I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to add:

"(6) Where a person to whom the council of a county or county borough have afforded outdoor relief shows to the satisfaction of the Minister that the council, in affording such relief, have failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of this section, then such person shall be entitled to recover from the council such sum as the Minister may certify to be the difference in amount between the relief afforded to such person and the relief which he would have received had the council duly complied with the provisions of this section."

I am truly sorry to disappoint the incurable optimism of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), but I do not think he really expects the Government to accept this Amendment. He proposes to introduce a revolution into the basic idea of our administration of public assistance, and I think he will, on consideration, come to the conclusion that, apart from its general merits, it is unsatisfactory in the manner in which it would work. The effect of the Amendment would be to introduce a right of appeal from the public assistance body to the Minister in the case of one only of the considerations which should be present to the minds of the public assistance authority in arriving at their decision as to the amount of the relief. A grave objection to the proposal, sufficient really to lead the Committee to reject it without further consideration, is the extremely unsatisfactory position which would be produced if there were a right of appeal in the case of only a very small part of.the question decided by the public assistance committee, without any alteration of the general position. I think, therefore, that, if this question is going to be considered seriously by the Committee, it should be considered in another Bill on a much wider scale.

This Bill has been introduced in order to

"amend the enactments relating to the relief of the poor in England and Wales so as to secure uniformity throughout Great Britain in the provisions relating to the disregarding of sick pay, maternity benefit, and wounds or disability pensions."

"Where a person to whom a local authority have afforded outdoor relief shows to the satisfaction of the Department that the authority in affording such relief have failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section"—

"then, not withstanding anything in Section 75 of the principal Act, he shall be entitled to recover from the authority such sum as the Department may certify to be the difference in amount between the relief