but such a man has nothing to fear as regards security when he reaches 65 years of age, and nothing can deprive him of that right. That being so, I think the Committee will realise that these provisions cast a big burden on the State and upon the approved societies. To give to a man who falls out of employment in such a case as I have mentioned, and after he has been insured for 10 years, a man who may be as young as 27, security for pension for the rest of his life, and should he die, security to his widow, will cost the State £9,000,000 in the next decade. To say that a man who fell out of employment should have full cash benefit hereafter, in the same way as anybody who was contributing regularly week by week, would undermine the whole purpose and the structure of a contributory scheme, and would turn health insurance from a right into a sort of public charity, which is not really doing a favour to the beneficiaries. Of course, as the hon. Member for Ince suggested, it would bankrupt a large number of societies, and it would be doing no service to the unemployed if, in trying to help them, we deprived the employed of advantages which they have every right to expect. For these reasons, which I am sure the hon. Members who have moved and supported the
    54
    Amendment will appreciate, we cannot accept the Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be sympathetic on one point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), namely, that of maternity benefit, but he was not quite fair when he spoke as though the proposal of the Amendment was a great step in advance. The Opposition will lose no opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to the fact that we should not be moving these Amendments, and the Minister would not be opposing them, but for the action of the Tory Government in 1926, and I think we are entitled, when we can fasten upon that point in connection with these benefits, to protest in this House that the insured population are deprived of benefits which could easily have been secured for them but for what was done in 1926. The Minister need not have said this afternoon that the funds of the approved societies could not stand these benefits if that action had not been taken in 1926. I think the right hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, he played the part of errand boy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he deprived the approved societies of £2,750,000 per annum. Of course, he has gravitated upwards since, and now he is the Minister in charge of this Bill, and he puts up his deputy to say that the societies cannot afford to pay sickness and disablement and maternity benefits to those people who are unemployed because to do so would smash the financial foundations of the scheme, while he is in part responsible for shaking those financial foundations. We shall go to a Division against the proposal of the Bill, not because we do not think that that proposal is better than what prevails now, but because we desire to continue to-day, in 1935, to protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in 1926.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not want to defend the taking away of the £2,750,000 in 1926, but, supposing that that money had not been taken away, would it be sufficient to enable these benefits to be paid?
    Mr. DAVIES: Speaking with some little authority, I can say that it would be more than sufficient to pay all the benefits that are included in this Bill.
    4.49 p.m.
    Sir RICHARD MELLER: I listened with great interest to the observations of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I felt certain that he was going to drag in the old story of the money which had been taken away, but this afternoon we have got down to real facts; the hon. Member has disclosed the whole case. He does not suggest that it is possible for the Minister to accede to the request which has been made by his friends, but he says, "This is a pure demonstration. We do not expect, in the present financial conditions, that this concession can be granted. My hon. Friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment"—
    Mr. DAVIES: I did not intend that remark to apply to maternity benefit.
    Sir R. MELLER: It comes to the same thing. The hon. Member says that the taking away of this money from the pool prevented the provision of these very necessary benefits. I am sure that the Minister, if he had the money, would be the first to accept the Amendment. I agree that the case of these men who have been unemployed for so long is a desperately hard one, and that it must be met in some way, but I would ask my hon. Friends who have moved and supported the Amendment this question in all sincerity, because I believe that they feel very deeply concerned about the people for whom they speak: If the Minister were able to say that these people who have passed out of insurance should be brought back under the Bill with all the benefits that they had during their full period of insurance, would that provide them with the comfort and sustenance which is necessary to put them back into good working health once again? That, after all, is a comparatively small matter, very much smaller than the amount received under unemployment insurance, and when they come to receive public assistance, a portion of the amount which they would have received by way of health insurance benefit is taken into account in the amount allowed to them under public assistance. Therefore, when the hon. Members' appeal comes to be
    56
    examined and analysed, there is not a great deal in it after all.
    The real truth of the matter was stated by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who said in effect, "This is a demonstration. We have something with which we can whip the Government; let us seize it this afternoon." If that is to be the argument brought forward, we have an excellent case to put before the electorate. To my mind this Measure has been a, remarkable attempt on the part of the Government to meet a really urgent necessity for the great majority of those who were going to pass out of insurance and lose their pension rights. The Opposition have urged that these people should not be carried on from year to year in a state of suspense, and the Government have met that case. Now the Opposition seize the opportunity of dragging in a number of other cases, which could only be met in conditions of great prosperity. If hon. Members thought that so much injustice was done to insured people by the taking away of the £2,300,000, why did not the Socialist Government, when they were in power in 1929, put that money back, and thus undo the great robbery which was said to have taken place? Of course, they could not do so. Indeed, in view of the financial position of the country at that time, it is marvellous that the Government to-day are able to give this little assistance. The proposals of the Government are excellent proposals, which are much appreciated, and, although hon. Members on the Opposition benches have made this demonstration this afternoon, I know that in their heart of hearts they are deeply thankful for what the Government have done.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I know that on a Clause like this we cannot discuss the whole question of national health insurance, but, after the little curtain lecture which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir Meller), there are one or two things that need saying. We on this side of the Committee have not condemned hip and thigh this Bill as a Bill; we have rather welcomed certain portions of it; but I would remind the hon. Member that it was the present Government that passed the amending legislation in 1932 which

    57
    caused so much anxiety in the minds of the unemployed as to what was going to happen to them. It is almost as a death-bed repentance that this Bill has been brought in, and I am inclined to believe that the real reason for its being brought in is that a general election is looming ahead. Most of us knew that before the general election the Government would have to bring in a Bill of some kind to deal with the position of the men who have been out of work.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) did not move this Amendment purely as a demonstration; let that be perfectly understood. Whether the House appreciates it or not, there are large numbers of people in this country who have been out of work for two and three years, and who in the present state of industry cannot get their 26 weeks' stamps in two years. We want to know what is going to happen to them. The hon. Member says that the benefit they would have received would be taken into account by the public assistance committee, but the whole tendency of social legislation in this country has been to take people away from the Poor Law—that is to say, from the public assistance committee—and to deal with the problem in a national manner. If I may say so, Sir Dennis, with your permission, the Conservative party in this country cannot claim a great deal of credit for national health insurance. If the hon. Member for Mitcham will look up the Debates which took place in 1912, he will find that more than 100 supporters of the Conservative party in the House voted against national health insurance, and the late Mr. Bonar Law wrote to the "Times" saying that when his Government took control they would repeal this legislation. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Member had better read history before he starts giving lectures on this point.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have been loth to deprive the hon. Member of the opportunity of answering or referring to what had already been said by another hon. Member, but we must not let this discussion develop into a general Debate, either on national health insurance or on the question of the conduct of the National Government.
    Mr. SMITH: I had not the slightest intention of entering upon a general De-
    58
    bate, but, when we are told that this Amendment has been moved purely for demonstration purposes, that statement needs an answer. Whether the House appreciates it or not there is a great deal in what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). Those who are affected by a Clause of this kind are people who have had very little out of health insurance. Personally, I never drew a penny piece from it, and I was very pleased that I did not, because I would much rather be healthy. Thousands of these men went into health insurance at the age of 25 or 30, and worked continuously from that time until they were thrown out of work three or four years ago. They never drew a single penny of benefit, but now, after three years, they have exhausted their insurance period, including even the extended period. The anxiety due to the fact of their being out of work has undermined their health, and, now that they can no longer draw anything from the Unemployment Assistance Board, they can only go back to the public assistance committee. We sincerely hope that the Government will give this matter serious consideration, and will make some provision for dealing with people who are placed in those circumstances.
    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I should like to say a word in reply to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller). To-morrow, I believe, the House is to discuss proposals for certain distressed areas. The hon. Member suggested that there was no real hardship on persons who would not be able to receive the benefit of which they will be deprived under these Sub-sections, because they will be able to obtain that benefit from the public assistance committee.
    Sir R. MELLER: I did not say that there was no hardship. I said that it would make no real difference if this benefit, which they lost under the Bill, were given to them by the public assistance committee. That would be a great benefit to them.
    Mr. BEVAN: I think the hon. Member is doing violence to the meaning of language. If they were put in the same position as before, they would be under no hardship except the hardship which

    59
    both classes are suffering now, and which is not under discussion—the hardship of being ill and of having to apply for public assistance. Surely, the hon. Member does not appreciate the actual situation. What occurs now is that, where a person is receiving sickness benefit, many public assistance authorities disregard—as, indeed, they are entitled, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, to disregard—sickness benefit to the amount of 7s. 6d. But if one poor person who is sick can have his 7s. 6d. disregarded, and another sick person who is an applicant for public assistance is not receiving the 7s. 6d., in order to put those two persons on the same basis the public assistance authority have to find the 7s. 6d. When are the distressed areas going to receive something other than lip service from the Government? The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer make speeches, but over and over again when an opportunity faces the House to come to the help of the distressed areas they do not take advantage of it. In my country the public assistance rate is exceedingly high, and in the last few years it has been made much higher by having to find these amenities which were formally found by the Insurance Fund. The hon. Member does not appreciate that the public assistance rates now are largely subscribed by the poor people themselves, and, if we could take this burden off the public assistance rates and put it upon the Insurance Fund in some way or other, we should reduce the rates and at the same time remove many of these people from the stigma of the Poor Law. I should have thought if there was one practical direction in which the Government could have come to the help of these heavily rated areas they would have taken advantage of this opportunity.
    We have been reminded over and over again in the Debates on this Bill that, had it not been for the financial genius of the National Government, the Bill would have been impossible. The Bill was introduced because unemployment had depleted the
    Insurance Fund, and, now that employment has increased, the fund is again replenished and the Government are able to restore what they formerly took away. It follows that, if the finances of the country had not been restored, these people, the weakest and hardest hit section of the population, would have been called upon to make the heaviest contribution to the national finances. In other words, this Bill is not brought forward as an act of justice. It is not brought forward because the Government realise that a most unjust and cruel thing was done, but it is brought forward by the accident of good fortune. We are told that if unemployment had not been reduced or, alternatively, if employment had not increased, these poor old men at 65 years of age would have been deprived of the pension. Is that the assumption upon which the Bill has proceeded, and are we to assume that, if ever financial stringency occurs again, if ever the country gets into difficulties again, the first to receive the axe will be the old and the sick?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. BEVAN: If I am offending, I am doing so because I am replying to an argument—
    The CHAIRMAN: That has already been referred to. There comes a time when these things must come to an end.
    Mr. BEVAN: It seemed to me that the time had arrived when we should not allow supporters of the Government to get away with it quite so easily and that we should point out to them and the country where their logic leads, that if we are again in difficulties we shall unload those difficulties on to the weakest shoulders in the community.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'disablement' in line 31, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 37.

    Division No. 264.]

    AYES

    [5.6 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Assheton, Ralph

    Blindell, James

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bossom, A. C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Albery, Irving James

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Aostruther-Gray, W. J.

    Bernays, Robert

    Bracken, Brendan

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Petherick, M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Burnett, John George

    Hartland, George A.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Remer, John R.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Rickards, George William

    Castlersagh, Viscount

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cautley Sir Henry S.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Runge, Norah Cocll

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wendsworth, C.)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Cooks, Douglas

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Savery, Servington

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Copeland, Ida

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Smiles, Lieut. Col. Sir Walter D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Crossley, A. C.

    Levy, Thomas

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

    Lewis, Oswald

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Dickie, John P.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Doran, Edward

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Lloyd, Geoflrey

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Stones, James

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Elmley, Viscount

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

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

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Maitland, Adam

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Titchfleid, Major the Marquess of

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Tufnell, Liout.-Commander R. L.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Worthington, Sir John

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Norie-Miller, Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Sir George Penny and Captain

    Hope.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Thorne, William James

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    John, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    West, F. R.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cove, William G.

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelty)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)

    Dobbie, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert "or."
    This is followed by an Amendment to leave out the words "or maternity" in the next line. I think I can make an appeal to the Committee in respect of maternity on much stronger grounds than even in the case of the last Amendment. On the Second Reading the late Minister, dealing with the benefits of national health insurance, said:
    "Well known too, is the wide and extremely important nature of the benefits secured by this system—cash benefits in sickness and in a long period of disablement following sickness, and medical benefits during sickness. The cash benefit on maternity is, perhaps, one of the most important of all."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 5th June, 1935; col. 2063, Vol. 302.]
    It is on those lines that I want to press my case to-day. The question of maternity benefit is the most important of all, because such benefit is required at a time when there is most need in the house. I have particulars of a case to bear out what I am making. In the latter part of June I performed the opening ceremony of a hut for the unemployed in my division, and when you go to these places you hear all sorts of complaints as it is thought that a Member of Parliament is able to rectify everything. However, I was given particulars of a really genuine case of a collier, aged 36, who had been out of work since 1932 owing to the pit having closed down. He was an able-bodied man but had been unable to obtain work. He told me that he had eight children and that in respect of the last one just born he had been unable to obtain maternity benefit for his wife. He said that he had been unable to get it because he had been unemployed for so long. I said that if he would get me a note to that effect, I would bring the case forward when I had an opportunity.
    I received such a note which was from the insurance society saying that the man was unable to draw any maternity benefit in respect of his wife owing to having been out of work since 1934. Do not hon. Members think that it would be of real benefit to the State if men in such circumstances could receive maternity benefit? The man had only one child at work. I have heard it said that when a man is unemployed children often come along, but in this case the children came with
    64
    regularity, and naturally one would have thought that it would have been to the benefit of the State to see that all possible help was given to a family of that kind. This matter particularly touched me, because I happened to be one of ten children, and realised the needs of the household in those times. There was no national insurance benefit in those days, and one can visualise the circumstances of this family.
    I admit that as far as it goes, the Bill is of benefit to the community, but we on these benches are asking that its provisions should be extended in certain particular directions, one of which is to keep on the maternity benefit. An hon. Member behind asked what is the probable cost? I do not think that it would amount to very much, because a large number of the unemployed are elderly people of from 50 to 60 years of age, but the benefit would be a real help to families in a position similar to the one to which I have called attention. I was hoping that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would be here. She made a very strong appeal to the Government on the Second Reading to watch this point and stressed the need of maternity benefit. I followed her, and said that if the Noble Lady would put down an Amendment on the Order Paper we would be glad to support it. I waited to see if she would do so, as I believed that a number of Conservative Members would support her. Naturally, when we put down an Amendment it is always under suspicion, and I thought that if she would move an Amendment and obtain Conservative supporters we could weigh in afterwards and perhaps manage to carry it. But my strategy has not worked out in this case. The Noble Lady did not put down an Amendment, and it has been left to us to bring one forward. The Committee should pay close attention to the matter, which is of great importance, especially to the working classes.
    5.21 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: Everyone will be in agreement with the hon. Gentleman on the value of maternity benefit. It is of great value, and with the general lines of his approach to this matter I think that everyone must have the greatest possible sympathy. I would remind him, however, that in addition to the pro-

    65
    vision of maternity benefit in the National Health Insurance Act, local authorities provide facilities in their hospitals and homes in connection with schemes of maternity and child welfare and do a great deal to assist in making better provisions in this connection. The point is not altogether immaterial, because in the majority of cases where women take advantage of these facilities—and I am glad that they are taking advantage of them more and more—the local authorities are entitled to, and in fact do, receive payment from the mothers for the facilities afforded to them. Therefore, from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, the local authorities in a number of these cases do receive something for the services which they provide.
    The hon. Gentleman opposite will understand that I am not in any way attempting to belittle the value of this important provision of the Act. It is of great value as far as the insured women are concerned, and so is sickness and disablement benefit from the point of view of the men. Provision for payment during sickness and disablement is a very valuable right so far as insured men are concerned, and it is difficult to appraise the respective values of maternity benefit to women on the one hand and, of sickness and disablement benefit to men on the other hand. I know personally what I regard as the most valuable of the benefits, but I have no doubt that a large number of insured men in the country, looking at it from their point of view, would consider that sickness benefit was of considerable assistance to them, and I put it no higher than that. Therefore, the first thing I have to face in considering the Amendment is the fact that it is difficult from the point of view of logic and justice to extend the cash payment in respect of maternity without so extending sickness and disablement benefit, having regard to the fact that it is a national scheme which affords facilities for men as well as for women. Under the financial scheme of the Bill, there is no provision for the payment of maternity benefit to persons in the extended insurance period, and, unless the finances of the scheme were wholly recast, it would not be possible for such payments to be made. The approved societies of the country would naturally say that they had not the funds with which to make such payments, and I
    66
    have no doubt that in the case of a number of societies it would not be possible for them to make such payments. Although I would personally like to see this extension—I believe we all would, as sympathy is not confined to any one quarter of the Committee—there is no provision as far as finances are concerned, and I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what would be the estimated cost of meeting this Amendment on the question of maternity benefit?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is impossible to say.
    5.26 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I was really amazed at the speech of the Minister this afternoon. Most enlightened people in this country are alarmed at the high maternal and infant mortality rates in this country, and one would have thought, that the Minister would have welcomed an opportunity of this kind to do something in order to try and reduce that mortality. Some of us can speak with a certain amount of emotion upon this matter, but I desire in this House of all places to restrain myself. Had it been possible for my mother to have obtained the benefit provided for in this Amendment she would probably have been alive to-day and young children would not have been deprived of maternal care for so many years. The Minister must appreciate what it means to an unemployed man when his wife is faced with this critical period in her life. An endeavour is made in these enlightened times to obtain nursing care. It is true that local authorities are doing much, but it is equally true that in a large number of areas which are heavily depressed they cannot do what they would desire to do. It is impossible for the unemployed man either to pay for the attention which he obtains for his wife by that means or to pay anything in doctor's fees. The sum of £2 is the minimum amount paid by approved societies, and a larger sum is paid by many societies, and it is a, tremendous help on occasions of this kind.
    The Minister ought really to reflect again upon this matter as it will indicate the mind of the Government if they reject the Amendment. He must know that conferences which are being held by

    67
    nurses, doctors and women's organisations in the country are stressing the high maternal and infant mortality rates. There are very few enlightened professional organisations which are not passing resolutions expressing alarm about the matter, and here is an opportunity of doing something in a very small way. It might not meet a very large number of cases, but, if it saved a few scores of mothers a year, the Minister ought to seize the opportunity of accepting the Amendment. I was surprised to hear his argument that because he was obliged to reject cash benefits to men he was naturally obliged to reject such a benefit as this which concerns the mothers. There is no comparison. Because it cannot afford to do the expensive thing are we to be told that it cannot afford to do the least expensive thing? What does this mean to the mother and the child? It may mean that the mother's life may be saved and the child's life may be saved. There is no comparison in the benefits to the mother and the child and the sickness benefit, which is more expensive, which would apply to the unemployed man himself. We trust that the Minister will change his view. We look upon this as a very serious matter. His refusal to accept the Amendment rather indicates the view of that class of people who fail to appreciate all that this means to people who are destitute and down and out. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, if not to-day then on Report stage.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I hope that the Minister will listen with a favourable ear to the plea that has been made. There is no one here who would have the slightest hesitation in giving his approval to any action which might be taken to alleviate the distressful position of the prospective mother who knows that she is not going to get the benefits for which we are asking. My hon. Friend was not in the slightest degree exaggerating when he said that the country as a whole is perturbed about the serious condition that prevails with regard to maternal mortality. It will appear ruthless in the eyes of those who are affected if a concession of this description, which is almost generally agreed to, is to be refused. The Minister has already, done some-
    68
    thing with which the country feels very satisfied, but I do not think the country will understand the arguments that he has put forward against the Amendment. The difficulty in regard to finance ought not to be outside the genius of himself and his colleagues in arranging matters so that there will be no trouble. On previous occasions the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is capable of doing very heavy tasks and doing them well. He has the ability and the commonsense, and I hope that he will find a way out of the present difficulty.
    He need not fear about what the men will think of this proposal. I do not think that the men who come within the purview of the Act would object to a woman being given benefit at a time when she so sadly needs it. I do not think that any man, married or single, would have the slightest hesitation in approving such action. Most of us within our own intimate knowledge have had experience of the unhappy results that have accompanied child-birth in its effects upon the mother. Such results are certainly within the knowledge of the man in the street who, either in his own household or within his own immediate circle, knows of trouble of that description. I believe that everyone would be thoroughly satisfied if the Minister could see his way to make this particular concession. I do not depreciate the enormous amount of work that has been and is being done in the improvement of maternity welfare centres, but I do say that if this particular concession were granted it would relieve the mind of many expectant mothers of anxieties which would otherwise prevail and which have from time to time serious effects before and after the child is born.
    5.36 p.m.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I do not wish to add anything to the excellent speeches which have been made from the other side of the House, because there is no necessity. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. It is more than ever certain that in the future the whole of the social reforms which will be initiated in this House will be initiated by the successors of the present Government. We on this side during the next few years will have to bear the responsibilities of government, and it is necessary that we should obliterate black spots of

    69
    this kind which are distasteful to every human instinct. I firmly believe that human instincts are as deep down in the mind of the Minister of Health as in any Minister who has ever sat on those benches. He will have to find a, way to solve this comparatively small question, and we look upon him to do it quickly.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I am very pleased to hear from the hon. Member opposite that there is to be continuity of policy by the successors of the present Government. We are all anxious that they will have a pleasant journey and that they will get on with legislation on the proper lines. The Amendment deals only with the extended period of insurance, that is, the period of grace which is given to an insured person after that person ceases to have any further call on the insurance body. If we properly understand insurance and its national obligations, then I am not concerned with the question of the liability to the approved societies. If we are going to be obsessed about the liabilities and commitments of the approved societies we are going to frustrate the very work which we are bound to carry out. If a woman is about to have a child that event must take place either in the home or in hospital. The hospital may be an institution for which they are able to pay or it may be a, Poor Law institution, and there is no woman whom I have known who wants her child to be born in a Poor Law institution. That being so, there is an obligation upon this Committee to do what is right and proper.
    We all know the seriousness of the maternal mortality that is going on. There are many cases of abortion. There are many mothers who through depression end by committing suicide. Very often the mother dies because of the state of her mind. If we want to do what is proper we must do it now. Certainly, there is one thing that we cannot allege, and that is malingering. Whatever may be said against the father, sister or brother in regard to their drawing benefit through malingering, no one can say that a case of child-birth is malingering. Therefore, in such a case there is a duty which falls upon the State to give every possible protection to the mother and the child. There is nothing unusual in the Amendment. The liability falls upon the
    70
    society. It is a question of adjustment. No one can estimate what will be the number of births in any one period. When the Minister was asked for a computation in regard to the number he said he could not give it. Neither the Minister of Health nor an approved society is able to say how many births there will be, but one thing is certain, if my memory serves me aright, and that is that there is a falling birth rate. Seeing that there is a falling birth rate, then the question of equity comes in. We can have a levelling up. With falling birth-rate there will be a fall in the liability on the societies, and there can be an adjustment.
    Whether a society in its adjustment of births and deaths can make things right or not, has nothing to do with the case of the mother who is going to have a child. She has a claim if her husband is an insured member. The husband is the insured member and by right of his being an insured member he is entitled to claim the maternity benefit for his wife, but he cannot handle it. The money is payable only to the wife. Therefore, I contend that inside the National Health Insurance Act there is a special preferential treatment given to the legitimate claim in regard to birth which entitles the wife to make a claim. That being so, what is there wrong in regard to the Minister applying exactly the same in regard to this particular benefit that is applied in the case of Class K contributors? If a single woman gets married and notifies her society she goes on what is known as the Class K contributors, and at any period within two years can claim maternity benefit. That is a claim which is given to a person who has left the society, who has nothing more to do with it. She is classified as no longer employable but yet is a burden on the society; it is a liability which the society must meet.
    I am not going to complain in regard to this Bill because there is a lot in it about which we ought to be glad. It will do a great amount of good, although we want it to do more. Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment. From the point of view of sickness benefit and disablement benefit the liability of 26 weeks at £1 a week on a society would be a tremendous lot. You may have 200 or 300 cases in a society which go on for 26 weeks. That would mean a liability

    71
    running into thousands of pounds a, year, and the liability for the remaining period of 26 weeks at 10s. per week, that is £39 at the end of a year and a half, is also a tremendous liability. But there is not much liability in this Amendment. This is a matter of a, £2 maternity benefit for the period of extended insurance only. It is a liability which falls at the end of a year and nine months or perhaps a year and six months in some cases. If that is so, what is there in this to make Any society afraid of it? Why should we not give mothers the benefits of medical attention and service, and what is there in this case of the £2 maternity benefit to make it a liability on any society?
    If there are any members of approved societies in this country who will say that these benefits are not to be given to women, then the sooner we pool the whole of the societies the better. There is not one, in my opinion, who will say that in order to protect their vested interests in a society this £2 maternity benefit ought not to be paid. If the Government is a National Government—I have grave doubts about it—if it is a sane Government—I have great doubts about it—And if the Minister knows his business, I have no doubt about that, and will act as a Minister of Health should, he will accept the Amendment. It is an Amendment which any man who has any knowledge of national health insurance would accept and which any Minister of Health who knows his job would accept. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision and to allow this small concession, which, however, would be a great boon to the whole of the people who come under national health insurance.
    5.51 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I also want to make an appeal to the Minister on this point. I have supported the Government on every Amendment that has been moved, because I think the Bill is on the right lines. If you are to have a contributory scheme of national insurance, it must be on sound lines. There may be an argument against a contributory scheme, but so long as it is in force you must keep it financially sound. This particular benefit would not endanger the financial soundness of the scheme. I have had some experience in this matter, and there is no more tragic circumstance
    72
    than to find a home where a birth has taken place with little or no provision for the little extras which are necessary at that time. It may be difficult for the Minister to grant this concession now, but I hope he will look into the matter again and that, after having counted the cost, which he is perfectly right in doing, he will promise, in answer to the appeals that have been made to him, to accept the Amendment on the Report stage.
    It is the women folk who are the chief sufferers in these cases. They have to bear not only the birth of the child but very often the financial responsibility as well. The ordinary working woman is to me an absolute marvel. Very often members of my own sex do not take on the responsibilities which they ought to take. Every Member of Parliament knows that if there is a difficulty about paying rates or rent it is usually the woman who sees the Member of Parliament. In these cases we could ease her burden considerably. We are also much concerned with looking after the welfare of the child. If there is one thing about which we can well be proud, it is the development of our social services as far as the child is concerned. There we are starting aright, because prevention is better than cure. I make a, strong appeal to the Minister on the ground that the child should have proper nourishment and attention from birth. There are many adults who would have been much better than they are if they had had the necessary care and nutrition in the early stages. As one who really appreciates the Bill, it is a splendid Bill—and we accept with every good grace the restoration of many benefits—I should be more pleased if the Minister will make us a promise to consider between now and Report whether he can accept the Amendment. If he does, there is not a single Member of Parliament who will not appreciate his act, and he will have the whole country behind him in the matter.
    5.54 p.m.
    Mr. C. TAYLOR: I must apologise for not having been in the House during the whole of the Debate, but I hope the Committee will give me a few moments of their indulgence, because I feel that I must speak in support of the Amendment. It deals with a class of humanity who cannot help themselves. It may be that it is the women folk who suffer most

    73
    in this particular case, but I submit that the children themselves must also be considered, because they will suffer much more in the long run if there is any lack of proper care and attention. Very often the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, and in this case the Minister has a splendid opportunity for seeing that the children have a fair start in life. If he will agree to accept the Amendment, he will give them every opportunity for proper care and attention. In Italy marriages are encouraged and the happy couple are encouraged by subsidies to have children. Cannot we in this country do a little more for the young folk and help them to those benefits which any class of humanity deserves. I want to add my support to the views of other hon. Members who desire that the Minister will accede to the request that has been made to him.
    5.56 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I hope the Minister has not said his last word on this subject. He has been urged by Members of all parties to give favourable consideration to the Amendment. I cannot withhold my sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman, because he is not the architect of the Bill, and I am sure that when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT he will appreciate that perhaps his speech may be gravely misunderstood in the country. He will admit that he did not give to the Amendment quite the serious consideration which it deserves, not because of the large number of cases which will be affected but because people who are interested in the problem of maternal mortality may regard his speech as indicative of his attitude towards the problem. In that case he will start what I hope will be a fruitful period of office at the Ministry under inauspicious circumstances. One point must be made in connection with the Amendment, the class of persons affected are those who have been subject to long periods of unemployment, where, consequently, the household resources have been almost completely exhausted. The Minister of Health said that many of these people would have available to them the excellent services of the local authority. That is so, but students of the problem have come to two conclusions. One is that local services are hopelessly inadequate. There is not a local authority, no matter how en-
    74
    lightened it may be, which has all it wants to have in the way of local services.
    I hold the view, which is not shared by many women folk, that it would be an excellent thing if most people were born in nursing homes, where skilled attention could be given far better than in their own homes. There is, of course, a deep prejudice among many women against such a, course, but I hope that in the course of a few years education will persuade women to take far more advantage of maternity homes. I do hope that far more maternity homes will be available for them. The next case is this: Many women are extremely reluctant to bring their confinement to the notice of the authorities. Many women hate having their children brought into the world under the auspices of the Poor Law. So they hesitate to avail themselves even of those poor law services which may be at their disposal. Therefore it seems to me that the answer given by the Minister is not altogether satisfactory. There has been very considerable anxiety about the high rate of maternal mortality. I have here a book which was written, I believe, in answer to an official publication upon the public health. It states that in 1933 the maternal mortality rate was 4.51 per thousand, the highest rate since 1911, when the present classification was introduced. There were 2,618 deaths directly due to pregnancy and childbirth. The writer goes on to say:
    "The problems of maternal mortality and morbidity fall roughly into two classes. In the first class there are the general fitness of the expectant mother, her physique, her health and her nutrition."
    The Committee should bear in mind that these are mothers whose physical resources have already been gravely depleted by the long years of unemployment of the father. Here is an expectant mother whose general health would presumably be bad and who would be much more likely to suffer ill consequences from child-bearing than any other. The writer referred to goes on:
    "In the second are her preparation for the actual pregnancy and confinement, and the skill with which she is attended during labour and delivered of her child."
    Here is a material point: If a poor woman in these circumstances can look forward to a lump-sum payment, no

    75
    matter how small, she is much more likely to call in the assistance of a visiting nurse or someone like that, to whom she will be able to make some sort of payment and who would be able to direct her attention to any difficulties that might arise in child-bearing. That is a very important consideration. It is not the sum of money that matters so much as the state of mind it induces in the woman and the steps it might lead her to take, which would result in calling in a physician, and probably her being taken away to a maternity home to avoid the dreadful consequences that might otherwise follow. I hope hon. Members will appreciate the point that things may occur which are afterwards irrevocable. You cannot put them right subsequently. If a mother dies and the child is born in difficulties, the child may suffer from something which will make it a permanent invalid and a permanent charge on the community. That is not only a personal tragedy most poignant, but it is also very short-sighted public administration to withhold help which would result in the birth of a healthy citizen.
    Even if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment, I hope he will look at it again before the Report stage and see what he can do. The argument that it might cost a lot of money to the approved societies, and that they would not be able to support the charge, ought not to be supported by a Minister who has said that he is unable to estimate the cost. These two arguments in such close juxtaposition suggest an attitude towards the Amendment which might be highly undesirable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the opportunity to relieve himself of such an exposed position. I am sure that the cost upon the approved societies would not be onerous and that they could quite easily bear it; and acceptance of the Amendment would give to those interested in the problem an assurance of the Minister's sympathetic interest.
    The right hon. Gentleman has said that, having committed the larger crime on another proposal, he must now be allowed to commit the smaller one. That really is not good enough. The men would not complain. As a matter of fact the men would be pleased, even upon the level of the lowest possible self-
    76
    interest. If this benefit were conceded they would be justified in coming forward and asking for an additional cash benefit. It cannot be argued that grave injury must be done to the future citizens of Great Britain, and that women must lose their lives, in order that men should not have a case for additional cash benefits. We shall not listen to that argument. The right hon. Gentleman should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he proposed to give £10 a year additional rebate for every additional child because the birth rate is falling. If the Chancellor is able to give a rebate to Income Tax payers in order to encourage the birth rate, the Minister of Health ought to be able to give £2, in effect, in order to prevent the horrible consequences now being caused.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: This is the most interesting discussion we have had today. I have an impression that the debate has shaken the right hon. Gentleman a little, and that before we get away from this Amendment he may rise and say that he will look into the problem again. If he has not made up his mind in that way, may I state my way of dealing with the problem? The Bill is primarily intended to provide that unemployed persons shall not lose their pension rights or medical benefits. That is the main object. Having safeguarded the unemployed in that respect, the Bill goes further and says that in certain cases of unemployment there will be no maternity benefit payable. It seems to me that if there were a choice between the claim of the woman in confinement and the claim of the unemployed man and the old age pensioner, the vote of the ordinary individual would go first and foremost in favour of seeking to pay maternity benefit. The thing is not balanced properly at present. We have had the answer that the approved societies cannot afford to pay this maternity benefit. I am not going into the old, old story. I see that the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) does not like our rubbing that in.
    Sir R. MELLER: I do not mind at all.
    Mr. DAVIES: I hope that in future we shall be able to rub it in properly, with salt. I was able to sit on that ad hoc

    77
    Committee which dealt with maternal mortality. There were eminent people there representing the Conservative party and the Liberal party, and in my humble way I was supposed to represent the proletariat. I would like the Minister to listen to this argument. If maternity benefit is not payable in respect of a confinement in an unemployed man's home, the automatic result is that there is no payment for the midwife. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has a, copy of the report to which I have referred. It was commented upon in the Press. That report stated definitely that one of the main reasons for the increase in maternal mortality in this country is that the midwifery services are not up to date. The midwife has not kept pace with modern requirements, and the proposal of the Committee is to compel all the local authorities of the country to employ midwives and to pay them from the rates. There is no alternative to that as a start. If that be so, if maternal mortality is increasing because the midwife is not paid, and if Parliament says that the approved society shall not pay maternity benefit in respect of confinement, the position is aggravated.
    I wonder whether I appeal to the Minister's mind by putting it in that way? I am sure that in his Department he has one or two arguments of that kind before him. The right hon. Gentleman used the argument that if maternity benefit were paid he would have to give way in regard to the payment of sickness and disablement benefits. Of all the events that confront men and women I think confinement is paramount. Ordinary sickness and disablement are not to be compared with it. I appeal to the Minister to look at the problem again, in order at any rate that we might find out one thing which I cannot understand. We get an actuary's report on all manner of problems connected with health insurance. Indeed, the Government actuary can tell us to a recurring decimal what any proposal will cost. I am surprised, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has not asked the actuary to tell him what is the probable cost of the proposal that we make. I know that the costs might be heavy on the funds of the societies, but I know too that if the Ministry of Health has been able to
    78
    secure £750,000 a year to launch this scheme to help the unemployed and keep them in pensions and medical benefits, at any rate it ought to have had a little more compassion and come down in favour of the woman in confinement, and to pay her maternity benefit, so that the money may be paid ultimately for the services of a competent midwife.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: Before commenting on the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite and in other parts of the Committee upon this Amendment, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will allow me a personal observation upon the tale of the £2,000,000 of which he says the approved societies were deprived in 1926. I hope that in connection with that matter he will not forget the £10,000,000 which was applied to starting the Old Age Pension scheme and would in any case rather counterbalance what he thinks was done on that occasion.
    Mr. DAVIES: Yes, but most of those pensions are paid for by the employers and the employed.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am referring to the £10,000,000 which was the cost to the State at that time, and when the hon. Member brings my action into question in the future, I hope he will not forget that little contribution which was made in 1926, the first of its kind in any country in the world, and one which has brought considerable benefit to the widows and orphans of this country. Whether at Manchester or elsewhere, when he is referring to me—no doubt, in friendly terms—and mentions this £2,000,000, I hope he will not forget also to mention that £10,000,000 provided by the State as a very great contribution towards these widows and orphans.
    I would say at the outset that I sympathise with the objects of which hon. Members have spoken. We would all like to secure improvements in the conditions of mothers and children, and I think we would all like to be able to make an increased contribution in respect of maternity benefit. In fact, I would offer the comment, in no unfriendly way, that one could make speeches of the kind which we have heard not only in favour of this proposal but in favour of doubling the maternity benefit or advocating the

    79
    payment of maternity benefit to women who are not contributors. The object of giving some benefit to expectant mothers must command the sympathy of everybody in this Committee. We would all be very glad indeed to see increased payments in this respect, provided the money is used in the proper way, as I have no doubt it is in most cases. What I want hon. Members to understand is that we here are supposed to occupy a responsible position and I, myself, at any rate for a short time, am responsible in no small degree for a contributory insurance scheme. That is the real answer to the various pleas that have been made. As long as we have a contributory insurance scheme in this country, those responsible for it are bound to see that it is run on proper business lines and, however eloquent the plea, however excellent the object, hon. Members cannot expect any one who has that responsibility to give way an inch, when it comes to the question of affecting the stability of the insurance scheme itself or departing from the contributory principle.
    I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree with the contributory nature of the scheme, but as long as it is a contributory scheme—and I am very strongly in favour of it as such—the contributory principle must be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the scheme brought it in as a contributory scheme; it has remained a contributory scheme ever since and is likely to continue as a contributory scheme, provided that it is run on business principles. No one, I think, wants to see the National Health Insurance scheme run the risk of what happened in the case of the Unemployment Insurance scheme. Therefore, my first duty is to try to maintain the stability of the scheme. It is perfectly true that I did not state the amount which this Amendment would cost, but, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton himself said, the cost will be substantial. If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean completely re-casting the finances of the scheme.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now confining himself entirely to the insurable aspect of the matter in the case which he is making. Surely, in order to convince the Committee he will furnish some estimate of the cost?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Westhoughton, who is at present leading the Opposition, and who knows as much about this matter as anybody else, agrees that it would be a substantial amount, and I was just about to point out that the approved societies have already made a considerable contribution in respect of the proposals of this Bill. I think the amount is £750,000. In those circumstances, I do not feel that we can be expected to run any risks in relation to the scheme at the present time.
    Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman is laying great emphasis on one word out of a whole sentence which I used, but is it not possible for him to say how many persons would be affected by the Clause with which we are now dealing? It would not be impossible to calculate then what proportion of that number would fall to be dealt with as from the beginning.
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the best answer to the hon. Member is that, whatever the number may be, the finances of the scheme are now such that, with this further contribution of £750,000 in relation to the approved societies, no one would take the responsibility of suggesting that those societies should bear another burden. That is really the reply to other hon. Members who have spoken. Whatever the actual cost may be, we are agreed that it must be a substantial cost, and, in view of the contribution from the societies to which I refer, no one would take the responsibility of jeopardising the financial structure of the Bill. It is not as if we could consider the financial structure of the Bill in relation to one society. It is necessary to consider the position of a number of approved societies throughout the country. It is for that reason and having regard to the principles of the scheme, and not out of any desire to withhold the benefits from expectant mothers, or anything of that kind, that anyone with responsibility must decline to accept the Amendment.
    I would also point out to hon. Members that, to a large extent, provision is being made. I have been examining this matter lately and I find that that extensive provision is made for the mother and child in this country. This is not a simple matter. It is not easy to assign a reason for the lack of improvement in the maternal mortality figure.

    81
    Anyone who has given it any study knows how complex is the question. This high maternal mortality rate exists in rich neighbourhoods as well as poor neighbourhoods. It affects rich people and poor people and is a very difficult problem indeed. I would only emphasise—because I do not want any hon. Member to misunderstand me—that in regard to that aspect of the matter, we are endeavouring to make provision at present for the mother and child. It is only on account of the contributory nature of the scheme, which I desire to maintain, and the fact that the approved societies are already making the contribution I have mentioned, that I do not think it would be justifiable to accept the Amendment.
    6.23 p.m.
    Sir LUKE THOMPSON: I do not wish to press the Minister unduly, but this is a serious issue, and I think it is desirable that the Committee should have further information. I approach this question not only from the standpoint of the Member of this Committee considering this Bill but also from the standpoint of one who is interested in a large approved society. I ask the Minister whether he will not give this matter further consideration between now and the Report stage? I do not think he has finally made up his mind. I felt that there was a little uncertainty about his utterance on this issue, and we who loyally support the Government on all these matters would feel more satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman announced that he would consult with the approved societies and investigate the whole question in order to see whether there is not the possibility of some adjustment of the financial position to meet this case.
    Mr. TINKER: I ask the Minister to take a note of the appeal which has just been made to him. If there is any chance of having the matter reconsidered we shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment for the time being but, if not, we shall have to force it to a Division.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I think the Committtee has been left in an unsatisfactory position. There has been obvious agreement on the merits of the Amendment. It is agreed that the concession
    82
    asked for is a limited one and one which should command sympathy and the Minister himself has expressed sympathy with it. I do not think that I misinterpret the right hon. Gentleman's speech when I say that he would like to be able to accept the Amendment. He gives two reasons for not doing so. One is that a large number of people are already getting benefit by reason of the action of the local authorities. That is admitted but the Minister must in turn admit that it does not cover all the cases. There are cases not covered by those services and those are the cases to which the Amendment refers. The second reason adduced by the Minister is that we cannot afford it. Who cannot afford it? The right hon. Gentleman says the approved societies cannot afford it. We then ask him for some information which will enable us to judge whether that is so or not.
    Knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do, I am sure he does not conduct his Department on the principle of accepting whatever the approved societies tell him. We would all expect him to make inquiries, to address himself to the approved societies, to ask them whether they had estimated the cost and on what grounds they felt they could not afford this concession. But the right hon. Gentleman says he has not put these questions to the approved society and that he has not asked them how many people are likely to be affected. Surely he must recognise, however efficient as a Minister he may be, that it is for this Committee and ultimately the House of Commons to decide whether this concession should be made or not. Before the Committee can decide it is entitled to information on those two specific points—how many people are likely to be affected and what is the estimated charge which will be involved on the approved societies. With that information, we would be in a position to judge whether the advice tendered to the Minister by the approved societies is advice which ought to guide us in respect of this Amendment.
    6.29 p.m.
    Miss WARD: I wish briefly to reinforce the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) and supplemented by the hon. Member for the Welsh Universities (Mr. E. Evans). We all wish to be certain whether the position as outlined by my

    83
    right hon. Friend could not be improved if the approved societies were consulted in this matter. The speech of my right hon. Friend in which he laid emphasis on the contributory nature of the Bill and the responsibility for keeping the contributory scheme solvent, would naturally have the sympathy of Members who support the National Government. I want to put the position of those women who will be affected by the Bill in that they will not be able to draw maternity benefit. I know there are special organisations throughout the country which deserve every credit, but, as a Member of Parliament working in a very distressed area, I frequently come across cases of women who apparently have no information as to what to do when they require assistance.
    I feel very strongly that, even if it were just to let those particular women know that we are considering their position and that we do not want to place them in the position of not being able to draw any benefit, my right hon. Friend might consider the advisability of announcing to the world that we are doing everything we can to strengthen our maternity benefit, which, after all, is the intention of the Government. I think it would give very great satisfaction if my right hon. Friend could see his way to reconsider his decision and to discuss with the approved societies whether there is not some way of meeting the present situation. After all, this question places the supporters of the Government in a very difficult situation. It may be that we cannot meet the position in the present Bill. In that case, let my right hon. Friend see what provision can be made for those who will not be covered by these maternity proposals. We really desire a little more information from the Government on a matter on which all of us feel very strongly.
    6.33 p.m.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I, also, want to make an appeal to the Minister. I have a great deal of sympathy with him in the attitude he has taken up, but I think that, as the Mover of the Amendment has already stated that he is prepared to withdraw the Amendment, not if the Minister would promise to accept it, but only if he would promise to look into it, in these circumstances, and as my
    84
    right hon. Friend has not been able up to the present to say what he is in fact going to do, he might tell the Committee that he will look into the question before the Report stage to see what the Amendment would cost, and if it is going to prove too expensive, he could tell us so at a later stage.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: This is the most interesting discussion before the country at the present time. The eyes of all working women in the country are upon this Committee to-day, and I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Minister in this matter. Someone has asked what the cost will be. The only cost that some people are bothered about is the monetary cost, but what has been the cost in lives during the past three years? During the apst three years the deaths in this country arising in and out of maternity have been 10,235, and the thing that is disturbing the women of this country is the fact that we are not reducing the maternity death-rate. It is increasing. The number in 1932 was 3,300, in 1934 it was 3,444, and I ascertained by a question to the late Minister of Health, previous to his leaving that office, that the number for 1934 was 3,495, or 51 more deaths this last year than in the previous year, when the deaths were 144 more than they were in 1932.
    The late Minister of Health stated 12 months ago, when we were discussing this matter across the Floor, that the Department was giving very serious attention to it, and that if there were no better results shown, they would have to try fresh remedies. The remedy that we are trying in this Clause is that maternity benefit that has been given to some folk in the past is not to be given in the future. I am amazed that the Minister cannot give us the estimated cost so far as this Clause is concerned. It does not mean everybody who is on State insurance; it means only a very small number. The majority of us on this side, and a good number of hon. Members opposite who represent industrial constituencies, understand how vital this question is. I can tell the Committee a personal story that might make hon. Members laugh. I was born in pawn myself. That is to say, that when I arrived upon the scene there was no money to pay the midwife. I was the

    85
    fourth lad of 10, and the money that came into our home, although my father was as good a workman as ever broke bread, was insufficient to meet that expense. I do not want us to go back to those days.
    If these women are deprived of maternity benefit, it means, as far as the midwife is concerned, that it will be a matter of inferiority. They will have to get the cheapest midwife, and it will mean, in the case of an unemployed man, that that midwife will have to wait for her money, and she will get her money in penny numbers. I hope the Minister, after the appeals that have been made from all sides of the Committee, will give way. I was hoping that the women of this country would be able to acclaim him as a very good successor to the Minister who has gone out of office, but I am afraid that when this Debate is read to-morrow morning in the papers by the working women of this country that they will begin to feel that the diplomacies of the last Minister are still with us and that the hopes in the present Minister are very few and far between.
    6.38 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am willing, as appeals have been made to me from all parts of the Committee, to look into the matter again. I feel as much sympathy with the Amendment as does anyone else, and the only trouble is that I have a little more responsibility than some of the hon. Members who have made appeals to me. After all, the stability and security of the insurance scheme mean a great deal to them. I have marked—I hope I am correct in interpreting the statements made on this question—a very sharp division in the requests for maternity benefit in these cases and for other benefits. One hon. Member rather frightened me by saying that if we gave way on maternity benefits, there would be claims for other benefits. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, as long as we are clear on this matter, it encourages me to look further into it. After all, it is a considerable question of principle on the one hand and of cash benefit on the other, and I hope the Committee will recognise that it is not because of any lack of desire to help mothers and children or to meet the wishes of the Committee that I have not been able to accept the Amendment. The Government
    86
    desire to maintain the stability of the scheme and not to do anything rash. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), on my undertaking to look into the matter afresh, will agree that I have met him as reasonably as I can and withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. TINKER: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.40 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from "until," to "during," in line 34, and to insert:
    "since the end of his free insurance period he has been employed within the meaning of this Act."
    This is a consequential Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 39, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to a person who is employed within the meaning of this Act at the beginning of an extended insurance period and, would, if he had ceased to be so employed immediately before that date, have then been entitled to a new free insurance period."
    In line 40, leave out from the beginning to "until," in line 44, and insert:
    "(5) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (2) of this Section—

    (a) a person who has been continuously employed within the meaning of this Act since before the beginning of an extended insurance period shall, on ceasing to be so employed, become entitled to a new free insurance period if he would have become so entitled had he ceased to be so employed immediately before the beginning of that extended insurance period;

    (b) in any other case a person who is so employed during an extended insurance period shall not, on ceasing to be so employed, become entitled by reason thereof to a new free insurance period unless and."

    In page 4, line 15, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to a person who becomes a voluntary contributor immediately on ceasing to be so employed if he would have been entitled to a new free insurance period had he not become a voluntary contributor.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 13 of Insurance Act as to evidence of disease or disablement.)
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from "in," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
    "relation to benefit in respect of any week before the commencement of this Act, but with the substitution for the reference to the end of the week of a reference to the commencement of this Act."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Application of ss. 61 and 108 of Insurance Act to officers of reserve forces.)
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out "of those forces," and to insert "therein mentioned."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Special provisions with respect to persons declared by High Court not to be employed within the meaning of Insurance Act.)
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, at the end, to add:
    "as they apply where the High Court have given a decision inconsistent with a determination previously so given by the Minister."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of s. 97 of Insurance Act as to summary proceedings.)
    6.44 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, after "person," to insert:
    "or has been charged thereunder with such an offence and an order has been made under
    88
    Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907."
    This also is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think we might have some explanation of this Amendment. I am beginning to wonder what the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, has to do with National Health Insurance, and whether a man who offends against the regulations and the rules of his approved society is to be dealt with under these provisions.
    Sir K. WOOD: These words are inserted so as to shorten proceedings, not only where an employer has been convicted, but where he has been bound over under the Probation of Offenders Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of First Schedule to Insurance Act.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.46 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been able to get over the difficulty which has been experienced by seamen who serve on a ship registered in the Irish Free State, who live in this country, and who, therefore, fall between two stools? If the ship were registered in this country and the men lived here, all would be well, but if the ship is registered in the Irish Free State no contributions are payable in respect of them. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has inserted something in a Schedule, but we want to be assured that he has been able to satisfy the representations of the approved societies which cover these men.
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that matter has been dealt with in an Amendment which I shall move later to Schedule 1. It is a matter of reciprocal arrangements with the Irish Free State, and I understand that an approved society which is concerned with seamen is satisfied that the suggested Amendment will deal with the matter. I am hoping that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament we shall be able to remove a large number of the difficulties that exist at the present time.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Arrears of contributions due to unemployment and Unemployment Arrears Fund.)
    Amendment made: In page 12, line 36, at the end, insert:
    "and accordingly in Sub-section (1) of the said Section seven for the words from 'the provision made in the valuation basis,' to 'the said Section fifteen,' there shall be substituted the words 'the financial position of the society or branch has been made worse owing to the amount of unemployment in the period exceeding that for which provision is made in the valuation basis (regard being had to the operation of Section fifteen of the principal Act and the regulations made thereunder and of the provisions relating to the Unemployment Arrears Fund).'"—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Transitional Regulations.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.50 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: We wish to leave out this Clause in order to deal with transitional regulations in a new Clause which I shall move later.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Minor amendments of Insurance Act.)
    Amendment made: In page 13, line 29, at the end, add:
    "(2) Any reference in the Insurance Act to the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall be construed as a reference to the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, as amended by any subsequent enactment."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE, 16.—(Amendment of Pensions Act as to children under full time instruction.)
    6.52 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, after the first "the," to insert "day before the."
    The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will remember that he raised a question with reference to two
    90
    days which might arise in connection with this proposal. As the Clause is worded the actual day on which the age of 14 is reached and 31st July following the 16th birthday are excluded from the periods for which pension or allowance payments can be made. This Amendment will male it clear that payment is to be made for both these days.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 6, leave out "thirty-first day" and insert "end."
    In line 33, leave out from the first "the" to "dies," in line 34, and insert child."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 15, line 3, to leave out from "Act" to the end of the Clause.
    I move this Amendment in order to secure from the Minister a statement on an intricate point. If he can satisfy us that the point is covered, we shall not press the Amendment. I am under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has already covered the point, which is this. An insured man dies and leaves a widow and child. I understand that it has been customary under the present law that if the child leaves school at 14, works for a month, and then goes back to school, the child's allowance is not payable; whereas, if the child had remained at school from 14 to 16 without going to work the allowance would have been paid. It is extraordinary that where a child simply goes to work for a week it is debarred from the allowance which, I am sure, the Act intended to give it.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requires. In future, under this Clause, the allowance to the child and the pension to the widow will run concurrently, irrespective of a break in the education, provided the child is still at school, and it will run on to the end of the July following the child's 16th birthday.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am much obliged to the Minister for the concession, for there were a large number of anomalous cases of this kind.
    Mr. G. HALL: If a child of 14 or 15 went into industry and left it, and did not return to an elementary or secondary school, but went into a juvenile training

    91
    centre under the Ministry of Labour, would the child receive the allowance?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Clause says "under full time instruction," and I think that a juvenile instruction centre would be recognised under that phrase.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Amendment of s. 43 of Pensions Act as to increased contributions.)
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, to leave out Subsection (1).
    This Amendment is proposed in order to secure some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the reasons why there is to be an increase in the contribution of the woman without an equivalent contribution from the employer. It has always been understood, ever since the pensions scheme came into operation, that whenever a ½d. or 1d. per week has been added to the contributions of the man or the woman, an equivalent increase is put on the employer. This Clause refers to the woman only, and I want to press my point because the actuary's report on contributory pensions is not very optimistic, and it seems to me that the principle which has applied all along of calling upon the employer to increase his contribution when the State imposes an increase on the worker should apply in this instance.
    6.58 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: Employers have from time to time made representations that payments of a halfpenny should be avoided. It is the principle of the Act that, apart from that consideration the contributions should be shared equally between employers and employed. When the additional payment becomes payable it will make the contribution by the employer equal to that of the employé. The principle of the Act is thus followed, and it will be followed at the end of the decennial periods in 1946, at the end of which an extra 1d. will be paid by the employer, making his contribution 8d. as against 7d. for the woman. At the end of a further decennial period it will be
    92
    adjusted again. We are maintaining the principle of equal contributions, but this Clause will avoid the payment of the halfpenny.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 16, line 14, leave out "that."
    In line 30, leave out "throughout," and insert "at the beginning of."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Payment of pensions in certain cases in respect of the insurance of persons ceasing to be insured.)
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 16, line 44, to leave out "sixty," and to insert "four."
    For clarity I will read the first few sentences of this Clause.
    "Where a person who immediately before the beginning of a free insurance period had been continuously insured as an employed contributor for a period of not less than two hundred and eight weeks and by or in respect of whom not less than one hundred and sixty contributions had been paid ceases to be insured at the end of that free insurance period, but it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister …."
    We are trying by this Amendment to reduce the qualifying number of contributions from 160 to 104. We are moving this to cover the cases of unemployed people who might not be able to establish the qualification of 160 contributions, but who might be able to qualify by requiring them to have made only 104 contributions. This Bill is designed to help the unemployed person and we think, therefore, that the Minister might look favourably on this proposition.
    7.1 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not demand that there should be no qualifying condition or test for the person who enjoys the benefit of the Clause. We have tried to adopt what has been a well-established principle of choosing a test which shows that a man is looking in the main to insurable employment for a livelihood. With too low a test, though it may look generous, you are really admitting people who are not looking to insurable employment for a livelihood at all. The

    93
    test chosen is 160 contributions during four years of insurance. That was adopted a long time ago by the Consultative Council as a fair test. It was not challenged by the hon. Gentleman when he was in office, and it is being continued now. The Committee will see that it is a generous test, because it means that one of these employed contributors who has had only 160 contributions in the four years will get two and three-quarter years of pensions cover. The Committee will see that we have chosen a fair test and that we are carrying on the qualification long accepted in insurance practice.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, to leave out "twelve months," and to insert "three years."
    This Amendment deals with a very small but a very important point, and I would plead that it should be accepted. The persons referred to in the previous Amendment were qualified by being in insurance for four years and having 160 contributions, and the Clause reads:
    "if within twelve months of ceasing to be insured he attains the age of sixty-five, an old age pension, and if within that period he dies, a widow's pension and an orphan's pension shall, whether he has or has not during that period again become insured. …"
    The purpose of this Amendment is that the 12 months referred to in the Clause should be extended to three years. I do not know that there would be very many persons who would be affected as a result of this, and it does seem reasonable that a person who has been insured for that period, and who is within, say, a year of the period of receiving old age pension or between, say, 62 and 65, should be entitled to his pension; or, in the event of his dying, that his wife or children should receive the widow's or orphan's pension. There cannot be much money involved in making this concession, and for these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
    7.6 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: The Clause as it stands at present gives pension protection for 2¾ years to persons in the category referred to after they have ceased to pay their contributions. I think the hon.
    94
    Gentleman will recognise that this is a very substantial concession in view of the relatively small number of contributions which can have been paid. I think it will be realised by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it will be impossible to contemplate a provision so much outside the insurance principle altogether.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 17, line 20, leave out "during," and insert "in respect of."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 17, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "Where a person has become entitled to an old age pension by virtue of the provisions of this sub-section he shall, for the purposes of the Pensions Act, but not for any other purpose, be deemed to have been insured continuously from the end of the free insurance period aforesaid until his death."
    This Amendment is to meet a point raised in the course of the previous debate, and it secures that the position of the wife or widow of a man who becomes entitled to old age pension under the special provisions of the Clause shall not be prejudiced by the fact that he has ceased to be insured before he obtains that old age pension. The effect of the Amendment is to put the wife or widow of such a man in exactly the same position as the wife or widow of a man who became entitled to an old age pension under the ordinary provisions of the scheme. I think that meets the point raised on the Second Reacting, and no doubt the Amendment will be accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 33, after "provisions," insert "of this Sub-section."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Minor amendments of Pensions Act, 1925 and 1929.)
    Amendment made: In page 17, line 44, at the end, add:
    "(2) Any reference in the Pensions Act to the Arbitration Act, 1899, shall be construed as a reference to the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, as amended by any subsequent enactment."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Application to rthern Ireland.)
    Amendment made: In page 18, leave out lines 17 to 26, and insert:
    "(2) If provision appearing to His Majesty substantially to correspond to the provisions of this Act relating to contributions to the Unemployment Arrears Fund is made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, His Majesty by Order in Council may direct that the provisions of this Act relating to the crediting to the approved societies out of that fund of sums in respect of arrears of contribution due to unemployment shall, with or without adaptations and modifications, extend to Northern Ireland, but save as aforesaid the last mentioned provisions shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
    (3) So much of any payments made under section seventeen of the Insurance Act to the Central Fund as are derived from moneys provided by the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be repaid to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Transitional regulations.)
    (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to the transition from the provisions of the Insurance Act as in force before the commencement of this Act to the provisions of that Act as amended by this Act.
    (2) Regulations may be made under the Insurance Act in relation to any of the following persons, that is to say—

    (a) persons who are treated as insured on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, by virtue of any of the provisions of section three of the Insurance Act;

    (b) persons who are voluntary contributors on that date but became voluntary contributors after the end of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-two—

    providing that, subject to the prescribed conditions, any of the provisions of the Insurance Act or this Act shall apply to them with any prescribed modifications and adaptations.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.10 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I undertook on the Second Reading to give sympathetic consideration to the position of unemployed persons who, because of the provisions of the 1932 Act, became voluntary contributors because
    96
    they were doubtful of their position after the end of 1935. The power to be taken under this Clause to deal with these voluntary contributors will do it in the way which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) desires. It enables provisions to be made so that, as from the date when the provisions of Clause I relating to continuance of insurance come into operation, this class of voluntary contributors can be dealt with in relation to that Clause as though they were in the same category as employed contributors. That will place these persons in exactly the position which the hon. Gentleman desires.
    7.11 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is not our usual practice to throw bouquets, but I think I might take one flower and throw it to the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion—although he seems to have forgotten the point we raised in our new Clause. As he has acceded to our request on this score, may I put this point to him? I am speaking of the unemployed man who became a voluntary contributor—sometimes at the instance of Members of Parliament. Will these persons, under the regulations, continue to enjoy the benefits of the voluntary contributor class up to the point when they come to be dealt with as if they had never been in the voluntary class? I want to be assured that when the regulations are made they shall not be in a worse position than if they had never become voluntary contributors at all. As things stand, it seems that they would have been better off if they had never paid anything out of their own pockets, As these people have paid to try to secure their interest, I hope the regulations will be drafted in such a way that they will not be worse off than if they had never become voluntary contributors.
    Sir K. WOOD: This raises a very technical matter. We are going to consult with the Consultative Council as to how this matter can best be dealt with. Obviously, the approved societies must be consulted, but the whole object and principle of the Amendment is to put them in the same position as other people who are going to benefit.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 75 of the Insurance Act as to application of surpluses in case of a society with branches.)
    Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section seventy-five of the Insurance Act shall have effect as though the following proviso were added thereto:
    "Provided that in the case of a society with branches, the rules of which so require—

    (i) Any such scheme of a branch thereof shall also provide for the application of a part of the surplus, determined in accordance with the rules of the society, but not exceeding in any case one-third of the disposable surplus, to a special fund under the control of the central body; and

    (ii) the central body shall submit to the Minister in respect of such special fund a scheme for the purpose of providing any one or more additional treatment benefits among insured persons who are members of any branch of the society for the purposes of this Act, and upon any such scheme being sanctioned by the Minister the central body may distribute the additional benefit or benefits in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

    For the purposes of this proviso the expression additional treatment benefits' shall mean additional benefits Nos. 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, specified in the Third Schedule to this Act."—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is not a new problem. This Clause has appeared on the Order Paper before when we have been dealing with health insurance problems. There may be hon. Members who are members of friendly societies, and they will know that ever since some friendly societies were formed about a century ago they have operated in such a way that there are large branches of friendly societies which are separate units themselves. Indeed, they have been valued as separate units; and some branches in connection with some societies have always been very rich, while some may be very poor. When the health insurance scheme was established those friendly societies with branches as separate units were allowed to establish them as separate units for health insurance purposes. The result is that a friendly society approved for national health assurance can have several
    98
    hundred branches, and each branch a distinct unit, as though it were a separate approved society of its own. Every five years, when the Government actuary comes to value the assets and liabilities of these branches, he audits the several hundred branches separately and values them separately, and within the same organisation one can find a branch in Lincolnshire or Norfolk which is enormously rich, and a branch in Durham, South Wales, or Glasgow which is exceedingly poor, although they are all within the same society.
    The friendly societies have complained about this system for a long time past, but some of the rich branches do not like to hand over any of their surplus to the poorer branches, and no doubt that is a very human failing. Nobody likes to hand over any of his goods to anyone poorer than himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not even the Socialists!"] Our trouble is that we have never been provided with enough to give us the chance to give anything away. If the hon. Member will provide us with the opportunity he can put us to the test. What is proposed under this new Clause is that the central executive of the approved society should be entitled to take one-third of the surplus of the rich units and transfer it to the poor units, not to be used to pay cash benefits but to provide additional treatment benefits, such as dentures, spectacles and other appliances. If this new Clause were accepted it would rid the approved friendly societies of the anomaly under which they are now labouring.
    I think the right hon. Gentleman has received a deputation from the friendly society movement, and I shall not be giving away any secrets if I say that I expect his reply to be that he cannot accept the Clause. The argument of the Ministry has always been that it is unfair to do what is now proposed, because some branches of friendly societies are opposed to it. But really that is a stronger argument than ever in favour of the proposal. This is a Bill for equalising the contributions of all the insured population—if I say "equalising," it is a nice, delicate term for "pooling," a word which some people do not like. However that may be, once Parliament decides that the time has

    99
    arrived for pooling or equalising the smallest part of the contributions of the insured population, then the claim for equalising the benefits within the same friendly society is surely stronger than ever. The right hon. Gentleman has been affecting all this afternoon not to know as much about health insurance as he used to do. I am certain that he knows a great deal about this problem, and whatever his reply may be I am sure that we have not heard the last of it, because it is a very strange state of affairs that within the same organisation there should be not only some branches richer than other branches, but one set of branches growing richer at every valuation period whilst other branches are becoming poorer. If we cannot have nationalisation of the assets and liabilities of all approved societies, at least we ought to take one little step forward in favour of equalising the assets and the liabilities of the units within a single friendly society.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the Minister to accept this new Clause, and on grounds which the Minister has put forward in speeches which he has had to make to-night in dealing with other matters. He has made reference to what the approved societies would have him do in relation to certain things. They would like him to see, what is his chief function, that the contributory scheme does not break down. We were desirous that he should approach the approved societies in regard to the maternity Amendment which we moved from this side. As far as I can ascertain, the approved societies are quite ready to agree to the insertion of this Clause, and if that is so we suggest that the Minister might meet them. I am not connected with any approved society myself, but I have been approached by a large number of secretaries in South Wales, which, after all, is a very depressed area, who are desirous that the surpluses held by branches within the same approvad approved society may be used to help the members in other branches in badly-depressed areas. I could give the Minister concrete instances if he desired them, but I am sure he has all the details as his disposal. We are anxious
    100
    that he should accede to the very strong desire of a large number of secretaries of approved societies that equality of treatment should be meted out to the whole of the members, seeing that under this Bill all members will be expected to make the same contribution.
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. EVANS: I should like to associate myself with the Clause which has been put forward. Like other hon. Members I have been approached on this matter by representatives of friendly societies in my constituency and in other constituencies, and it appears to me that there is an anomaly which could be remedied without imposing onerous conditions on anybody. After all, we are not making it compulsory that surplus assets should be pooled, only making it permissive. I understand that there was in the Act of 1911 a provision which, if not verbally identical with the proposed new Clause, was the same in substance. Under the original Act of 1911, Section 37, Sub-section (1, c), it was permitted to friendly societies to hand over to a central pool one-third of their surpluses, but in the amending Act of 1918 that provision, for some reason which I have not been able to ascertain, was eliminated. That was before any valuation had really taken place, and before the scheme could really become operative. We are left with a situation which is both anomalous and unfair.
    Take the position of an order like that of the Rechabites in an area like South Wales. Districts like those of Cardiff and Newport are able to supply quite a large number of additional benefits—dental, optical and surgical appliances and attendance at convalescent homes—whereas the districts in the Rhondda Valley, where the people in these days are more in need of these additional benefits, cannot grant them. I have been assured by representatives of this order that if one-third of the surpluses of each of these districts could be pooled it would be possible to distribute additional benefits over a wider area. It might be wrong for Parliament to interfere unduly with the administration of the affairs of these separate orders, but all we are asking now is that Parliament should give them permission to effect this pooling if they so desired. We are not asking for anything tyran-

    101
    nous, we are not seeking to impose our will, but only suggest that they should be given the power to do this if they so wish. The areas most badly in need of the additional benefits are the areas penalised by the absence of these permissive powers.
    I feel that the plea we are making is a reasonable one and I can find no really cogent argument against it, and as it is the expressed desire of a very large number of these orders I think the Minister would be well advised to accept the Clause. There is another point. Great centralised organisations like the Hearts of Oak, able to grant additional benefits, are obviously in a much stronger position when canvassing for members than the Oddfellows, or the Rechabites, which are decentralised, unpooled, organisations. Also it seems to be singularly unfair that we should have two men working cheek by jowl one of whom belongs to a district with a large surplus which can secure for him all these additional benefits and the other, though paying exactly the same contributions, receiving none of them because he belongs to a poorer district. That is an anomaly which ought to be removed. We are not asking for any alteration which will operate harshly against these orders, but should they desire to pool one-third of their surpluses Parliament ought to allow them to do so. It is a rational demand and one which I hope the Minister will, with his customary magnanimity, agree to.
    7.27 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to my memory in connection with national health insurance matters and implied that it was rather better than I had suggested that it was. One thing I have vividly in my mind is the controversy over this question of pooling. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has gone on ever since the Act came into operation, I think, and I can tell the hon. Member who spoke just now that so far from there being unanimity about the matter there has always been the strongest division of opinion. Wherever two approved societies men meet together they differ on this question of pooling. I think the Committee will agree that it is wise for me, as the Minister associated with the administration of this scheme, not to embark upon anything unless I have a very fair pro-
    102
    portion of approved society opinion behind me. I will give an illustration so that the Committee may know exactly what is the position. A similar Clause to this was moved during the discussion of the National Health Insurance Act of 1928, and it was then defeated by 230 votes to 117. Next the subject was brought before the Royal Commission. I remember that commission very well. Its recommendations received general acceptance from the approved society world—so far as general acceptance can be obtained. They considered this matter, and were not prepared to make any recommendation in its favour.
    Take the present position. The proposed new Clause was put forward at the instance of a group of societies with branches. You would think that if the proposal were so strongly favoured as the three hon. Gentlemen have represented to the House this afternoon, at any rate those particular societies would have exhibited practical unanimity. I find, however, that the proposal was agreed to at the National Conference of Friendly Societies only by a majority represented by 84 votes to 51. That was the position at a conference which is sponsor for these proposals. I find that the annual meeting of another very important body of friendly society people, the Ancient Order of Foresters, turned it down.
    Mr. R. T. EVANS: What was the date of the meeting?
    Sir K. WOOD: The meeting of the Ancient Order of Foresters was quite recent. I think the general reason why there is such a division of opinion is that the proposal would take away the responsibility of branches for controlling their own funds. Although the Clause would be permissive, it might cause embarrassment in branch societies which objected to pooling. I am not going into the merits of the matter, but I think hon. Members will agree, after hearing my statement, that it would be unwise for the Committee to go forward and approve proposals until more unanimity exists among the societies, and in particular among the class of society which has put forward the proposal.
    The new Unemployment Arrears Fund is being built up, as hon. Members know, as to one-half by a deduction from every

    103
    contribution paid in respect of members of approved societies. That is a measure of pooling—if hon. Members care to use the word—to meet the risks of unemployment. Apart from the fact that approved societies are so much divided among themselves, we should be wise to await the effect of the proposal in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They mean a very considerable contribution by the approved societies amounting to about £750,000 per year. I appreciate the terms in which the hon. Gentlemen have debated the proposal, and I suggest that after my statement the Mover might see his way not to proceed with the Clause.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I am sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to accept our proposal. I belong to an approved society which has been hard hit in this respect. The majority of the members in the small society of which I am a member are over middle age. The society is not recruiting any new young members, and cannot give dental treatment or other additional benefit. That is one reason why we are not able to make new members. As was stated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), all our members pay the same amount of contribution, but two men who may be working in the same factory, shop or pit may belong to different societies, one to a society which can give additional benefits, and the other to a society which cannot. I speak very feelingly on this matter, because I wanted artificial teeth some time ago, and the chap working with me in the pit obtained his teeth for nothing from his society while I had to pay £6 10s. for mine. My society could not give that additional benefit.
    I entered the society from its first week, and I drew very little in benefits up to a few years ago. During the War I did not draw for one day's sickness, although I was working in the mine all the time. Nevertheless, when I required dental treatment, I had to put my hand into my own pocket, and I had very little in my pocket at the time. I was hoping that the Minister would adopt this proposal as a small step, towards what will ultimately be a great step, the establishment of a national approved
    104
    society in which everybody will pay the same contribution and will receive the same benefits. If the proposal were adopted, branches which desired pooling could adopt it, and we could gather experience of the arrangement for 12 or 18 months. This is probably the second most important proposal put forward to amend the Bill, the first in importance being the amendment in regard to maternity benefit. After maternity comes the question of getting some teeth, which is an important matter for men who cannot obtain artificial teeth for themselves.
    7.39 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I was interested in the personal experience of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and I agree with him as to the importance of the proposed new Clause. I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). It is a sound idea to pool a proportion of the money of all branches in order to assist branches which are in difficulties. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said he did not look with a very kindly or humane eye upon the fact that the rich branches might be asked to contribute to the poorer branches, and somebody interjected that not even the Socialists were keen on giving things away. If the principle of making the Clause permissive were adopted, would that not tend to drive members of rich branches into other organisations which had not adopted the pooling scheme?
    I would therefore prefer a form of compulsion. There is no need to deny that some of the greatest principles of progress set on foot in this country or the world have needed coercion or compulsion behind them. What man would pay Income Tax if he were not compelled to do so? We may say with frankness that compulsion is necessary if a principle is worth adopting. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton, I see snags, in the refusal of persons to contribute to the richer branches and leaving them, when the rich branches would be correspondingly poorer. If the National Health Insurance scheme is to be what its name implies, the funds ought to be pooled over the whole of the country so that they were national in character and in reality, richer branches supporting the poorer sections.

    105
    This principle has been adopted by localities in many Measures that have been through this House. We all know that there are a large number of friendly societies and trade unions who are not agreeable to the proposal that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has put forward to-day, because they have a selfish spirit. I would like to mention a personal experience. I went down to a co-operative meeting at which a proposal was put forward to reduce the rate of interest, when rates of interest were falling because money was plentiful. The co-operative societies were getting too much money, and wanted to reduce the rate of interest by one-half per cent. There were nearly free fights that night. Members of the co-operative society, who believed in the principle of co-partner-ship, did not want to see the rate of interest reduced. They believed in "Down with capitalism and up with the rates of interest." To that extent, we know from personal experience that there are snags, even in friendly societies, trade unions and Socialist organisations.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: With regard to the trade unions, does my hon. Friend know that not one trade union in this country which is approved under the National Health Insurance scheme has separate branches, as is the case with friendly societies?
    Mr. McGOVERN: I was not attempting to say anything unfair. I will not attempt to do any harm to the trade unions; I will leave the leaders to do that. I thoroughly agree with every expression of opinion of the hon. Member in regard to his proposal. He has adopted a wise course, but I think the pooling process would be much better if it were compulsory. I have facts and figures in my pocket showing the large number of areas suffering from continual unemployment. Just as there are depressed areas there are depressed branches, which cannot supply the little things which are necessary, such as teeth, spectacles, additional maternity grant and grants to enable people to go to convalescent homes. We should not allow rich branches to hoard money which ought to be spent in assisting their weaker brethren. I wish the Minister had been bold enough to adopt compulsion to make those branches disgorge part of their booty. He does not, however, see it in that way. I think that, while the principle is sound, there would be the snag that I have mentioned, namely, that if it were adopted it would drive people into other societies that did not adopt that course.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 208.

    Division No. 265.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Banfieid, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Strauss G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Thorne, William James

    Cove, William G.

    Lawton, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Leonard, William

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobbie, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    McGovern, John

    Wilmot, John

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Albery, Irving James

    Blindell, James

    Burghley, Lord

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Boulton W. W.

    Burnett, John George

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcoln

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Carver, Major William H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Clarke, Frank

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Remer, John R.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rickards, George William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Savery, Servington

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Dickie, John P.

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Drewe, Cedric

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Maltland, Adam

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Stones, James

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Storey, Samuel

    Fl lden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Munro, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Greene, William P. C.

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Grimston, R. V.

    North, Edward T.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Pearson, William G.

    Ward, Lt.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Peat, Charles U.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Penny, Sir George

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hartland, George A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Petherick, M.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Potter, John

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Worthington, Sir John

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Pybus, Sir John

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ra kes, Henry V. A. M.

    Captain Hope.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Remuneration of a medical practitioner to be inalienable.)
    Every assignment of or charge on, and every agreement to assign or charge, any remuneration payable to a medical practitioner in respect of the administration of medical benefit shall be void, and, on the bankruptcy of any medical practitioner entitled to such remuneration, the remuneration shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.57 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    108
    On this occasion I am on rather delicate ground, and am also treading rather a new path. I will do so with good humour as far as I can. The purpose of the Clause is to bring to the notice of Parliament some anomalies that have crept into the panel practices of this country, in some parts of the country more than in others. The position, so far as I understand it, is briefly this: A medical student who has passed all his examinations in a university must, of course, get a practice as a doctor, and he may, when starting his career, be poor. To buy a practice he must have money. He may buy a private practice, or a panel practice, or perhaps both, from an older

    109
    doctor, but I am given to understand rather authoritatively that the position is not always quite as simple as that, for I believe that in some cases the young doctor gets so involved in the hands of moneylenders that that fact leads to his practice suffering. I believe that within the medical profession arrangements exist whereby young doctors are helped in starting their careers, but I am not referring to that angle of the case at all. A good deal of evidence has been supplied to me, but I need only refer to the report of the annual conference of the Association of Insurance Committees, where the position is stated in a definite and official form.
    I am not going to criticise the young doctor who borrows money. It is quite possible that most young men might be in that position in entering any business or profession. But we want to say definitely that, where a person lends money to a young doctor, he shall not lay down such conditions for the repayment of that money as would affect the practice of the doctor himself in his work as a panel doctor. I cannot believe that a young man can perform his duties as a panel doctor efficiently and effectively if he is unduly harassed by an unscrupulous moneylender into whose hands he has fallen.
    We desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows of any way to get over this difficulty. He knows that the problem has been raised with him on more than one occasion, but I believe the reply of the Ministry of Health is always to this effect: "Unless you can show us that the doctor's work is adversely affected by these commercialised transactions, the Ministry of Health will take no notice of them." I think, however, that the mere fact that these cases have been brought before the Ministry ought to be enough to move them, not only to keep panel practice in its proper status, but also to save the young doctor from getting into financial difficulties with unscrupulous people who lend him money.
    It must not be supposed, because we raise this problem to-day, that every panel doctor is in that position. Such cases are few and far between, and probably, on a percentage basis, the number is smaller than it would be in many of the other professions. Nevertheless, as this is the Parliament of the country, and as this is
    110
    a debating Chamber where all anomalies ought to be explained and abuses exposed, we have thought it fitting to put this Clause down in order to see whether something can be done to remove some of the anomalies which I have indicated.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if the situation that he fears had arisen, whereby panel practitioners were borrowing money on harsh terms on the security of their practice, we should have to see that the matter was taken up. At present there is no evidence, except in an infinitesimal number of cases, that the efficiency of the panel practitioner is affected by the fact that he does what any other person in another profession might do—use the security of his practice in order to advance himself in his career. I think it would be putting too great a disability on a young panel practitioner to prevent him from borrowing money on the security of his practice. The real safeguard is that it is a matter for the British Medical Association to see that the panel practitioner is not made the prey of unscrupulous people. More and more reputable insurance societies are making provision to enable practitioners to borrow on reasonable terms. I quite appreciate the fear which actuates the hon. Gentleman, but it only applies in an infinitesimal number of cases. We will watch the position in consultation with the British Medical Association to see that the panel practitioner is not disadvantaged by mortgaging his security.
    8.2 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I have here a report of a meeting that took place about Easter in regard to young doctors, from which I should like to read a few lines:
    "The result was that a young doctor buying a practice was put under certain conditions which must reflect on his efforts in connection with the treatment of insured persons. He has to assign all his capitation fees to agents. He has also to sign a blank form of assignation, and a blank form to appoint a successor without the name of the successor. Something should be done to stop the practice."
    I certainly think some medical body ought to see to it that any practitioner, whether an old or a young man, taking over a practice, should not get into the hands of sharks, and should not be worried by people wanting to get money

    111
    from him when he ought to be attending his patients. Any young man starting out in life has a perfect right to get money, but it should be advanced at such a reasonable rate of interest as gives him an opportunity of carrying on, and he should not be worried by moneylenders, and wonder how he is going to find the money.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Rates of sickness and disablement benefits.)
    (1) Section three of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, shall cease to have effect.
    (2) In Section thirteen of the Insurance Act for so much of Sub-section (2) thereof as precedes the proviso there shall be substituted the following provision:—
    "(2) The ordinary rate of sickness benefit shall be, in the case of a man, the sum of fifteen shillings a week and, in the case of a woman, the sum of twelve shillings a week; and the ordinary rate of disablement benefit shall be a sum of seven shillings and sixpence a week for men and women alike,"—[Mr. Rays Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In 1932 the Government brought in a Bill amending the National Health Insurance scheme by reducing the benefits of both married and unmarried women. My proposal is to restore the cuts. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been bragging that all the cuts have been restored, we thought we might have a share of it for this purpose. Since the 1932 Act was passed approved societies with women members have been requested by the Ministry of Health, where it had not been done before, to value the women and the men separately. We are wondering whether the women's societies have not improved financially sufficient to warrant our proposing this Clause in order to put them back where they were prior to the passing of the 1932 Act. There was a differentiation, not only between the benefit of women and men, but it was carried to the extent of providing different rates of benefit for married and unmarried women as well. The millions of women who are electors
    112
    will want to know what is the next item to be put on the hoardings by the Tory party for the next general election. I am wondering whether we shall see "Restoration of health insurance benefits to women." Now that I have got the right hon. Gentleman in a good humour, I shall not be surprised if he accedes to my request, which will not cost the Government anything in the long run.
    8.8 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always glad to meet him when I can, but in some cases it is rather difficult, and this is one of them. In the 1932 Insurance Act a reduction had to be made in the benefits of women because sickness benefit claims were greatly in excess of the actuarial estimates. I remember very well the Debates that we had on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has probably moved his Clause in order to ascertain what is the position since that time. It has been very carefully watched by my Department. The benefit rates fixed in the Act of 1932 were perhaps not as low as past experience would have justified. If anything, there was a leaning towards not reducing them too far, but they were based on the assumption that there would be an improvement in the cost of claims of 10 per cent. on the average over that of 1928–30. I am glad to say that this has been achieved, but only just achieved, as for 1931–2 the experience has averaged between 85 and 90 per cent. of the 1928–30 level but, unfortunately, the claims for disablement benefit among married women have shown a tendency to rise. In those circumstances there is, of course, a very small margin between expenditure and benefit, which may disappear as the result of the provision for full benefits under the arrears scheme.
    All I can say is that it would be premature to draw any conclusions as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the present scales of benefit until further experience has been gained, but I will promise that the position shall be carefully watched, and I will ask the Government Actuary particularly to look at the matter at the end of the fifth valuation. I need hardly say that, should the report show that the rates of benefit could be raised without endangering the solvency of the women's funds in the societies, it would clearly be the duty of the Government of the

    113
    day to have the benefits increased. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a reasonable statement of the position. I know he does not want to put the societies in a difficulty. We must really watch the position more before we can take further steps.
    8.12 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman's promise is not quite as definite as one or two that he has made to-day, because he does not tell us now that he will look into the problem before Report. He is going to wait until the next valuation of the approved societies. I am under the impression that the result of the valuation will come out after the next General Election.
    Sir K. WOOD: When is that?
    Mr. DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman will come with me to a private spot, I will acquaint him. I cannot make it public just yet.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 19, line 9, after "arrears," to insert:
    "and in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection (5) for the words 'by reason of an insufficient number of contributions having been paid by or in respect of him or of the insufficiency of the sum standing to his credit in the Deposit Contributors' Fund.'"
    The present wording applies only to wives of members of approved societies. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the advantages of the scheme to the insured wives of deposit contributors.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 15, at the end, insert:
    "In Sub-section (2),'payable' shall be substituted for 'to be paid.'"—[Sir K. Wood.]
    8.13 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 19, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "Section 20.—The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1), that is to say:—(d) in the case of a ship registered in one country the owner of which resides or has his principal place of business in the other, for determining in what cases contributions payable
    114
    in respect of persons employed on the ship are to be payable under the enactments relating to national health insurance in force in one country, and in what cases they are to be payable under those enactments in force in the other.'"
    This Amendment meets a point made by the hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill with reference to the position of certain seamen. It is agreed that it is desirable to allow steps to be taken for removing disabilities which at present operate against certain seamen resident in the United Kingdom and employed on packet boats between this country and the Irish Free State owned in this country but registered in the Free State. Their contributions are payable under enactments in force in the Free State. The result is that the men have no rights under the contributory pension scheme in this country and, because they are resident here, they are not for any practical purposes insured persons for health insurance under the Free State scheme. We have been endeavouring to deal with this matter by certain administrative arrangements, and we now desire to put the matter on a proper footing. The Clause is dependent on an agreement with the Irish Free State, but I have reason to think that, if it is approved by this House, we shall be able to make some reasonable reciprocal arrangement with that country.
    Mr. LOGAN: Will this Amendment bring them under the English conditions?
    Sir K. WOOD: I hope that that will be so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential amendments of Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 and 1929.)
  Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 21, line 8, after "thereto," to insert:
  "in both cases where those words occur."
  This is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 106]

  CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of a criminal lunatic asylum in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (1) of any expenses incurred in respect of the establishment, maintenance, and management of any criminal lunatic asylum established in Scotland in pursuance of the said Act and of the maintenance and treatment of persons detained therein; and

  (2) of any expenditure incurred by an Advisory Committee appointed in pursuance of the said Act, including travelling and other personal expenses incurred by members of the Committee, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Prisons Department for Scotland with the consent of the Treasury."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CREDITING OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.20 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of this Bill is to fulfil a pledge which was given during the passage of the Unemployment Act when the proposals were being discussed lowering the insurance age to the school age. It was the generally expressed opinion that credit should be allowed to every child who remained in education beyond the age of 14. This concession was made, and it is now embodied in Section 75 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, which, as hon. Members know, is a consolidating Act. The Act lays down in that section that the regulations regarding this matter shall come into force on 3rd September of this year, and that children who are then continuing their education shall be given credit.
  116
  When the Unemployment Bill of 1934 was before the House, the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and, in reply to him, my predecessor said that children who left school in July, 1935, would have the advantage of this particular section of the Act—I think that the hon. Member was concerned about children leaving in July, 1935—and that, in spite of the fact that they would not have been at school for two years, but only for one year after the coming into force of the Act, they would become entitled to the full credit of contributions. When the Act subsequently emerged, the date of 3rd September of this year was embodied, and it was then apparent that children who left during the summer of this year would be excluded from the credit and that it might be detrimental to them subsequently when it became a question of their qualifying for unemployment benefit. The object of the Bill, therefore, is to try to put that matter right. The pledge which was given by my predecessor was given in all good faith, and this Bill is to give effect to it. There will be no charge upon the Exchequer, and it is difficult to estimate the charge which will come on the Unemployment Fund, but it will be only a small one. I believe that there is considerable agreement on the Bill, and I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: I believe that this is the first occasion on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has appeared at that Box as Parliamentary Secretary, and it is all the more pleasing to congratulate him when introducing a Bill of this kind. I think he will agree that, as the representative of the Ministry of Labour, he has been very fortunate in his selection of the Bill upon which he has had to speak. I congratulate him and the Ministry upon being sufficiently wide awake to see this difficulty before any hardship was caused to the boys and girls concerned. I was very much surprised when I was told about the flaw in the Act, and when one recollects how wide and complex the Bill was in its two parts, one cannot grumble that this small flaw has appeared. We on these benches agree that the best thing the House can do is to give the Bill a Second Reading, and we hope that there will not be any

  117
  objection to it. It means nothing but gain to the boys and girls concerned, and it was only because of a general understanding that it would be possible to get this business through rather quickly that we have been enabled to have this Bill at all. I trust that the House will give the Bill a quick passage, in order to make quite sure that the boys and girls who will leave school this year will be credited with their contributions. I understand that there will be no charge on the Exchequer and that the charge on the fund itself will be almost negligible. The provision will not touch a great many boys and girls, but it makes sure that there will be no hardship with regard to those whom it affects.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who takes a deep interest in these matters, I should like to say that we also agree to the passage of the Bill without any question of obstruction, and that we welcome it. May I be permitted to say that I, like the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has had such a pleasant task? It is only the preliminary canter for the very serious things which lie ahead, which will prove the mettle of himself and the Minister of Labour in the very near future. We welcome the provisions of the Bill, which are to ensure that no injustice shall take place regarding the young persons affected. In welcoming the Minister's appearance, I hope that he will in the future carry out the policy enunciated in this Bill and that he will do justice to all sections of the unemployed.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Penny]

  LAW REFORM (MARRIED WOMEN AND TORT-FEASORS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.28 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill, with its rather long title, is one of a series of law reforms which are
  118
  the result of the appointment of a Committee which has been presided over by the present Master of the Rolls, Lord Hanworth. The Committee was appointed by the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey. The Bill deals with two matters which I can shortly bring to the attention of the House. The first part deals with the position of married women. As the House may be aware, husbands are at the present time responsible for the torts, as the lawyers say, committed by the wife, and also for her liabilities. Even in cases where the wife is liable and judgment has been entered against her, it is the law that the liability is not a personal one, but it is what is called a proprietory liability, limited to the extent of her separate estate. That is to say, a judgment for damages recovered against her or a sum recovered against her in an action cannot be enforced in the same way as a judgment can be enforced against a man or against a single woman, for instance, by bankruptcy proceedings.
  This Bill proposes to relieve the husband of the responsibility which he now has to bear for his wife's torts or for his wife's liabilities, and it will be possible to recover against the wife in precisely the same way as against the husband, or against a man, or against an unmarried woman. The rule also which I have mentioned as to the extent of the wife's liability in the case of judgment against her will be got rid of, and judgment will be, if we pass the Bill, in the same way as against an unmarried woman or a man. The judgment will be enforceable by bankruptcy proceedings or under the Debtors Acts in the ordinary way.Another matter is dealt with by this part of the Bill with which lawyers will be familiar and which a good many laymen will recognise, and that is the clause which is very often put into settlements upon a woman, or put into wills, which is known as restraint upon anticipation. To be substantially accurate and without too much technicality, it is a clause which prevents the compass of a sum which is settled upon a wife or the interest upon a sum from being anticipated with a view to satisfying a judgment which has been obtained against her. It was no doubt a device originally for the protection of

  119
  the woman against the husband in the days when the husband owned everything that the wife possessed, and undoubtedly it has been used in many cases as a means of defeating the wife's creditors. Therefore, it is thought proper to get rid of this clause and to make such a clause ineffective in the future. The Bill in these respects is not retrospective.
  The second part of the Bill deals with another matter, and that is what is called the principle of no contribution between two joint tort-feasors. Reduced into intelligible English that simply means this. Under the law as it has been for about 135 years, if a person is injured by two or more persons jointly he can recover his damages in full from any one of those persons, but the one who is compelled to pay is not allowed to recover any contribution from another person who has done the wrong jointly with him, although possibly the other person is just as guilty as, or even more guilty than, himself. This Bill proposes to abolish that rule of law. It is not the law of contract. If two persons enter into a contract jointly, judgment may be obtained against them enforcing the terms of the contract, or by way of damages for breach of the contract, and contributions can be enforced against one of the parties by the other who has been made to pay the damages. The rule with reference to torts has often been criticised, but the judgment given 135 years ago has lasted. Several exceptions have been made to it, with which I need not trouble the Committee. Suffice it to say that this Bill will put an end to it and will give the right of contribution of one wrongdoer or tort-feasor against another who has not been made to pay. It will also extend the rule to cases of a combined wrong. "A combined wrong" is my own phrase, and I hope it will be intelligible to laymen in the House. It is different from a joint wrong, in that the parties were not acting jointly but they have managed by certain circumstances to be responsible for two separate wrongs on the part of each of them against the same person. For instance, when two motor-car drivers, racing on one of the roads going out of London, cause serious damage to another motorist coming in the other direction. They are not acting jointly, but by their action they have
  120
  been responsible for doing wrong to a third party, and the new rule will make it possible for one of the wrongdoers who has been sued, and against whom judgment has been obtained, to recover a proper share of the damages from the other wrongdoer. It may be asked how will you assess the amount to be recovered from wrongdoer A and wrongdoer B; is it to be on a fifty-fifty basis? The Bill proposes, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, that the contribution shall be settled by a judge. It may be that one of the persons ought to be responsible for only one-third of the total damages, and it will be possible for a judge under the Bill to fix the amount of the contribution which is recoverable by one wrongdoer from the other wrongdoer.
  I hope that this summary is sufficient and clear, but may I say that this principle will not apply to a case where the law has already given a right of indemnity as between two joint wrongdoers? I will give this illustration. Suppose A has been induced to join with B in committing a wrong against C, but that A has been induced to do it by the fraudulent representations of B. The law gives A a right of indemnity against B, and this Bill, which provides for a contribution between two joint tort-feasors, will not apply to such a case. These two matters dealt with by the Bill have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in legal circles for many years, and I am sure the House will wish me to express the obligation under which the community at large are to Lord Sankey, who set up the committee, and to Lord Hanworth and the very distinguished lawyers of both branches of the professions who serve on the committee. These are two out of the four questions which were committed to the consideration of the Law Revision Committee, whose interim reports have been presented to the House and have been carried out in Bills which Parliament has already passed. One likes to think that in this way the anomalies of the law are being gradually removed, and, if the House is willing to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope it will be possible to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and, even in this overcrowded Session, secure its passage into law at the earliest possible moment.
  8.40 p.m.
  Major MILNER: We shall all wish to join with the Attorney-General in expressing our appreciation that the late Lord Chancellor took upon himself the duty of laying down certain matters upon which he desired Lord Hanworth's Committee to come to conclusions in order that they may be carried into law. We appreciate the work which the committee is doing. The special! feature is that they are taking these matters piecemeal, but quite regularly, at three months' intervals these Bills are coming before the House. For the most part they are passed with general good will and approval from all parties. The Attorney-General has said all that is necessary on the strictly legal and technical aspect of the matter. On the question of a husband's liability for his wife's debts this Bill will make a very helpful contribution to many of the difficulties which arise in that branch of the law. On this point Lord Hanworth's Committee put the position appropriately in a few words:
  "Women nowadays, whether married or single, engage in almost all professions, trades and businesses and are eligible to hold, and do in general hold, every sort of public and official post, and exercise every right and franchise, just as much as men. There seems no reason, once it is established that they are no longer debarred by the law from holding property independently of their husbands, why they should not do so with all the corresponding rights and liabilities like everyone else."
  I am sure that those sentiments will meet with the approval of hon. Members. With regard to the question of contribution as between joint tort-feasors, there, in the matter of motor accidents, I think the Bill makes a very useful alteration in the law, which will be more necessary in the future. In the concluding paragraph of their report the Committee refer to one matter which we hope will also be dealt with by a Bill. It is the matter of the hardship falling on a husband in respect of having to pay Income Tax on her property. That is a matter which involves all sorts of difficult questions of law in matrimonial and other cases. If a woman was made to bear her own burden, with the husband free from liability, it would be a valuable contribution. The Committee mention this matter in passing, but say that as it does not fall within the terms of their reference they refrain from making any substantive recommendation
  122
  in regard to it. I should like to know whether there is any likelihood of this matter being considered by the Committee.
  I notice that the Bill originally was called Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and that title has applied to one or two similar Bills which have come before the House on the recommendations of the Committee. The Bill now is called Law Reform (Married Women and Tort-feasors) Bill. I do not know why this particular Bill, which is one of a series, should have a, different title or why the continuity of the series of Bills, which have already been before the House and those which are soon to come, should have been interrupted. I should have thought that it was desirable to have retained for all the Bills in this series the same name, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and that in due time they would all be brought together into one measure. I imagine that that would be the intention of any future Governments. Perhaps the Attorney-General would say how it comes about that in this particular instance the name has been changed. I am sure it will be interesting to the House if we can be told what other questions, if any, are still before Lord Hanworth's Committee. I know that there were four questions originally submitted to them. With this Measure I believe we have had legislation before the House in respect of all those four questions. Are there other questions still before that Committee? Lord Han-worth's Committee is obviously an extremely hardworking body, and we all hope that it will continue its labours a little longer and deal with the anomalies which we know still exist in the law. So far as we on the Labour benches are concerned we approve this Bill and hope that eventually it may pass into law.
  8.47 p.m.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: I should like to join my congratulations to those already given to the learned Attorney-General for bringing in this Bill. To my mind the most important of its Clauses is Clause 2, which relates to restarint on anticipation. Probably a great many Members do not realise what the restraint on a married woman's life interest really means. It means that she can compel her trustees to pay her her income direct, and her creditors, to whom

  123
  she may owe thousands of pounds, cannot attach it. The Clause provides:
  "Any instrument executed on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, shall in so far as it purports to attach to the enjoyment of any property by a woman any restriction upon anticipation or alienation which could not have been attached to the enjoyment of that property by a man, be void."
  That is a tremendous step forward. The next provision in importance is the question of the liability of a husband for his wife's torts. That also is a great step forward. These two provisions are almost epoch-making from the ordinary practising lawyer's point of view.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. JANNER: In my view, and, I think, in the view of all Members of the party to which I belong, this Bill should be supported and congratulations should be offered to the Hanworth Committee for having brought these matters to a climax. I do not think that in the course of the present Parliament a Measure has been brought about with such expedition as has marked this Measure and similar Measures passed owing to the deliberations of that Committee. In view of the fact that the House is clearly prepared to accept the results of the Hanworth Committee's deliberations in such a unanimous way, it may be within the power of the learned Attorney-General to see that other points which are at present under discussion are brought to a speedy conclusion as far as legislation is concerned. He need have no fear that the House will in any way resist an attempt to make improvements which are still before that Committee for consideration and about which many of us feel deeply.
  I hope we shall be told that other matters are at present being dealt with by that Committee, and in particular whether the question of imprisonment for debt is being considered, whether any decision has been reached and whether we are likely to have legislation shortly to deal with it. Then it is rather important, from the point of view not only of Members of this House but from the point of view of the man in the street, that we should get these Amendments of the law carried as quickly as possible, so that we may have the laws codified,
  124
  and instead of Acts in which there are many cross-references, we may in a short space of time get all the anomalies dealt with and so proceed to codify the Statutes. We are very pleased indeed that the difficulties to which this Bill refers are to be remedied by an Act which will come into force without any opposition, and we hope that this Bill will be followed very speedily by similar Bills to deal with other difficulties.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: Having listened to this instruction from the lawyers, and not being able to follow it quite as well as I would like, but admitting that this is a rare place to get information, I want to ask one question. I ask the Attorney-General to turn to page 6 of the Bill, where he will see these words:
  "This part of this Act shall come into operation on such date as the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint."
  I have no objection to getting advice from the lawyers, the big men, but when we pass a Measure here and it receives the Royal Assent, it ought to come into operation straightaway. Some explanation is due to the House before we allow the Bill to pass with that provision. What the Attorney-General has said is important—that this Bill should be passed immediately, but it seems to me that what I have quoted provides for delay. What is the reason?
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. CAPORN: I do not wish to detain the House in dealing with matters that are purely Committee points. I merely wish to say that there are one or two matters which the House ought to consider now. I presume we shall have an opportunity of considering them further during the Committee stage. One question is rather larger than the others. It is the question of withdrawal of restraint on anticipation. I think the House ought to give that matter full consideration in Committee. The doctrine of restraint on anticipation, as I understand it, was the invention of the Court of Chancery, not for the purpose of enabling a woman to defraud her creditors, but for the purpose of protecting a married woman against the influence and control, and perhaps I should add, in these days the optimism, of her husband.
  We all know cases in which a husband has persuaded his wife, who has not been

  125
  under restraint from anticipating her income, or protected in a similar way—has persuaded her honestly to throw the whole of her capital into his business. He has been misled in his optimism and his business has failed, and the money left by the father of the married woman, with the idea that his daughter and her children would for their lives have sufficient to keep them out of the workhouse, has been swept away with the bankruptcy of the husband's business. I am not convinced that a married woman, even in these days, does not still need protection against the optimism, influence and control of her husband. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity during the Committee stage of considering whether it is wise completely to sweep away this doctrine. I have no doubt that the Chancery lawyers will find other ways of securing very much the same object, but I feel that those other ways will be more expensive and, at the appropriate time, I shall venture to ask the Committee which considers the Bill, whether it would not be wiser to stick to the old Chancery method of protecting a wife and not to sweep it away, merely for lawyers to find other methods of securing the same purpose.
  8.56 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I rise only to answer two question. The Title of the Bill has been changed in order to distinguish it from the other Measure. It would not be convenient to have two Acts of Parliament with precisely the same Title unless they dealt with precisely the same subject matter. The second question was why Part II of the Bill is only to come into operation on such date as the Lord Chancellor may appoint. The answer is that that part of the Bill effects some changes in regard to the powers of the court and it will be necessary to revise some of the rules of the Supreme Court in order to provide for the exercise by the court of this new jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor is the authority who will know when it is possible to bring this part of the Bill into operation, with all the machinery ready to work, and I assure the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that the intention is to bring this part of the Bill, if passed, into operation at the earliest possible moment consistent with the exigencies of the work which has to be done.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir. G. Penny.]

  UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.0 p.m.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill is to appoint a body of Commissioners, whose names will be found set out in the first Clause, for the purpose of making statutes for the governing of the University of Durham. The present constitution of Durham University depends upon an Act passed in 1908. That Act was the result of a compromise between the existing university, which consisted of the schools of Durham and the School of Medicine in Newcastle and the Armstrong College there. The Act was passed in difficult circumstances. It was admittedly a compromise and I think anyone who knows the district and the work of the university will agree that the 27 years trial given to this constitution proved that, in many respects, it was unsatisfactory. The relationship between the Senate which was set up by the Act of 1908 and the component units of the university have never been satisfactory and the powers, authority and status of the Senate have never been such as to constitute it what we think of as a university Senate. The difficulties which have arisen have been brought to a head within the last two years by acute controversies between some of the component units. It is no good going into those disputes. It is much better that they should be forgotten and a fresh start made, but, as a result of those acute controversies, a Royal Commission was appointed. That Commission reported early this spring. It has made a number of recommendations with regard to the future constitution of the university and although those recommendations are somewhat drastic yet I think all acquainted with the past history of the problem agree that nothing except drastic alterations would meet the situation.

  127
  The Commissioners are empowered under the Bill to make statutes in general accordance with the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission. It will be possible for them to make any modifications in those recommendations which appear to them expedient and machinery is provided whereby objections may be heard by them before any recommendations are transformed into statutes. Hon. Members will note that under the procedure set out in the Schedule the statutes when made have to be referred to a committee of the Privy Council and laid before both Houses of Parliament and if either House carries a prayer against a statute that statute is annulled. As to the financial provisions it will be seen that Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 and also a paragraph in the Schedule are enclosed in brackets and underlined showing that they have been left out in another place in order to avoid the question of privilege. It will therefore be necessary in Committee to move the insertion of those words. The effect of that will be that the necessary expenses of these Commissioners during the period in which their work is to be undertaken, that is until the end of 1936, will be met by the Treasury. It is estimated that the amount which the Treasury may be called upon to find in that period will be something in the nature of £2,000. I believe that the Report of the Royal Commission met with general support in the locality. These Commissioners will be appointed to put that report into effect and I hope it will be possible for the Bill to pass into law and the Commissioners to start their work without any further controversy or delay.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: As a member for one of the Durham constituencies I am pleased that we have reached this further stage in the setting up of this body of statutory Commissioners in connection with the University of Durham. Although a Member for a Durham constituency I do not speak with intimate knowledge of the controversies which led to the appointment of a Royal Commission, but I do know that the effect of those controversies on outsiders like myself was very unedifying and that they were not calculated to bring credit to the great educational organisations of the country.
  128
  I was pleased for that reason that the Royal Commission was appointed and the right hon. Gentleman is correct in stating that the report of that Commission has been received in Durham with approval. The Bill now proposes to appoint the statutory Commissioners who, in general, will give effect to those recommendations subject to any modifications which they may wish to make. I can only hope that their work will be as efficient and as satisfying to Durham and Northumberland as the work of the Commission has been.
  Great industrial areas such as we have in the North certainly ought to have a University established which is not only successful in doing its work, but is established in the minds and hearts of that community. Durham especially has played a great part in establishing other Universities when it long wanted one itself. I understand that it played some part in establishing Trinity and Balliol Colleges at Oxford. Indeed, I believe Balliol was established as a penance by one of the barons up there, and I have read in an old chronicle that William Balliol suffered several strokes of the rod upon the bare back on his road to the cathedral, because, the old chronicle said—and I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will not mind my using strictly official language—
  "he did abundantly damn the Bishop."
  Cromwell attempted, I believe in 1657, to establish a University there. Great and efficient work has been done in recent years, and I hope that the result of the establishment of this Statutory Commission will be that we shall have a University with cordial relations between the Newcastle section and the Durham section, a University which will not only do its work efficiently, but which will not repeat the kind of mistake which happened two years ago and which will spread more and more into the minds and hearts of the people of the district, so that the humblest working man and woman may be proud of that establishment. I trust that the Bill will be successful in attaining that end.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. MARTIN: May I add a word of satisfaction that the Government are bringing forward this Bill? Like the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) I think it is proper that a Northern

  129
  Member should, speaking from another party, say that we Northerners and all connected with the North-East coast are very glad the Government have found time to bring in this Bill now. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has reminded us very often of Oliver Cromwell, who was responsible originally for the establishment of Durham University. Since those days the great march of industrialism has created the great city of Newcastle, which in its turn took two foundations, which were originally academic, but which in recent years have caused a great deal of controversy. The fact that that controversy is likely to be ended for all time by this Bill is matter for great satisfaction, not only to the medical and academic circles, but to the civic and public circles in the North. The controversy which caused the appointment of the Commission to inquire into the state of affairs there was, as the last speaker said, not exactly savoury, but we are more than delighted that the Government have brought forward this Bill, which seems to be without a flaw, for appointing Commissioners who will establish a really sound and, I hope, permanent foundation for a University which will embody the ancient seat of Durham and the more progressive one perhaps of Newcastle.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Penny.]

  UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the University of Durham and its constituent divisions and colleges, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, to an amount approved by the Treasury, of all expenses incurred in the execution of the said Act by the Commissioners appointed thereunder, including such remuneration as the Treasury may determine to be payable to persons employed by the said Commissioners."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Stanley.]
  Resolution to be considered To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM [MONEY].

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Nine o'Clock.

  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
BROADCASTING.
  PROSECUTIONS.
  PROSECUTIONS.
  JEWISH RADIO STATION.
  JEWISH RADIO STATION.
  INTERFERENCE (REGIONAL POLICE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION).
  INTERFERENCE (REGIONAL POLICE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION).
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (LOCUSTS, EXPERIMENTS).
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (LOCUSTS, EXPERIMENTS).
EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARIES (INQUIRY).
  SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARIES (INQUIRY).
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, LEICESTER.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, LEICESTER.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES, BIRMINGHAM).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES, BIRMINGHAM).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SPIRIT DUTIES (MOTOR FUEL).
  SPIRIT DUTIES (MOTOR FUEL).
  CEMETERIES (INSPECTION).
  CEMETERIES (INSPECTION).
  CARTRIDGE CASES (IMPORT).
  CARTRIDGE CASES (IMPORT).
  MALE SERVANT DUTY.
  MALE SERVANT DUTY.
  ARMY MANOEUVRES (FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVES).
  ARMY MANOEUVRES (FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVES).
  CAIRO UNIVERSITY (BRITISH PROFESSORS).
  CAIRO UNIVERSITY (BRITISH PROFESSORS).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEIGH JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3awith the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD AMPTHILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, before we commence to-day's proceedings on the Government of India Bill, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes while I say one word in regard to one of our esteemed colleagues who was with us last Monday but who, I am sorry to think, has been taken from us in the last two days. I refer to Lord Ampthill. Most of your Lordships were well acquainted with Lord Ampthill and had learned to respect the strong and masterly way in which he approached all these subjects, on which he held such strong convictions. We all welcomed his forceful speeches, and we understood the deep conviction which moved him to express his views in eloquent language, and
2
in language which showed the depth of feeling which appeared behind his words. I know that your Lordships will think it fitting on this occasion that we should express our sympathy with his family in the loss which they have sustained, and I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in saying how deeply we regret the loss of so valued and esteemed a colleague.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I was very closely associated with Lord Ampthill lately, perhaps it will be allowed me to add a word to what has been so well said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. It is a very tragic feeling, when you are working very closely with somebody in a great enterprise and meeting him every day, to learn one morning that he is ill and two days afterwards that he never can be with us again. All of us must realise that we have lost a man of sterling character in Lord Ampthill. He held his convictions with great strength; he never shrank from expressing them. He was the straightest man I ever had to deal with. I am sure that your Lordships will allow me to add these words to what has fallen from the noble Marquess.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to associate myself with what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. However deep political differences may be, it comes as

3
a great shock when one who has been taking part in our debates with such strength and vigour suddenly drops out of the line. My recollection of Lord Ampthill goes back a great many years to the time when, as a small boy, I used to admire him as Captain of the Boats at Eton. Whatever we may have thought of the various political differences which separated us, there was never any doubt about Lord Ampthill's views and there was never anything the least equivocal about his utterances. His death will be a great loss to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, allow me just for one moment to detain you while I associate myself with my noble colleagues in this House in what has been said by the Leader of the House, by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and by Lord Ponsonby. All I can add is that through my long period of acquaintance with Lord Ampthill I have often had differences of opinion with him, but I have always respected him not only for the strength of his opinions but also for the strength with which he expressed them. He was always held in the very highest esteem.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks which have been made about a very old friend of mine, Lord Ampthill. I had the honour of serving under him, as Governor of Bombay when he was temporary Viceroy of India. I know something of his work there and of his great strength of character. I fully associate myself with all that has been said on the strength of his views and his perfect fairness in enunciating them. I also remember, although I was very young, the time when he went to Oxford—without my then knowing him; he was termed then the Admirable Crichton of the day. That was a correct summing-up of the whole of his character.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, perhaps you will also forgive me for one moment if I express my feelings of really profound sorrow at the loss which we have sustained. I have known Lord Ampthill for many years. Often we agreed, generally, I think, on political questions. More recently there have been honest differences of opinion between us with regard to the measure now before your Lordships' House. But it is not
4
only in connection with political matters that I have been closely associated for a good many years past with the late Lord Ampthill. In an entirely different sphere outside the range of politics altogether, he has served for many years in an eminent capacity as Pro-Grand Master of the Freemasons of England, and in that connection I have been closely associated with him for many years. I feel profoundly the loss which has suddenly been inflicted upon us.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the question is put that the House do go into Committee I wish to ask a question. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government to continue to-day's sitting after dinner to-night. Can the noble Marquess the Leader of the House say whether it is the Government's intention to ask the House to sit after dinner to-morrow? I only ask because I think it is for the general convenience of your Lordships that we should know on which nights we shall be asked to sit after dinner?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before my noble friend answers I would like to put a question to him. I understand that not only is the House not being asked to sit after dinner to-day but that the proceedings on the Government of India Bill are to be interrupted at seven o'clock to allow another measure to be proceeded with. I have no desire to interfere in the arrangements which my noble friend thinks fit to make, but I think we should have expected to hear why this other Bill is so urgent that the proceedings on the Government of India Bill have to be interrupted. Personally, I should be very anxious to fall in with any wish that my noble friend might have. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of saying that I wonder how the Government contemplate the proceedings with respect to the Government of India Bill in the near future. We are rapidly approaching the First Schedule and upon the First Schedule, I understand, the

5
Government are going to propose a profound alteration in the Bill—an alteration striking at the very root of one of its main provisions. I have no great opinion of its main provisions and if the Government think it is right to alter one of them profoundly it is their business and not mine. I think, however, your Lordships' House ought to have some little time in which to consider the drafting and details of whatever the proposal is to be. We expected to see this Amendment on the Paper sometime last week and it is not there yet.
It almost looks as if the Government had not made up their minds what the Amendment ought to be. At any rate, your Lordships ought to be given ample time in which to consider it. If it is only in the hands of your Lordships' House to-morrow morning I do not know how the Government propose to deal with it, but of course it would be late for us to consult the experts who advise us as to its provisions. It is a very intricate matter dealing with one of the fundamental parts of the Bill. It has great consequences. I do not want to be inconvenient, but it certainly seems to me that we ought to have some little time in which to see and consider the Amendment. Of coarse the Government themselves have been in consultation with the Government of India, and their experts have been examining the Amendment, but we have not had that opportunity. We have not been able to see our experts or consider what the bearing of the alteration is. All we ask is that we should have the Amendment in our hands in sufficient time before your Lordships are asked to consider it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in answer to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, and my noble friend who sits below the gangway, I would say that we are not proposing to sit after dinner to-night.. As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the proceedings on the Government of India Bill will be adjourned at seven o'clock to-night, and after that the London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Bill will be read a second time. The noble Marquess will understand—I think he knows well from his previous experience—the great difficulty there is in fitting in business in your Lordships' House. I know that when he
6
occupied the position which I am now endeavouring to fill he found great difficulty in the fitting in of business in relation to business in another place. We are now in the middle of July, and it is hoped that we shall be able to rise at the end of the month; but as the noble Marquess is aware there is a great deal of business to be done, and I am trying as well as I can manage it to include all those Bills which it is most important should be passed before the end of this Session. I know that means encroaching upon your Lordships' time to a very large extent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When is the Session to end? This month, or in October or November?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have no information at the present moment. I was trying to convey the amount of business there is which we are hoping to get through by the end of this month, and I always endeavour, as I ought, to consult the convenience of all your Lordships as to the sittings of this House. I have had to trespass upon your indulgence in asking you to sit after dinner on more than one occasion, and it is only right and proper that ample notice should be given whenever it is proposed to sit late, so as to enable your Lordships to make your arrangements. As I have said, it is not proposed to sit after dinner to-night. I do not know how long the London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Bill will take, but of course we shall have to get the Second Reacting, and we shall have to sit until the Second Reading has been got to-night. I think, however, there is no reason to believe that the Bill will take long, for it is an agreed Bill, I understand, and beyond the usual speeches in connection with a Second Reading it ought not to occupy an undue proportion of your Lordships' time. That means, I hope, that we shall be able to adjourn at eight o'clock or thereabouts.
In regard to the question of the noble Marquess, I regret that he takes the view which he does. My noble friend who sits behind me tells me that the Amendment to which the noble Marquess referred will be on the Paper to-morrow morning, and he is hoping that perhaps it will be possible to deal with that Amendment to-morrow. The noble Marquess says that time is short, and he tells us that this is an Amendment of

7
great importance. Your Lordships are well aware, and I certainly am, that all these Amendments are of the greatest importance, and it is most essential that your Lordships should have every opportunity of full discussion on them. I am hoping, naturally, that we shall be able to have a full discussion on this particular Amendment. When the noble Marquess says that the time is short and that he has no time to consult his experts, I am sorry, but I should have thought that, after the Amendment had been put on the Paper, we should be able to have a full discussion on it at this stage. And, of course, there is another stage of the Bill, which I hope will be preceded by a week's interval. As I am always most anxious to meet the noble Marquess's desires and requirements, I hope that when I have made that statement he will understand it is the desire of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State, and certainly my desire, to afford the fullest possible time for the examination of all the Amendments. I regret that the noble, Marquess thinks that the time is short, and perhaps the time is short, but I hope that in the time that will be given there will be opportunity for full discussion. I think I shall have to ask your Lordships to sit after dinner to-morrow night. I am sorry to have to do it, but there are other measures before the Government of India. Bill. There is so much business to be got through that I have had to arrange it in the best way I could, and, with the programme that I have devised with the help of my advisers, I hope I have been able to do it in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the information he has given to us with regard to the proceedings, but I should like to say on behalf of the Opposition that the protracted discussion on the Bill—to which we have raised no sort of objection up till now—is largely due to the exaggerated amiability and affability and the out-of-proportion deference which is paid to the critics of the Bill because they are otherwise supporters of His Majesty's Government. I do not think they really represent any considerable feeling in this country, and I doubt if they represent a very large feeling in
8
India; but at any rate if the Government desire that the proceedings should go a little faster it rests with them rather than with your Lordships.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think my noble friend knows perfectly well that those of us who are critics here have done everything in our power to avoid any obstructive tactics. We have given every possible facility to the Government, subject to bringing forward those Amendments which we thought were absolutely necessary and to setting forth the valid objections, as we see them, to the Bill. In other cases we have put forward Amendments from time to time where we thought the Bill could be improved without running absolutely athwart the main stream of Government's policy. Those are the two objectives we have had.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I explain that I did not mean for a moment to accuse the noble Lord and his friends of obstructive tactics, or of doing anything that was not absolutely legitimate. It is not the Opposition's attitude towards the Government that I was criticising, it is the Government's attitude towards the Opposition.
LORD LLOYD: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his certificate, but I did not misapprehend him. I was trying to point out to the Government that whilst we had done everything we could within our power to give the Government every opportunity of getting ahead with their Bill, I think this is really treating us rather unfairly. We are going to have put on the Order Paper, at breakfast time I suppose, an Amendment which presumably must have enormous importance, as the noble Marquess has pointed out. Some of us have been deluged with telegrams from India, where the Government's sudden change of front has created an enormous effect, as the Government will some day learn, if they have not learned already. We shall have between nine o'clock and three o'clock to consult people in India and to digest this new Amendment, and, with every wish to behave in a friendly manner, as we should like to do about this Bill, I do not think that is really fair treatment. The thing becomes a farce if we are asked to discuss the Amendment to-morrow afternoon. I would venture to make a very definite protest about that, and in

9
so doing I shall be echoing the feelings of people not only in this country but throughout India.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I sincerely hope that so long as I have the honour of occupying this position, no section of the House will receive ungenerous treatment, no matter to what Party it belongs.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, it is quite true, I should have been very glad to place the Schedule down on the Paper before now, but, as the noble Marquess will understand, a certain amount of consultation with the Government of India and other authorities in India was necessary before I could draw up the actual details of the Schedule. The Amendment has now been handed in, and really I think the noble Marquess will find, except for the fact that it alters the form of election from indirect election by the Upper Houses in the Provinces to direct election, in accordance with the existing system of the Council of State, practically no other alterations are necessary. When I was dealing with this matter last week, I did my best to make it clear that the alteration which I was prepared to accept, in response to the request of my noble friend Lord Linlithgow, did little more than set up the existing system for the election of a Council of State in place of the system proposed in the Bill. I do not for a imminent underestimate the importance of that change; but, so far as intricacy is concerned, it is not intricate at all, it is perfectly simple; and I hope that when the noble Marquess sees the Amendment to the Schedule to-morrow morning—or I should be very happy to endeavour to obtain a copy of it for the noble Marquess this afternoon—I think he will realise the truth of what I have said, that it really makes very little alteration of a detailed character at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps with your Lordships' indulgence I may be allowed to say that I am extremely obliged to my noble friend for the very courteous reply he has made to me. Of course, if he offers personally to let me see a copy of the Amendment, that is treating me much too well. I was not speaking on my own behalf, I can assure your Lordships; I was thinking of noble Lords in all parts of the
10
House, whose business it is to come to a decision. I should be very sorry to be singled out for special favour. I certainly do not deserve any treatment of that kind. But of course I do not want, either, to interfere with the conduct of business by my noble friend the Leader of the House and, if he wishes to adjourn this Bill at seven o'clock, as far as I am concerned I would respond to that. I recognise that it is a very difficult thing to arrange business. I want to assist him if I can, but after we have seen the Amendment to-morrow morning I think the Government must not be surprised if we find it very difficult to debate the matter within the few hours which will be left. However. I ought to postpone saying anything further on that until I have seen the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 303:
No proceedings to lie against Governor-General, Governor or Secretary of State.
303. No proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in India against the Governor-General, against the Governor of a Province, or, subject to the foregoing provisions of Part VII of this Act, against the Secretary of State, whether in a personal capacity or otherwise, in respect of anything done or omitted to ho done by any of them during his term of office.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): On behalf of the Secretary of State I desire to explain the Amendments on this clause which appear on the Paper. Perhaps the most convenient course would be for me to read the clause as it will be with the Amendments written in, and then to explain in a very few sentences what it is that we are proposing to do, because the alterations only touch one or two points. It is a little difficult to follow unless your Lordships hear the clause as a whole. With the Amendments which we are suggesting, Clause 303 will read in this way:
"No proceedings whatsoever shall lie in and no process whatever shall issue from any Court in India against the Governor-General, against the, Governor of a Province, or against the Secretary of State, whether in a personal capacity or otherwise, and, except with the sanction of His Majesty in Council, no proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in India against any person who has been the

11
Governor-General, the Governor of a Province, or the Secretary of State in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any of them during Ins term of office in performance or purported performance of the duties thereof.
"Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring against the Federation, a Province, or the Secretary of State such proceedings as are mentioned in Chapter III of Part VII of this Act."
There are substantially two alterations that are made by virtue of these Amendments. In the first place, under the Bill as it stands, your Lordships will see that provision is made for any proceedings lying, but no reference is made to the issue of other process, and it would be possible, for instance, to issue subpoenas against the Governor-General or a Governor in proceeding's to which he was not a party to compel him to attend. That is only one illustration of what are process but not proceedings against him. We think it is obviously undesirable that it should be possible to compel the Governor-General to come into Court and give evidence in any suit at the instance of any individual litigant. The other alteration, apart from words, deals with what has been done in the past. As the clause stands at present, immunity is given to a Governor-General or a Governor or a Secretary of State in respect of things done by any of them during their term of office so far as relates to proceedings in India, but nothing is said as to what will happen when they vacate their office.
It might be possible, under the clause as drawn, to wait until the Governor-General had ceased to be Governor-General, or a Governor had ceased to be Governor, and then proceed to bring an action against him. We do not think it would be right to give complete immunity. There might be extreme cases in which it would be desirable to remove the protection which the clause affords; but we also do not think it would be at all desirable for anyone to be able, at his will, to bring actions against a Governor-General or a Governor for any grievance he may think he entertains, and therefore provision is made that after an individual has been Governor-General or Governor or Secretary of State he shall not be sued with regard to his actions during his term of office without the sanction of His Majesty in Council. That, we think, affords sufficient protection, on the one
12
hand, to the officials named and, on the other, provides for any extreme case in which it may be desirable to remove the immunity granted.
Amendment moved—
Page 188, line 8, after ("in") insert ("and no process whatsoever shall issue from").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the Lord Chancellor if he will be good enough to inform me in what way this clause, as amended, will alter the existing situation in India, especially with regard to the Secretary of State?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had the actual section of the Act here in anticipation of that question being asked, but I am sorry I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment. In effect, I think I am right in saying, at present no criminal proceedings lie against the Governor-General or a Governor in respect of anything except treason or felony, and no civil proceedings lie in the High Court in respect of any act done in his public capacity. Here no such distinction is sought to be drawn. Indeed, in the Bill without the Amendment, no such distinction is sought to be drawn and, having regard to the nature of the duties which are imposed upon the Governor-General and the Governors in this Bill, we think it would be undesirable to seek to draw such a distinction, because it would be opening an obvious door to allege that whatever was done was not done privately but publicly.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Would the noble and learned Viscount tell me, as a layman, whether there is any provision in this Bill for a process analogous to the process by Petition of Right in this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,: I am afraid that is imputing to me a wider knowledge of the terms of the Bill than I can give offhand. There are, for instance, the accepted provisions in Chapter III of Part VII which give a certain modified right for bringing actions in respect of contracts and things of that kind, and these are expressly preserved by the proviso as moved.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: That is not quite the Petition of Right, but I shall not pursue the matter now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The other Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 188, line 10, leave out ("subject to the foregoing provisions of Part VII of this Act")
Page 188, line 12, after ("otherwise") insert ("and, except with the sanction of His Majesty in Council, no proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in India against any person who has been the Governor-General, the Governor of a Province, or the Secretary of State")
Page 188, line 14, at end insert ("in performance or purported performance of the duties thereof")
At end insert:
("Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring against the Federation, a Province, or the Secretary of State such proceedings as are mentioned in Chapter III of Part VII of this Act.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments a-greed to.
Clause 303, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, to insert after Clause 303:
Removal of certain disqualifications on the occasion of the find elections to Legislature.
"For the purposes of the first elections of persons to serve as members of the Federal Legislature and of Provincial Legislatures no person shall be subject to any disqualification by reason only of the fact that he holds—

(a) an office of profit as a non-official member of the Executive Council of the Governor-General or a Governor, or as a Minister in a Province;

(b) an office which is not a whole time office remunerated either by salary or by fees."

The noble Marquess said: The object of this new clause is to remove a disqualification which would otherwise obtain in the case of an unofficial member of the Executive Council or of a Minister under the present Constitution. We think it is only reasonable that in the case of a first election, at any rate, a man who had been a Minister under the present Constitution, or an Indian public man who had been a member of the Executive Council under the present Constitution, should not be disqualified from becoming a Minister under the new Constitution. That is the main object of the new clause. It also goes a little further than that, and would also make eligible under the new Constitution part-time officers such as village officials and persons of that kind who, under a
14
strict interpretation of the Bill, without this Amendment., would not be held to be eligible. After the first election the matter will, of course, rest with the Legislatures in India themselves, and it will be open to the Federal Legislature or to the Provincial Legislatures, as the case may be, to pass legislation under Clause 26 (1) (a) or under Clause 60 (1) (a), as the case may be.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 303, insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 304:
Procedure as respects proposals for amendment of certain provisions of Act and Orders in Council.
304.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Federal Legislature or any Provincial Legislature, on motions proposed in each Chamber by a Minister on behalf of the Council of Ministers, pass a Resolution recommending any such amendment of this Act or of an Order in Council made thereunder as is hereinafter mentioned, and on motions proposed in like manner, present to the Governor-General or, as the case may be, to the Governor an Address for submission to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may be pleased to communicate the Resolution to Parliament, the Secretary of State shall, within six months after the Resolution is so communicated, cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement of any action which it may be proposed to take thereon.
The Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, when forwarding any such Resolution and Address to the Secretary of State shall transmit therewith a statement of his opinion as to the proposed amendment and, in particular, as to the effect which it would have on the interests of any minority, and the Secretary of State shall cause such statement to be laid before Parliament.
In formulating any such statement of opinion the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, shall act in his discretion.
(2) The amendments referred to in the preceding subsection are—

(a) any amendment of the provisions relating to the size or composition of the Chambers of the Federal Legislature, or to the method of choosing or the qualifications of members of that Legislature, not being an amendment which would vary the proportion between the number of seats in the Council of State and the number of seats in the Federal Assembly, or would vary, either as regards the Council of State or the Federal Assembly, the proportion between the number of seats allotted to British India and the number of seats allotted to Indian States;

15

(b)any amendment of the provisions relating to the number of Chambers in a Provincial Legislature or the size or composition of the Chamber, or of either Chamber, of a Provincial Legislature, or to the method of choosing or the qualifications of members of a Provincial Legislature;

(c) any amendment providing that, in the case of women, literacy shall be substituted for any higher educational standard for the time being required as a qualification for the franchise, or providing that women, if duly qualified, shall be entered on electoral rolls without any application being made for the purpose by them or on their behalf; and

(d) any other amendment of the provisions relating to the qualifications entitling persons to be registered as voters for the purposes of elections.

(3) So far as regards any such amendment as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply to a Resolution of a Provincial Legislature whenever passed, but, save as aforesaid, those provisions shall not apply to any Resolution passed before the expiration of ten years, in the case of a Resolution of the Federal Legislature from the establishment of the Federation, and in the case of a Resolution of a Provincial Legislature, from the commencement of Part III of this Act.
(4) His Majesty in Council may at any time before or after the commencement of Part III of this Act, whether the ten years referred to in the last preceding subsection have elapsed or not, and whether any such Address as is mentioned in this section has been submitted to His Majesty or not, make in the provisions of this Act any such amendment as is referred to in subsections (2) of this section
Provided that—

(i) if no such Address has been submitted to His Majesty, then, before the draft of any Order which it is proposed to submit to His Majesty is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall, unless it appears to him that the proposed amendment is of a minor or drafting nature, take such steps as His Majesty may direct for ascertaining the views of the Governments and Legislatures in India who would be affected by the proposed amendment;

(ii) the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall not be amended without the consent of the Ruler of any State which will be affected by the amendment.

LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved to insert at the end of the first paragraph in subsection (1) the words "and no such action shall be taken except in pursuance of an Address of both Houses of Parliament." The noble Lord said: We now come to the clause which I certainly think is the most
16
objectionable in the whole Bill and which, I submit, deserves the closest scrutiny by every member of this House. Whatever views noble Lords may hold as to the merits of the Bill as a whole and of the provisions in general, they will, I hope, bring to bear their individual critical judgment on a clause which threatens to disintegrate a pledge given by the Government to Indians and reiterated again and again. The interests of minorities are without doubt endangered and, equally, so are the good name and the honour of British statesmanship. I wish to make it as clear as daylight that I have not the least intention of flourishing here statements that have been made and resolutions that have been passed in India condemning the clause as it stood when it emerged from another place. I hold no brief whatsoever for any particular class or community. The Hindus may be in a majority in one Province and in a minority in another, and that applies equally to Moslems. There is no class that is not somewhere in a minority, whether they be Hindus, Moslems, Indian Christians, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, women or representatives of labour; and that does not exhaust the list.
I think that it would save your Lordships' time if I were to deal first of all with the merits and demerits, perhaps the latter particularly, of this clause in the first instance, and, if I may do this, then it will be possible for me to move the five Amendments which are tabled in my name in as few words as possible as they come on. It is of interest, and certainly of importance, to study the career of this clause since it first made its appearance in the Bill. It was Clause 285 when it was born, and I am bound to say that at that time it was nearly innocuous. Sir Henry Page Croft endeavoured to improve it, and was unsuccessful. The clause reappeared as Clause 299 when the Bill, as amended, was discussed in another place on the 28th May. It was nursed by the Under-Secretary and, in the name of his chief, he placed the hall-mark of the evil one upon it by Amendments which I would term the horns and the hoofs and the spiky tail. Those adornments were imposed upon it with some subtlety, so that they did not at once become apparent in another place.
If your Lordships have had time and opportunity to study the proceedings it

17
will be seen how a smoke screen descended upon this evil thing when Mr. Isaac Foot moved an Amendment which diverted the attention of the House to a discussion on to the merits of direct and indirect election. So far did honourable members follow the by-paths of that interesting controversy that Mr. Deputy Speaker was compelled to whip them off the line. However, the minds of honourable members were diverted from the monstrous new appearance of the clause. I think that Mr. Butler must have blessed Mr. Isaac Foot with all his heart for his timely intervention. The Under-Secretary ingenuously characterised the Amendments as slight modifications and improvements, and he slipped in one excrescence by calling it "consequential." He was taken to task for this, and he explained that by "consequential" he meant "consequential on the explanation a ready given." Mr. Williams and others had something to say on his methods. The implications of the Amendments were not lost on the noble Lady who represents Kinross and West Perth, but, unfortunately, the rule of the Report stage prevented her from exposing them. Sir Henry Page Croft asked a question on the position of the Communal Award under the Amendment, but he was vouchsafed no reply or answer. Thus we have before us in all its naked ugliness a clause which, as we see it, involves a flagrant violation of an undertaking given and which may seriously damage all minorities.
I think it may be advantageous if at this point I read the undertaking given by the Government, which is quite brief:
"His Majesty's Government in the Award pledged themselves not to vary their recommendations to Parliament on this subject save with the mutual agreement of the communities affected, and themselves to take no part in any negotiations initiated by the communities with a view to revision of their decision. Once such variation has been made, namely, in respect of the arrangements for the representation of the Depressed Classes which have been modified in accordance with an agreement, now known as the Poona Pact, reached on the 24th September last between representatives of the Depressed Classes and the rest of time Hindu community.
His Majesty's Government stated in their Award that modification of the communal electoral arrangements might be made after ten years with the assent of the communities affected, for the ascertainment of which suitable means would have to be devised."
18
The Award was announced by Mr., Ramsay MacDonald in August, 1932. It was repeated on page 25 of the White Paper from which I have just quoted, on the 1st March, 1933. I think we ought to keep these words before us. I ask your Lordships if they are vague or indefinite or if more than one construction can be placed upon them? I think not. They appear to be perfectly clear and not to require any interpretation by lawyers. Indeed, the sentences might have been framed by laymen for laymen.
Now take the clause. The first subsection indicates the method of making proposals amending certain provisions of the Act or Orders in Council and the action to be taken by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) defines the scope of such Amendments. Subsection (3) lays down the periods of time within which action may be taken. Subsection (4) shows what His Majesty in Council may do when and in what circumstances. Such a brief outline needs a little amplification. As a result of this clause, Governments and Legislatures in India after ten years may initiate proposals to modify provisions relating to Constitutions of Legislatures, including such questions as are covered by the Communal Award. The Governor-General or Governor will send his opinion on the proposals, and in particular will give his opinion on the effect of them upon the interests of any minority, and Parliament will be informed of any action lie proposes to take. Changes in constitutional provisions can be effected by Order in Council if the draft proposed Order is approved by both Houses, and that is secured by Clause 305, but before the expiry of ten years Legislatures in India have no such right. However, this clause enables changes such as I have indicated to be made, including changes in the Communal Award to be made at any time, and that is the casus belli. It is true that, save in, minor questions, the Secretary of State must consult Governments and Legislatures in India which are affected before any Order in Council is laid before Parliament for approval. Apparently the minorities are not to be consulted.
I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, will agree that the amplification which I have given is fair and accurate and so far complete. The words have been taken from the statement issued by the Government of India under

19
the authority of the British Government which appeared in The Times of 3rd July, so I think perhaps he may be satisfied on that point. As I see it, the Government stands condemned on their own statement. Clearly the Government pledged themselves that they would not vary the Award without mutual agreement with the communities affected, that the Government would take no part in any negotiations, that no modifications might be made within ten years and then only with the consent of the communities, for the ascertainment of which suitable means would have to be devised. The Government have gone back on their promises. Paragraph 4 of the Government of India's statement has explained what it thinks may necessitate what I call breach of faith. Paragraph 5 of this precious document stated that within the range of the Communal Award His Majesty's Government would not propose to recommend any changes unless such changes were agreed between the communities concerned. But how can we hind future Governments? In paragraph 6 it is emphasised that none of the powers of Clause 304 can, in view of the provisions in Clause 305, be exercised unless both Houses of Parliament agree affirmatively. That is how we stand.
Specious reasons are given to justify this; but it will not do. How can the Government bind future Governments and lay down that they may only do this and that, when we all know that they will be able to do exactly as they like? Not only must we adhere like glue to pledges given but also we must appear to do so. All these "ifs" and "ands" and "buts" and qualifications may constitute adequate whitewash in the eyes of some but will never satisfy minorities in India who live in deadly anxiety and look to us to act up to the pledges we have given. I entirely agree that the cast-iron nature of the promises given may be inconvenient, but that should have been thought of before. I believe it has been stated that members of one minority community only agreed to attend the Third Round-Table Conference on the strength of the inviolability of that pledge. I sympathise with the Government in their desire to introduce flexibility where flexibility is eminently desirable, but it must be introduced honourably. A pledge is a pledge, and upon this House rests the responsi
20
bility for seeing that it is adhered to both in letter and in spirit, since in another place honourable members have failed to do so.
Let me say this. Even after the expiry of ten years, no Resolution will ever reach the Secretary of State from an Indian Legislature to alter its composition unless it is forwarded by a majority in order to entrench themselves more firmly at the expense of a minority. There will never, in time that we can measure, be any altruism between the communities. There will never be any give and take, never any compromise. You may say that the special responsibilities will protect minorities. Perhaps they will, and perhaps they will not. If time and again Resolutions come up like importunate widows to the Secretary of State, passed over and over again by a majority of some Assembly in the same terms, what will be said? It will be argued that the essence of democracy, that garment that we are handing to India to wear, is majority rule; that properly elected Assemblies have repeatedly passed Resolutions, and that the minority must give in. All the arguments about minorities, all the anxieties expressed and all the talk of special responsibilities are fresh in our minds to-day, but inevitably they will become dulled and blurred with the passage of time. How can we expect future Secretaries of State or Governments to see things then as we see them to-day? Of course it is impossible, and we cannot harness them. To attempt to do so is foolish in the extreme.
We have drafted the Amendments with great care and thought under competent legal advice, and with a full sense of responsibility. We put them forward as an honest endeavour to enable the Government to have that flexibility that they desire, but that flexibility under our Amendments will not come at the expense of the pledge. I would liken them to hot water and soap to wash out of the Bill blots that make it a. discredit to any British Parliament. I may have spoken bluntly. In endeavouring to put a few sentences together at the beginning of last week when I was invited to move Amendments to this clause I felt it impossible to believe that the Government really meant to go back on a pledge, but we have seen no Amendment from the Government. We have seen a

21
statement in The Times which made it quite clear that they meant to stick to their guns, so hopes from that quarter appeared to be rather hazy. I do not wish to say any more now except to point out that my first Amendment is designed to enable Parliament to debate any proposal made and pass it or not as they may find it acceptable or the reverse. I will explain my other Amendments briefly as we come to them. Whether I inflict myself again on your Lordships will depend on the Government and the other speeches that will be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 188, line 29, at end insert ("and no such action shall be taken except in pursuance of an Address of both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Middleton.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I find it very difficult to exaggerate the importance of these Amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that the clause no longer makes possible a violation of the Communal Award. The Award as laid down by the then Prime Minister, Mr. MacDonald, continued for the Provincial Assemblies the system of separate electorates which had been conceded to the Moslems in connection with the Morley-Minto reforms. It also extended the system to all religious minorities, including the Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians. And it went still further: I suppose it would include the Labour Party in India, which I believe is a minority. The Award stated in paragraph 6 that the Constitution would empower revision of this arrangement after ten years with the assent of the communities affected, for the ascertainment of which suitable means would be devised. This implied, of course, that no change might be made before ten years had passed.
In paragraph 49 of Part I of the White Paper this statement which I have quoted from the Award was repeated and was accompanied by the explicit assurance that "His Majesty's Government in the Award had pledged themselves not to vary their recommendations to Parliament on this subject save with the written agreement of the communities affected." That is a verbatim quotation. Now, the clause as originally introduced in another place did not permit, as I have been told, violation of the Award, because it only allowed amendments in the method of election to the Federal Legislature.
22
This had not been dealt with in detail in the Award so that the pledges I have mentioned did not refer to the Federal Legislature. But once the clause was made to refer to the Provincial Assemblies by an Amendment introduced by the then Secretary of State, it made possible violation of the Award in two respects. The first of these is that subsection (1), which enables Provincial Legislatures to ask for amendments of these matters after ten years, does not require the assent of the communities. That is of course a distinct violation of the pledge contained in the Award and it cannot be described as anything else. As your Lordships will have seen I have put down an Amendment requiring this specifically, but on consideration I am ready to support the noble Lord, Lord Middleton's Amendment, which I had not seen when I put my own Amendment on the Paper, as I think it would possibly enable his Majesty's Government and Parliament to get a truer picture of the views of the communities concerned than a mere record of formal assent by the leaders of the community as I have suggested. Therefore if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted or an agreement come to in regard to it, I shall not move my own Amendment.
The other respect in which the clause permits violation of the award is subsection (4), which would enable His Majesty's Government to abolish separate electorates and to alter the allocation of seats, not only without the assent of the communities but at any time from the day the Bill becomes law. Any such case would of course also be a grave breach of the Award, and I can hardly believe that His Majesty's Government can contemplate this. The subsection only requires the Government to ascertain the views of the Governments and Legislatures concerned, which is a very different matter from obtaining the consent of the communities affected, as in those Provinces in which Hindus are in the majority the Legislatures would probably favour the abolition of separate elections.
One of the Moslem delegates, Mr. Ghuznavi, said in a written memorandum to the Joint Committee that the Moslem Delegation had only consented to come to the third Round-Table Conference to discuss the transfer of responsibility at the Centre on condition that the Com

23
munal Award remained unaltered. It is not too much to say that the Award is a sheet anchor of the minorities generally. The Joint Select Committee recorded their belief that to alter or modify it would be disastrous; that is the word they used. In a statement issued the other day by the Government of India an assurance was given that His Majesty's Government had no intention of taking action to violate the Award, but I need hardly point out that this assurance could not bind, as Lord Middleton has said, any future Government and therefore cannot be expected to allay the anxieties which have been aroused in India.
At a public meeting of the Moslem All-India Conference held a day or two ago, a resolution was framed and sent to the Government thanking the Government for the assurance that they gave that they would not alter the Award without the consent of the communities concerned, but asking for this assurance to be embodied in the Bill. In fact, they got rather muddled as to what the section in the Press which I may call the "Government Party" really meant, but one thing of which they are quite certain is that they want to be perfectly secure themselves. This was sent from the President of the All-India Moslem Conference. Since then I have seen a telegram from India, which I need not read out, giving the same expression but somewhat stronger. I therefore earnestly hope that your Lordships will agree to the Amendment, which will enable the pledge given both in the Award and in the White Paper to be made good. Remember, my Lords, that this pledge was given by the last Prime Minister as head of the National Government, and it is surely incumbent upon every member of your Lordships' House to see that a British national pledge is honoured.
LORD SNELL: We are interested in this discussion from two points of view. First, it would seem as though those of us who are in a minority in this Committee are to support enthusiastically any defence of minorities which may be made. We find it refreshing to hear this new-born enthusiasm for minorities, even though they are in India. I hope that some of that enthusiasm may on future dates be available for minorities in your Lordships' House. The other
24
point is that, if the Government have modified the Communal Award, we should very much like to know about it. We have never approved of the Communal Award; we wish that another arrangement could have been made; but if the matter has been disturbed, that fact opens up a serious field of enterprise for those who do not like it. As I have gathered the intentions of the noble Lords who have introduced this Amendment, it is to protect the minorities India; and I hope that includes the minor minorities, such as Labour, the Depressed Classes, and other sections, and is not entirely restricted to the great minority of the Moslem people, who are on the whole very well able to take care of themselves. On this side we shall wait to hear what the Government says before we decide whether we can support these Amendments or not.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is not interested in the question of a pledge of honour? It is the only thing to which he has not referred.
LORD SNELL: I said I was not aware that that pledge had been violated. If it has been violated, that is another story.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment told us that he had spoken frankly. I am not sure that the word he used was not something else, but at any rate he intended to convey that he had spoken frankly, perhaps a little brutally, on this question. May I say that I think the speech which has been delivered by the noble Lord is a. monstrously mischievous speech? It will have the effect of creating an impression in India—if it reaches so far—that His Majesty's Government are prepared to break a solemn pledge and that by the machinery of this clause they enable themselves to do so. My Lords, he has wholly misunderstood or misread Clause 304 of the Bill. This clause, so far as the first subsections of it are concerned, has been drafted to give effect to the pledge. It has been drafted at the actual suggestion of the Indian delegates who attended the Joint Select Committee. If I remember rightly, the machinery proposed here for effecting the consideration at the end of ten years of the communal arrangements, if that is desired by the communities themselves, was proposed by

25
an Indian, and, so far as I remember, no objection was raised to it by any one of the Indian delegates on the Joint Select Committee.
It is really subsection (4) of this clause which has given rise to the misunderstanding which has taken place in India. What is the object of subsection (4)? The only object of subsection (4) is to enable Parliament—not the Government; Parliament—if it is found desirable after this Constitution comes into operation, to make small amendments which may be necessary and which probably will be necessary in such matters as the franchise, in questions connected with the representation of women, and so on. There never was and there never has been the smallest intention of repudiating or in any way upsetting -the Communal Award under the provisions of this clause. Surely the noble Lord will see that it would be extremely inconvenient, after the new Constitution has come into operation and some small change of the kind which I have suggested is found to be desirable and possibly necessary, to have to bring in an entirely new Act of Parliament in order to do so.
The only object of that part of the clause is to enable Parliament—once again I lay stress upon that, Parliament, not the Government—to make such small changes of that kind as experience may show to be required. It is quite true that supposing before the ten years have expired some community, such as the Indian Christians, were really anxious to give up their special electorates and to take part in the joint electorate, it would then be possible, if they made that perfectly clear, for Parliament to take action under this clause; but if the noble Lord will refer once more to the wording of the clause, he will see that before they did so there is this proviso:
" Provided that if no such Address has been submitted to His Majesty "—
that is to say, an Address which is referred to in the earlier part of the clause, which comes into operation after ten years—
"then before the draft of any Order which it is proposed to submit to His Majesty is laid before Parliament,"—
that is, before Parliament is given an opportunity of making a change of this kind—
"the Secretary of State shall, unless it appears to him that the proposed amendment is of a minor or drafting nature,
26
take such steps as His Majesty may direct for ascertaining the views of the Governments and Legislatures in India who would be affected by the proposed amendment."
Now let me say once more, and I hope once and for all, that not only is it not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in the Communal Award, unless it is desired by the communities themselves, but that no such alteration could be made under this clause without the specific consent of Parliament. It would be Parliament that would make the alteration.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My point is that it is the consent of the communities directly affected that I am chiefly concerned about. That does not come in.
LORD MIDDLETON: May I ask where anywhere in this clause is to be found the machinery for ascertaining the views of minorities?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: With regard to the first three subsections of the clause, if the noble Lord will look at the procedure to be followed he will see, I think, that it is quite obvious that the views of the minorities themselves must be made perfectly clear:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Federal Legislature or any Provincial Legislature, on motions proposed in each Chamber by a Minister on behalf of the council of Ministers, pass a Resolution recommending any such amendment of this Act or of an Order in Council made there under as is hereinafter mentioned, and on motions proposed in like manner, present to the Governor-General or, as the case may be, to the Governor an Address for submission to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may be pleased to communicate the Resolution to Parliament, the Secretary of State shall, within six months after the Resolution is so communicated, cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement"
and so on.
The noble Lord does not suppose, does he? that a discussion either in the Federal Legislature, or in any Provincial Legislature, on a matter vitally affecting the interests of minorities, is not going to draw from the representatives of minorities their views on the question. Surely it must be obvious that the whole of the Report of the debates will be before the Governor and the Governor-General, and the whole of the Report of the debates can of course be submitted to Parliament also, and there is no doubt

27
whatever that the views of the minorities themselves will be made perfectly plain and explicit. If they were not I can assure the noble Lord, from my experience of India, that representations and petitions would speedily pour in, both to the Governor-General and the Governor. Under his special responsibility the Governor-General would, of course, have immediately to take into account the representations made to him, and when reporting to the Secretary of State he naturally would say that he considers that the minorities are not in agreement with the Resolutions passed by the Legislatures, and that in view of his special responsibility for safeguarding the interests of minorities be must point out to the Secretary of State that the Resolution submitted by the Legislatures in India does not represent the views of the minorities. No further action then could be taken.
Let me just touch on another point. The noble Lord said it was all very well to say that this Government, or even this Parliament, was pledged to the terms of the Communal Award, but how, he said, can we bind future Governments? I ask him how can he bind future Parliaments. Supposing he amends the Bill in the way he suggested, can he give me a guarantee that no future Parliament will ever amend the Act? Of course he cannot. That is inherent in our Constitution; but so long as Parliament retains control you are giving the only definite pledge you can give. Of course if Parliaments of the future violate pledges we cannot help it, but I hope that Parliaments of the future will be as anxious as he is, and as we are, to keep pledges. I must repudiate the suggestion of the noble Lord that I or anyone else is making provision for breaking in any way the pledge which has been given. I had thought, indeed I had hoped, that the statement which had been issued by the Government of India, with the full consent of His Majesty's Government, a day or two ago, had made the position perfectly clear. Let me repeat once more that there is absolute security in the clause as it stands, as much security as anybody can give, that the pledge contained in connection with the Communal Award will not be broken. I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD MIDDLETON: May I ask a specific question'? Is there any intention
28
of altering the Communal Award within ten years or not?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There is no intention of altering the Communal Award within ten years, or after ten years, except with the agreement of the communities themselves.
LORD MIDDLETON: That is not quite an answer to my question. In any circumstances can the Communal Award be upset within ten years or not?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAN'D: I gave an example of the sort of way -in which an alteration might be made in the case of the Indian Christians. If they make it perfectly clear that they desire that alteration to be made, then it would be open to Parliament to make that alteration if they were satisfied.
LORD MIDDLETON: Have I understood the noble Marquess rightly that it is possible in certain circumstances to alter the Communal Award within ten years? This is very important.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, in the circumstances which I have explained.
LORD MIDDLETON: Then how can the Government reconcile that reply with what was said in the Award? His Majesty's Government stated in their Award that a modification of the communal electoral arrangements might be made after ten years. It seems to me that is going back on their statement, and that is the cause of my complaint.
LORD LLOYD: I confess that I did not at all understand the noble Marquess's statement. I may be very obtuse, but it is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. The noble Marquess accuses my noble friend of having made a monstrously mischievous statement. What is mischievous is making this change and not fully explaining it, and upsetting the minds of people all over India. They certainly do not understand it, and if it is not clear to us here, really they must not be blamed. Consultation is not agreement. I am sorry if I do not understand this, but I, like my noble friend Lord Middleton, deduce from the noble Marquess's answer quite clearly that, whereas the Government gave the minorities in India to understand that the Communal Award would not be changed for ten years, and even then only in consultation with, and

29
with the agreement of, the communities concerned, I now understand that in certain circumstances it can be altered. The noble Marquess mentions the Indian Christians, but there may well be another example. How does the noble Marquess square one statement with the other?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite certain that my noble friend the Secretary of State is incapable of breaking what he recognises to be a pledge. Of course he is, but I think he has very imperfectly understood the actual effect of the words in the Bill. After all, when a future Government, let us say, come to interpret the Act, they will look at the words of the Act, and the words of the Bill as they stand are perfectly clear—namely, that all they have got to do is to consult the Legislatures and the Governments. There is not a word from beginning to end of the clause which indicates for a moment that there will be any consultation whatever with the minorities. Of course, the word "minorities" is mentioned, but only to say that the Governor in transmitting these Addresses to the Secretary of State has to say what effect he thinks they are going to have upon the interests of the minorities. But that was not the pledge of the Communal Award. The pledge of the Communal Award was that it was only to be done with the assent of the minority.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not imagine for a moment there would be the slightest difference between myself and my noble friend as to the actual terms of the Award. What is the definite and absolute pledge is "after ten years with the assent of the communities affected." Now, there will be no difficulty whatever in drafting words in the Bill to convey that. My noble friend seems to think that it is a difficult thing to do. My noble friend who submitted the Amendment puts in the words which are requisite. Why should they not be put in? The very fact that the Secretary of State resists the Amendment will have a most formidable effect in India, because they will say: "Here are the terms of the Communal Award, which say definitely that the communities are to assent"—not to be consulted but to assent. Then they will say: "When
30
Lord Middleton, a member of the Joint Select Committee, submitted the necessary words in Parliament, the Secretary of State said he would not accept them." I confess I am amazed at that attitude.
Of course your Lordships are quite aware that I hold no brief for any particular community. I do not admire these community registers and creed registers, and provisions in a democratic Constitution which can only affect people belonging to a certain religious belief. I do not believe in that system at all, but that is the system to which the Government are absolutely pledged. There has been a great deal in this controversy about keeping pledges, and all sorts of pledges are read into the Act of 1919. It is said that in the Act of 1919 everybody was pledged up to the hilt to pass this Bill. I have always been amazed at that doctrine, and of course I have absolutely denied it. But that is quite a different thing from a pledge by the Government itself as to its specific action in respect of the Bill which is to follow upon the pledge. It is absolutely distinct. I am quite sure that my noble friend thinks that when the Parliament of the future comes to consider these Addresses it will consider itself bound by the Communal Award. But, after all, I think that the new Parliament will look at the terms of the Act. They will not be able to study the OFFICIAL REPORT; they will not say, "What did Lord Zetland say in his place in the House of Lords on this day in July, 1935?" They will look at the Act and they will say: "Our business is to consult the Legislature, because that is all that is said in the Act—the Governments and the Legislatures." That is not the minority: that is the majority.
I hope your Lordships will realise that it is the very contrary of what the pledge said, because the Governments and the Legislatures are the majority. They cannot be anything else. The minorities are always distinct from them. Then how can it be said that that is a fulfilment of the pledge, if you are pledged to consult the minority, and you only consult the majority? It really is a contradiction in terms. Of course I know that my noble friend thinks it is all right. He has been advised it is all right, but sometimes you are advised that things are all right and they turn

31
out to be all wrong. This is no reflection on my noble friend's honour, but these are men of business, reading an Act of Parliament, and they will say: "We find that the pledge says that you are to consult the minority, and the Act of Parliament says that you are to consult the majority. "We really must ask the Government to reconsider that. I am sure they cannot intend it. I am sure there must be a slip somewhere. There is not the slightest difficulty in redrafting it so as to comply with the Communal Award. I hope my noble friend will not put us in the position of opposing the Government in a matter of this kind. I know quite well that a great many things are forgiven in this tolerant England. Here they understand the difficulty; but what are you to say about the Oriental minds, when they see these apparently absolute contradictions? I am sure the Government must make some kind of concession on this.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There is evidently a good deal of misunderstanding about the meaning of this clause, and I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State which might perhaps help to clear it up. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State has assured us that there is no intention to alter the Communal Award. We will, of course, accept the statement that he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: What, I think, my noble friends who moved this Amendment wish to know is whether, supposing there is hereafter a change of Government, and there is a Government which does want to change the Communal Award, there is machinery in this clause which will enable it to be done. My noble friends are nervous that if the Legislatures in India propose a. change, and in the course of the discussion of that change it becomes quite clear that one of the parties concerned is not agreeable to it, it might still be possible under this clause for an Address to be presented and for Parliament to carry out the change. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State assured us—and I entirely agree with him from my own experience—that is will not be possible for such a change to be attempted in India without the views of the com
32
munities concerned becoming known. We can all agree that their views will become known; but the point at issue is this: Supposing their views, when they become known, are hostile to the change, what is going to happen? The noble Marquess said that if their views are hostile no further action will be taken. I rise to put this question to the noble Marquess: What are the words in the clause which will ensure that if the opinion of the communities is hostile to the change no further action will be taken?
I do not see, in the clause as it stands, any words which will ensure that if there is opposition to the clause the proposed Amendment will not be proceeded with. I fully accept the statement of the noble Marquess that it is not intended, and that the clause is not so drafted to enable a change in the Communal Award to be made without the consent of the parties, but it is not clear yet to my mind that the words of the clause will prevent such a change from being carried out if the views of the communities are hostile to the proposed change. If the noble Marquess could clear up that point it might help to get rid of the misunderstanding.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Before the Secretary of State rises to reply, I wonder whether he will take into his consideration a suggestion which I should like to make at this stage—namely, that at the end of proviso (i) in subsection (4), some such words as these might be inserted, "and the views of the representatives in any such Legislatures of any minority likely to be so affected. "The proviso would then read:
" … take such steps as His Majesty may direct for ascertaining the views of the Governments and Legislatures in India who would be affected by the proposed amendment, and the views of the representatives in any such Legislatures of any minority likely to be so affected."
That would make it perfectly plain that you were not going merely to consult the Legislatures by the ordinary machinery which lays emphasis upon the opinion of the majority, but that you were going to use the elected representatives of the people in order to ascertain, not merely the views of the majority, but also the views of every minority. If I understand the mind of His Majesty's Government aright, that is, in effect, the sort of machinery which they contemplate, and

33
I would venture respectfully to suggest to my noble friend that between now and the Report stage we should consider the insertion of some such words as I have indicated in order to give confidence to those in India who desire to be assured that the minorities will, in fact, be consulted in this matter before any change is made.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like on behalf of my noble friends to support the proposal which has been made by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I think a large part of this debate is in the nature of a mare's nest. There is no doubt there has been a certain amount of disquiet aroused in India, and it is, I think, quite true that people want to feel assured that the declaration in the Communal Award, that the opinions of the minorities shall be definitely ascertained, will be carried out. The insertion of some such words as the noble Marquess has suggested would make that certain. I do not think we should put in the Bill how the assent shall be determined. What matters is that it should be quite clear that the opinion of the minorities concerned will be consulted. It is then for Parliament to consider whether it has assent or not.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Is it not the case that the whole idea is to obtain the assent of the communities concerned.? It does not concern Parliament. The point is that you have given a promise, and now you are going to break it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is for Parliament at the time to determine whether there is assent. I am considerably surprised at the noble Lords who have moved these Amendments. They have completely disregarded the pledges made by the National Government regarding central responsibility in the past, and I should feel a good deal more assured if noble Lords who have put down these Amendments had voted for the Second Reading of this Bill; but they have voted to repudiate the pledge made to the Round-Table Conference by the National Government. The kind of sincerity which I feel bursting from their remarks does not impress me in view of the fact that they have gone back on the pledge made by the National Government in 1931. Their remarks would have been a good deal more effective if they had voted to fulfil the pledge then given.
LORD LLOYD: I shall not follow the noble Marquess into a discussion on central responsibility, although, obviously, I could make a fairly complete answer to that. I desire to point out that the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, while obviously desiring to clarify the matter, clearly do not require assent; they are in the form of consultation. Nothing will satisfy us and those for whom we are acting unless it is made perfectly clear that the assent of the people concerned is the condition adhered to in the machinery of this Bill. Nothing else will comply, in our view, with the original promise of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I certainly do not quarrel in any way with the desire of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to see that some machinery is provided, if that is possible, which will satisfy Parliament that the minorities do agree to any change which is to be made. It is quite true that part of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, was designed to that end. He wanted to insert this statement, which appears in the next Amendment on the Paper:
"A statement formulated after due investigation, as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment."
The objection to putting phrases of that kind in an Act is this. Who is going to decide what is "due investigation"? May I call your Lordships' attention—because I think this point has been a little overlooked—to the fact that the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, when forwarding any such Resolution and Address to the Secretary of State, shall transmit therewith a statement of his opinion as to the proposed Amendment, and, in particular, as to the effect which it would have on the interests of any minority, and the Secretary of State shall cause such statement to be laid before Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is his opinion; not the opinion of the minority.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: How is he to form his opinion without consulting the minority? That is the difficulty. He has got to ascertain whether the minorities do, or do not, approve of a particular course of action.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the Bill says is that he has to form his opinion of the effect it will have on the interests of minorities. The minorities may be ill-advised. They may be wrong in their view as to their own interests. The point is that the Communal Award has nothing to do with that. The minorities may be as wrong as possible, provided they do not assent. Then the Communal Award operates, and the Government are pledged. Therefore it is not a question of the Governor reporting upon the effect this will have on the interests of minorities. He may say: "These are very foolish people, who take a wrong view of their interests, and it cannot be helped."
LORD MIDDLETON: May I say one word upon this? Indians read the pledge that was given to them in the way I have already indicated, and unless suitable words are devised to give them what they understood they were given in the Communal Award, they will look at the Bill and say: "Where is it?" The Bill as it stands will cause much confusion and doubt and suspicion, and that is why Indians feel the necessity of the words of my Amendment being inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I really do not see how the Governor-General or the Governor can give his opinion upon the effect which the proposed alteration would have upon minorities without ascertaining whether the minorities approve of it or not; but if there is doubt on that subject, I am quite willing to accept words such as those proposed by my noble friend behind me; or, at any rate, I am quite willing to consider words of that kind, because I agree it is essential that Parliament should know whether the minorities do or do not approve of any change which is proposed. As I have already said, no Governor-General will ever be left in doubt as to whether minorities approve or disapprove of a change of that kind which is proposed affecting their interest, because they very soon make their voices heard. I think the only way in which you can ascertain whether minorities wish a change to be made, or whether they do not wish it to be made, is by listening to what they say. I can imagine no other way in which it can be done, but I am certainly prepared to consider whether it might not
36
make the intentions of the Bill still clearer if words—I do not pledge myself to the actual words of my noble friend—of the kind suggested were added to the clause. If that is accepted, I shall be very glad to accept an Amendment moved by my noble friend, or will move an Amendment myself on Report stage of the Bill.
LORD MIDDLETON: May I reply very briefly? It is obvious that the noble Marquess has studied the implications of this clause with his legal advisers, but they do not see eye to eye with mine, and have come to a diametrically different conclusion. Therefore, the matters must be somehow in doubt, and it does seem essential that this clause should be understood and that its implications should be fully understood in India. I am perfectly willing to withdraw Amendments that are in my name if the noble Marquess can look into things again and make this perfectly clear. It seems to me the most vital clause in the Bill, because of the misunderstandings that must arise if it is not made perfectly clear. The noble Marquess admitted—I hope I am not saying anything misleading—when I asked him a specific question two or three times, that it was possible to make a change in the Communal Award within ten years in certain circumstances, but in the pledge it is stated that that cannot be so. It is just that kind of thing which is so confusing to poor laymen like myself, and is beyond our comprehension. How can it be laid down that it must not be done within ten years while in the Bill it is possible to do it? I ask the noble Marquess if he will himself bring this matter up again on the Report stage with the Amendments, which must be carefully worded if we are to accept them. It must be left in no doubt that the terms of the Communal Award are not in any way touched upon.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think I told my noble friend I would do that.
LORD LLOYD: My noble friend suggested that words would be introduced, or that lie would consider introducing them, on the lines of the noble Marquess. That, I would point out again, is merely another aspect of consultation and not of assent. May I put it this way? Will he, at any rate, give us this pledge, that

37
he will consider putting in words which will maintain the actual condition of insisting on the assent prescribed in the Communal Award as it is to-day? If he will, that will be another matter. There must be assent, not another form of consultation.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I think those anxious to assist in this matter would be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, or the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, would give us some indication of what is really implied by the phrase—"after due investigation." I have not gathered from the speeches which I have listened to exactly what machinery they are thinking of which would be of assistance. Those of us who are anxious to help would be glad if we had some information about that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Are we not rather getting at cross purposes? Would it not be better to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess? I am sure he will consult the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, to see if they can arrive at some agreed form of getting the machinery. As I am on my feet I would like to say one word in regard to the remark of the noble Marquess who suggested that the speech of Lord Middleton would be mischievous in India. I think that if these Amendments had not been put down after we had received telegrams from India to put them down, that would have been a cause of mischief in India.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: If my suggestion is not accepted, the House will draw its own conclusions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, was reasonable. Let me make a suggestion on my own responsibility for the drafting of the Amendment. I do not speak with any authority, but I think it will be quite easy to leave out the words "after due investigation," and leave the words to read: "a statement formulated as to the extent of which minorities affected are in favour of the proposed Amendment." That is as clear as daylight, and is absolutely the terms of the Communal Award. Surely we are not going to find in the House of Lords a reluctance to fulfil what is quite obviously a pledge which the Government have made. I do not think there
38
can be the slightest doubt about it. I am astonished that my noble friend Lord Lothian should have made the parallel with the so-called pledge as to the passing of the Second Reading. This is a question of what the Government themselves have promised. They have promised that machinery shall be provided. I wonder whether they remember that. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Linlithgow, for whose opinion I have the very highest respect, that if I persuade my noble friends to leave out those few words "after due investigation" and make the reading thereby translucently clear, he, on his part, will support us in trying to persuade the Government to reconsider it. If my noble friend the Secretary of State says he is much impressed by the debate and would like to have time to consider it all, we would all wish to give him time. I must say that I do not think it is fair to say that consultation is the same thing as assent. That really is not the case.
LORD MIDDLETON: The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, put a specific question to me. I would like to say that our Amendment was drafted by an eminent lawyer and his note was that it carries out the pledge in the White Paper and embodies the assent of the communities themselves. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, indicated that he would be willing to reconsider the whole question.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am sure the noble Lord will realise that these matters have been gone into over and over again with the greatest care and I really do not think the result of my going further into the matter would be in the least likely to alter my views with regard to it. What I did say was that, with a view of trying to make it quite clear that the assent of the minorities is to be secured, I would consider accepting words on the lines put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. Beyond that I cannot go.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON had given Notice of an Amendment, to insert in the second paragraph in subsection (1), after "therewith," the words:
"(a) a statement formulated after due investigation, as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment; and
"(b)
The noble Lord said: I would like to revise the terms of this Amendment and to move it in this form: after "therewith" insert:

"(a) a statement as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment; and

(b)".

I hope that will meet the view of the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. The Amendment is the same as on the Paper with the words "formulated after due investigation" left out.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to add to paragraph (c) in subsection (2): "or that in any Provincial Legislature in which no seats are reserved for women not more than two seats may be so
Amendment moved—
Page 188, line 33, after ("therewith") insert:
("(a) a statement as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment; and
(b)").—(Lord Middleton.)
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Middleton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Milne, L.

Abinger, L.

Monkswell, L.

Balfour, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Mount Temple, L.

Effingham, E.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Mansfield, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Morton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rochdale, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Islington, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Lawrence, L.

Straehie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Peel, E.

Faringdon, L.

Plymouth, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Powis, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanhope, E.

Greenway, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Strafford, E.

Hampton, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Allenby, V.

Hastings, L.

Somerset, D.

Elibank, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Jessel, L.

Goschen, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Bath, M.

Halifax, V.

Lamington, L.

Crewe, M.

Mersey, V.

Marley, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ullswater, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Linlithgow, M.

Meston, L.

Reading, M.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Zetland, M.

Ormathwaite, L.

Alness, L.

Palmer, L.

Albemarle, E.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Rennell, L.

Bradford, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rhayader, L.

Cavan, E.

Bingley, L.

St. Levan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chesham, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denbigh, E.

Claawilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Snell, L.

Derby, E.

Stafford, L.

Feversham, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

de Clifford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Iveagh, E.

Desborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lichfield, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Templemore, L.

Lytton, E.

Tenterden, L.

Midleton, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Minto, E.

Elton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

reserved. "The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment to make it possible, with the consent of the Legislature, to reserve a, certain number of seats for women in each of the Provincial Legislatures. Noble Lords will remember that subsection (3), on the

41
whole, makes provision that the Legislatures in India may not make, on constitutional grounds, recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution within ten years—that is, alterations which must be submitted to Parliament with a Report from the Secretary of State. Clause 304 (2) (c) makes it possible for the Legislature to make a recommendation for the alteration of the Constitution in certain respects within less than ten years. It reads:
"any amendment providing that, in the ease of women, literacy shall be substituted for any higher educational standard for the time being required as a qualification for the franchise, or providing that women, if duly qualified, shall be entered on electoral rolls without any application being made far the purpose by them or on their behalf."
Subsection (3) provides that such a Resolution may be submitted to Parliament for consideration in less than ten years.
The proposal I have to make is to acid to paragraph (c) the words of my Amendment, the effect of which is to make possible the reservation within ten years of a seat for women in the North-West Frontier Province if the Legislature of that Province desire, or to, make possible in certain other Provinces the reservation of two seats instead of one. The position of a woman in a Legislature of 109 or 200 is a very difficult one, and from her point of view and from that of representing women's interests it is very desirable that not less titan two women should sit together. My general reasons for this are reasons which I think will have the support and sympathy of your Lordships and will have the support and sympathy of a very large number of people in another place. Students of social conditions in India realise and agree that one of the main difficulties in India are social conditions associated with such matters as child marriages. The conditions are very difficult and are entrenched in social customs of the country. Noble Lords often talk very eloquently about the great services which this country has rendered to India, and concerning this I have no challenge to make. It is, however, common ground that British rule has been unable in such matters to have much effect, for the reason that it is almost impossible for an alien Government, or a Government situated 6,000 miles away, to affect the
42
social and domestic customs of the country.
Now if there is one thing which is really going to benefit India, it is that some of these customs have been reformed; there is a very large body in India which seeks to reform them, and the head and front of that movement is the women themselves. Nothing is more remarkable than the growth of the women's movement in India. It has, it is true, been mixed up with the agitation against British rule, but much the greatest reform is that which is concerned with the reform of some of the customs which lie at the root of the weakness of women in India and their ill-health. In this Bill, therefore, some provision is made to secure not only the inclusion of women on the roll but also the reservation in each Legislature of a certain number of seats for women. Noble Lords will agree that nobody can express effectively before the Legislature what women feel in matters affecting women and children in some of these customs but women themselves. It cannot be done by a man. Therefore, if the Legislatures are going to be brought together to consider some of these matters—for instance, to enforce the Sarda Act, which we have been unable to enforce—it will be because there is adequate expression of opinion by women from their places in the Legislatures.
Therefore, I attach the very greatest importance to there being one or two women in every Legislature to bring these matters before the Legislatures direct. In this Amendment, while I do not propose that the Government should alter the actual distribution of seats now, I do suggest that it should be within the power of each Legislature within the next ten years, if so desired, to ask Parliament to reserve one or two seats for women in those Provincial Legislatures which either have no women, or only one. I think the Government can hardly resist the Amendment. It is entirely in conformity with their own policy elsewhere, and it puts the initiative on the Legislature itself. I do not propose that we should impose anything on the North-West Frontier Province which it does not desire, but I suggest that we make it possible for that Province to bring forward this proposal in an authoritative way, and in a way which would induce Parliament to agree to it if the Legislature so desires. In the

43
general interests of social reform in India I think it is very important that you should make it possible for women to speak their minds on these matters in every Legislature in India.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 24, after ("behalf") insert ("or that in any Provincial Legislature in which no seats are reserved for women not more than two seats may be so reserved.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I should like, in a few sentences, to support the Amendment which has just been moved, and to express the hope that the Government may see their way to accept it. The noble Marquess has quite shortly and clearly put before your Lordships the reasons which lie behind this Amendment. I have already, in this place, more than once, emphasised the profound impression which I have received, from such study as I have been able to make, of the steadily growing place which the better educated women of India are taking in the affairs of that country. It is, I think, not merely in matters of social reform that their influence is and ought to be great, but also in moral matters, to which I will not allude, but which require, in some parts of India, the strictest attention, and which are best dealt with by women themselves. There is nothing more remarkable in some parts of India than the place which women, even in the villages, are now taking in domestic affairs. I think some of us scarcely realise how, in this matter, in the last ten years, there has been a remarkable extension of the influence of women. If the franchise is to be extended it will be largely nugatory unless women are able to ensure that in every Legislature there shall be at least one, and if possible more than one, spokeswoman who can represent them and their point of view. This particular Amendment comes at the end of a paragraph which contemplates giving the Legislature, within ten years, the power to extend the franchise to women in two defined respects, and I venture to hope that the Government will not feel that the addition of the words proposed by the noble Marquess will upset the scheme which they have in view. I am sure it will be of great value, small though it may seem, and I hope it may be accepted.
LORD SNELL: My noble friends and myself would very much like to give the fullest support to the Amendment suggested by Lord Lothian. I need not detain your Lordships by repeating the arguments used in favour of an increase in women's representation, or to urge upon your Lordships the enormous importance for the future of India of the active participation in its administrative and social life of an increasing number of intelligent and well-informed women. Events are moving quickly in India, but in no Department more quickly than in the awareness of women of the part they can play in the reorganisation of social life, and on those grounds I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): With all that has fallen from the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment, and the most reverend Primate, and the noble Lord who supported it, as to the importance of women in the present and future political life of India, I find myself in the most complete agreement. I think there has been no phenomenon of the last five or even ten years which has been so remarkable, or indeed can be so readily measured, as the degree to which the education of women has come into prominence and the womanhood of India over an immensely wide field has wakened to the possibilities of new powers for good of women generally. With all that I am in entire and complete agreement, but I am bound to say that I think the argument on those lines that has been advanced has been a great deal wider than the Amendment itself. Your Lordships will not forget that it was those very considerations that led the Government to include in the Bill provision for the representation of women in every Legislature except one, where special conditions prevailed—the North-West Frontier Province. When the noble Marquess opposite speaks of the loneliness of a single woman in a Legislature, it is fair to point out that his Amendment would not touch that, because all that his Amendment does is to give power to the only Provincial Legislature affected—namely, the North-West Frontier Province—to make provision that not more than two seats may he reserved for women.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I recognised that difficulty, and I am prepared to modify my Amendment by saying that in any Provincial Legislature not more than two seats may be reserved.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: That is the answer which I anticipated the noble Marquess would make when I pointed out the effect of his Amendment, because, of course, as the Amendment stands, the only effect of his Amendment is the rather narrow effect of permitting the North-West Frontier Province to make provision for the inclusion of women inside ten years. He knows as well as I do that there are rather special conditions prevailing in the North-West Frontier Province that on the whole would make it improbable that they would desire to exercise this power, even if it were given to them. I myself would have felt that it was for that reason unnecessary to accept this proposal, having regard also to the fact that if this Amendment is not made it will always be possible, provided the rest of this clause is accepted by Parliament, for His Majesty's Government to make this alteration for the benefit of the North-West Frontier Province, should they so desire. It would be possible for His Majesty's Government to do that at any time. Incidentally, if this Amendment were accepted, it would involve, I am advised, a certain measure of redrafting in the matters set out in subsection (2) (c), which of course could be done at a later stage of the Bill.
Therefore the position of the Government is this. They do not regard this Amendment as necessary, though they are in complete agreement with everything that has fallen from those who have urged it; but if, in spite of what I have said as to the improbability of any use being made of the Amendment, and as to the power of His Majesty's Government at any time to make the change themselves, the noble Marquess and those associated with him still adhere to their view and desire to press it upon the attention of the Government, then I have no doubt that my noble friend would certainly be prepared to give weight to what they have said and consider inserting words on Report, which would in any case, I think, have to be in somewhat different form from those which stand at present on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Do I understand that the Government state quite definitely that if any of the Legislatures, without exercising the peculiar constitutional method which is provided in this proposal, pass a Resolution dealing with this matter, it will, as far as they can commit their successors, be the policy of His Majesty's Government to try to give effect to it?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: So far as I have any authority to answer, my answer would be that it would certainly be in their power, and I assume that it would certainly be their policy.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Before ten years?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Within ten years.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then I withdraw the Amendment now, and I will consult my friends with a view to bringing forward a further Amendment on the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: We hold that subsection (4) is one that should be eliminated, because it contains the elements of a breach of faith. I asked the Secretary of State this afternoon whether in any circumstances whatever the Communal Award could he set on one side or altered. I think when I put the question three times he admitted that it could be. If it can be altered within ten years, then I hold that there has been a departure from the pledge given, and the object of my Amendment is to remove something which contains what I believe is a breach of faith. There may be explanations of why it is necessary to do this, but that is the plain English of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Middleton.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord cannot expect me to go over the ground all over again that I have already traversed several times this evening. It does not seem to have occurred to the noble Lord, however, that a pledge of the kind contained in the Communal Award must, of course, be read with the Bill itself. I cannot accept this Amendment because that would deprive us of the power of making any

47
alteration of any kind, such as that which has just been proposed by the noble Marquess with regard to women. We should be precluded from making any alteration of that kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only rise to be quite sure how we stand as regards the proposals made by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. Lord Linlithgow tried to save the Government from the discredit which I am afraid will attach to them on their proceedings this afternoon, and I should be very glad to know how we stand about it. We must be satisfied with what crumbs we can get, and we understood from what passed that my noble friend the Secretary of State was going to consider favourably—I cannot be quite sure whether I ought to say favourably; but was going to consider Lord Linlithgow's Amendment. Would he make it quite clear exactly how the thing stands?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes. So far as subsection (4) of this clause is concerned, I have already said I will consider the Amendment proposed by Lord Linlithgow.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that after this there is a second Amendment—after "may" to insert "by order." There is also a manuscript Amendment of Lord Linlithgow, and so I will put the Question that the first five words of the subsection stand part.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (4) after "His Majesty in Council may", to insert "by order". The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment, and has nothing to do with the main controversy. It is really a reversion to King Charles's head. I have brought this up on several occasions, and have never yet had an answer, but unless these words are in, Parliament need not be consulted at all. The subsection is open to the construction that you may bring in an Order in Council or you may proceed otherwise, but the words as they stand leave a doubt whether proceedings might not be taken under this subsection without confirmation by Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 39, after ("may") insert ("by order").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think the noble Lord will find that this point and many similar points to which he has directed our attention during these debates will be met by the Amendment which I propose to move to Clause 305.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I thank the noble Marquess. I hope it will be so. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had handed in a manuscript Amendment in subsection (4) to insert at the end of proviso (i) "and the views of the representatives in any such Legislature of any minority likely to be so affected". The noble Marquess said: I do hope that my noble friend the Secretary of State will consider some words of this kind. They would secure that the representatives of minorities would be consulted before the Governor or the Governor-General came to a view as to the opinion which a minority might hold on any particular subject. In truth, I can conceive no other machinery for ascertaining the views of a minority than by consulting their chosen representatives unless noble Lords who take a view somewhat different to me in this matter really contemplate a plebiscite of the whole minority, an expedient which I should think is ill-suited to the conditions in India in a matter of this kind. I am glad to think that the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill is prepared to consider some such words as these and, I should hope, consider them favourably. After what has been said do not propose to proceed with my Amendment at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to my noble friend for his intervention, but perhaps I might be allowed to make it quite clear that we never suggested a plebiscite or anything so absurd as that. Of course communities must speak through their representatives; that is clear. The difference between us is the difference between consultation and assent. That was the whole point. If the Amendment is not going to be dealt with on the present occasion, which I understand to be the ease, then I hope, between now and Report stage, the Government may see fit to go a little further than even my noble friend has suggested.
EARL PEEL: May I say this to the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow? He has alluded to representatives in the Upper Chamber or Assembly, but in all these communities they have well recognised leaders who are not always sitting in these Assemblies. I just mention that point.
Clause 304 agreed to.
Clause 305:
Orders in Conned.
305.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act which expressly authorises the making of such an Order, and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft, or with such Amendments as may have been agreed to by Resolutions of both Houses.
Provided that, if at any time when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or when both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than fourteen days, the Secretary of State is of opinion that on account of ugency an Order in Council should be made under this Act forthwith, it shall not be necessary for a draft, of the Order to be kid before Parliament, but the Order shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which the Commons. House first sits after the making of the Order unless within that period Resolutions approving the making of the Order are passed by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Subject to any express provision of this Act His Majesty in Council may by a subsequent Order, made in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection, revoke or vary any Order previously made by hint in Council under this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the words "which expressly authorises the making of such an Order," and, after subsection (2), to insert a new subsection. The noble Marquess said: This is an attempt to meet a criticism which has been. levelled more than once against this clause, by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. I think I told him on a previous occasion I was in no doubt, myself, that all Orders in Council would require to come before Parliament and receive the assent of Parliament; but, in order to make assurance doubly sure" I propose now that we should leave
50
out the words "which expressly authorises the making of such an Order." The clause will then read as follows:
"Subject as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act.…
I think that will cover every possible contingency so far as laying Orders in Council are concerned. If that is done, I must insert a proviso to safeguard Orders, such as Orders of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in appeal cases and so on. The second part of my Amendment is designed to safeguard that by including the provision:
"Nothing in this section applies to any Order of His Majesty in Council made in connection with any appeal to His Majesty in Council."
Amendments moved—
Page 190, line 2.3, leave out ("which expressly authorises the making of such an Order").
Page 191, line 5, at end insert:
("(3) Nothing in this section applies to any Order of His Majesty in Council made in connection with any appeal to His Majesty in Council.")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think this does effect a very great deal of improvement, and makes it clear that any Order in Council comes before Parliament. What I am afraid it does not make clear is that His Majesty in Council might proceed otherwise than by Order. For instance, under Clause 471, on which the noble Marquess relies for the inquiry before Provincial Autonomy comes in, His Majesty may direct. It does not say "by Order in Council." I imagine that decisions are made in the Privy Council which, technically, are not Orders in Council. For instance, if Proclamations are issued they get approved by the Privy Council. Unless the words "by Order" are put in there might be decisions in Council which will not come before Parliament. I would ask my noble friend to look into this matter before we come to Clause 471.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I shall be very glad to look into the point now raised by the noble Lord. I thought, and hoped, I had met the whole of his case, but if there is still a loophole I shall have it looked into.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am afraid it is a fairly large one.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 305, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 300 agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that the first name on the next Amendment, to insert a new clause entitled "Commission to enquire into financial position," is that of the late Lord Ampthill, to whom tributes have come from every part of the House this afternoon, and with which I would take this opportunity of associating myself. I therefore call on the noble Lord, Lord Islington, whose name is also associated with the Amendment.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not move.
Clause 307 [Interpretations, etc.]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 192, line 24, leave out from ("of") to the end of the line and insert ("Bengal, the State of Manipur, Assam, and any tribal areas connected with Assam;")
Page 192, line 33, leave out ("a Ruler") and insert ("or under the suzerainty of a Ruler who is").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert "'High Court' does not, except where it is expressly so provided, include a High Court in a Federated State." The noble Marquess said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment, but it is necessary in order to make it clear that the State High Courts are not referred to. We must have a definition to say that "High Court" does not, except where it is expressly so provided, include a High Court in a Federated State.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 7, at end insert ("High Court' does not, except where it is expressly so provided, include a High Court in a Federated State;")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 307, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 308 agreed to.
Clause 309:
Executive Government.
(3) References in the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to the Governor-General and the Federal Government shall, except as respects matters with respect to which the Governor-General is required by the said provisions to act in his discretion, be construed as references to the Governor-General in Council, and any reference to the Federation, except where the reference is to the establishment of the Federation, shall be construed as a reference to British India, the Governor-General in Council, or the Governor-General, as the circumstances and the context may require.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert in subsection (3):
"Provided that—

(a) any reference to the revenues of the Federation shall be construed as a reference to the revenues of the Governor-General in Council;

(b) the revenues of the Governor-General. in Council shall, subject to the provisions of Chapter I of Part VII of this Act with respect to the assignment of the whole or part of the net proceeds of certain taxes and duties to Provinces and to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal Railway Authority (so far as any such provisions are for the time being in force), include all revenues and public moneys raised or received either by the Governor-General in Council or by the Governor-General;

(c) the expenses of the Governor-General in discharging his functions as respects matters with respect to which he is required by the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to act in his discretion shall be defrayed out of the revenues of the Governor-General in Council."

The noble Marquess said: I had hoped that my noble friend the Lord Chancellor might have been in his place to deal with this Amendment, because it raises legal points. The object of this and the next Amendment, to insert a new subsection, is to give to the Governor-General during the transitional period discretionary powers and the powers of acting on his individual judgment. The Lord Chancellor, who has now arrived, can explain these matters much more clearly than I can. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 2, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if there is any confusion. There are two Amendments here, and they are both

53
really necessitated by our using what I may call a shorthand expression which is thought to be watertight, and which has to be slightly modified in order to deal with one or two uncovered cases during the transitional period—that is to say, when Provincial Autonomy has been introduced but when the Federation at the Centre has not come into existence. These two Amendments, one with regard to the revenues and the other which comes immediately afterwards with regard to the expression about the exercise of individual judgment, are both designed to stop the hole which would otherwise exist in the Bill by reason of the fact that there are some references in parts of the Bill which are not in Part II which have to be covered during the transitional period.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) Any requirement in this Act that the Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment with respect to any matter shall not come into force until the establishment of the Federation, but notwithstanding that Part II of this Act has not come into operation, the following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) the provisions requiring the prior sanction of the Governor-General for certain legislative proposals;

(b) the provisions relating to broadcasting;

(c) the provisions relating to directions to, and principles to be observed by, the Federal Railway Authority; and

(d) the provisions relating to Civil Services to be recruited by the Secretary of State,
shall have effect in relation to defence, ecclesiastical affairs, external affairs and the tribal areas as they have effect in relation to matters or Functions with respect to, or in the exercise of, which the Governor-General is by the provisions of this Act for the time being in force required to act in his discretion, and arty reference in any of the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to the special responsibilities of the Governor-General shall be construed as a reference to the special responsibilities which he will have when Part II of this Act comes into operation."

The noble Marquess said: The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has already explained this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 2, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 309, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 310:
Control of the Secretary of State.
(3) While this Part of this Act is in operation the advisers of the Secretary of State shall not be more than twelve, nor less than eight, in number.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to add to subsection (3):
"and, notwithstanding anything in Part XI of this Act with respect to their term of office, on the establishment of the Federation such of the advisers as the Secretary of State may direct shall cease to hold office."
The noble Marquess said: This is another Amendment which is necessary to deal with the transitional period before the Federation comes into operation. The Secretary of State's Council in this country may number from eight to twelve. On the other hand, when the new Constitution comes into operation, this Council will be a small one, and the number permitted will range from three to six. The appointments actually are for five years, and it might happen, therefore, that when the provisions of this Bill come into operation, necessitating a reduction of the number of the Secretary of State's advisers from a maximum of twelve to a maximum of six, and. from a minimum of eight to a minimum of three, he might still find himself enjoying the advantage of a larger number of advisers than he would be entitled to, and this Amendment is in order to prevent that eventuality taking place. It may be said that it is possible that certain of his advisers might find themselves put off, so to speak, before their five years had expired, and that that might be regarded as rather unfair to them, but anyone who was appointed to a position of that kind would, of course, have it made clear to him that, if the new Constitution came into operation before he had concluded his five years, he would not be entitled to serve the full term. That is the object of this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 25, at end, insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the Secretary of State a question? I think it is provided elsewhere that this reduces the number of Councillors. Will they have

55
the same powers as the present Council during the transitional period?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, during the transitional period.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The same powers as now?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 310, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 311 agreed to.
Clause 312 [Legislature]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 199, line 30, at end, insert ("and references in those provisions to Federal taxes shall be construed as references to taxes imposed by laws of the Indian Legislature:").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 312, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 313 agreed to.
Clause 314 [Provisions as to Federal Court and certain, other Federal authorities]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert:
"(2) Nothing in this section affects any power of His Majesty in Council to fix a date later than the commencement of Part III of this Act for the coming into operation, either generally or for particular purposes, of any of the provisions of this Act relating to the Federal Court, the Federal Public Service Commission or the Federal Railway Authority."
The noble Marquess said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. Certain bodies will come into existence which are really Federal bodies before the Federation actually comes into operation—that is to say, after Provincial Autonomy has been established; bodies like the Railway Authority and the Federal Court. Now it is conceivable that it might not be possible to bring one or other of them into existence exactly at the same time; that is to say, at the moment of the establishment of Provincial Autonomy; and this Amendment is merely to safeguard that position and to enable, say, the Railway Authority to be brought into existence at a slightly later period, if it was found impossible to bring it in before.
Amendment moved—
Page 200, line 23, at end insert the said subsection (2).—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 314, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 315 to 338 agreed to.
Clause 339 [Disqualifications for membership]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 212, line 24, after ("offence") insert ("or corrupt or illegal practice")
Page 212, line 27, leave out ("conviction whereof is a") and insert ("or practice entailing").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 339, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 340 to 349 agreed to.
Clause 350 [Previous sanction, of Governor required for certain legislative proposals]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 218, line 40, at end insert:—
("(g) affects the grant of relief from any Burma tax on income in respect of income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom; or").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 350, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 351 to 356 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that this is a convenient moment in accordance with the arrangement announced by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to break off the consideration of this Bill and to go on to the next business. Therefore on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, last year, during the debate on the Finance Bill I was asked if the Government had given up all ideas of instituting schemes of public works and I replied that when schemes of a remunerative character were produced and it appeared either advisable or necessary that Government assistance should be given, the Government would give favourable consideration to the proposal. This Bill is an example in proof of the correctness of my statement. The Schedule attached to this Bill is an agreement which has been signed by the Treasury, the London Passenger Transport Board, the Great Western Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway Company for a great scheme of transport development in North and North-East London. The scheme of works is given in the first Schedule of the Bill on pages 14 and 15. They provide for a number of matters, but the principal works are the building of twelve miles of new tubes, the electrification of forty-four miles of railway, the doubling and electrification of a further twelve and a half miles of railway and the substitution of trolley-buses for trams on 148 route miles. I believe that affects something like one quarter of the passengers carried by trams in the Greater London area. It also provides for the reconstruction of stations at King's Cross, Post Office and certain other stations in the Central London area, and the power supply of the London Passenger Transport Board is to be enlarged and improved, the scheme being undertaken in close consultation with the Minister of Transport.
In order to make the scheme possible the Government is prepared to come to the assistance of the three companies concerned by guaranteeing the money required so that it can be raised at a sufficiently low rate of interest. Parliament is asked to give its approval to this scheme in the Bill which actually consists of only two operative clauses. Clause 1 (1) enables the Treasury to guarantee pay-merit of the principal and interest of an issue of securities sufficient to raise a sum not exceeding £40,000,000. This is an outside figure to cover interest during construction and other contingencies in addition to the capital cost of the work
58
which has been provisionally estimated at £35,000,000. The issue of securities will be made for convenience by a holding company with a nominal share capital which will be formed for the purpose under the ægis of the Bank of England. Under subsection (2) any payments by the Treasury in fulfilment of the guarantee will be met from the Consolidated Fund and repayments will be paid into the Exchequer.
Provision is made in subsections (3) and (4) for Parliament to be informed of any guarantees given under the Act and of any payments from the Consolidated Fund and repayments to the Exchequer. These provisions follow generally the precedent of similar legislation in the past. By subsection (5) it is provided that if the Agreement is amended by any further Agreement or by a certificate of the Minister of Transport—to allow, for example, of a variation of the works which are shown in the Schedule—copies of the Agreement or certificate will be laid before Parliament. Some variation in detail may perhaps prove to be necessary in the working out of the scheme, and if so Parliament will be informed. The undertakers will of course be under obligation to carry out the scheduled works as they stand as soon as Parliament has given the necessary powers. Any minor variations will require agreement between the Government and the undertakers, and it will be unnecessary and inconvenient to require the consent of both Houses to such changes once the scheme has been agreed in general principle.
Clause 2 of the Bill relates to exemption from Stamp Duty. The guaranteed securities to be issued by the new holding company will pay the loan capital duty of 2s. 6d. per £100 in the ordinary course, and the effect of this provision in the Bill is to relieve the undertakers from additional Stamp Duty which would otherwise be payable as a result of the-method of borrowing adopted in this case. The proposal of the Government is that there shall be a holding company which will issue capital as required to these three railway companies as they undertake the work. It would be impossible to have three Bills for the three companies because it would take up too much Parliamentary time and we wish to get on with the work. There

59
fore the idea is to have one holding company set up and it would be obviously unfair to expect the railway companies to pay Stamp Duty on the shares issued by the holding company a second time when they have to borrow from the holding company for any purpose. Therefore Clause 2 provides that Stamp Duty shall be paid once, as would normally occur if there had not been a holding company.
Your Lordships will observe that under Clause 1 of the Schedule the transport undertakers engage to come to Parliament as soon as possible for the necessary statutory powers, and, if they are granted, to complete the whole work within five years from September 30 next. There is a clause in the Agreement that the Minister of Transport may be authorised to extend that period if it is considered advisable, but it is hoped, and we think it will probably happen, that these works will in fact be completed within the five years period. Under Clause 3 of the Schedule it has been agreed that these guaranteed loans shall mature for repayment at some date to be fixed by the Treasury between fifteen and twenty-five years of the date of issue with an option of prior redemption. There is no sinking fund, the proposal being that as these works will at the end of fifteen or twenty-five years be earning money the respective companies should be in a position to be able
60
to issue stock themselves in order to repay the holding company the amount borrowed.
In the Second Schedule your Lordships will see on page 16 the borrowings to be allotted to each of the undertaking companies—70 per cent. to the London Passenger Transport Board, 5 per cent. to the Great Western Railway and 25 per cent. to the London and North Eastern Railway. I do not know whether your Lordships would like me to go further into the scheme, but perhaps the best thing would be that I should be prepared to answer such questions as your Lordships may desire to ask. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  SPIRIT CONSUMPTION IN INDIAN PROVINCES.
  SPIRIT CONSUMPTION IN INDIAN PROVINCES.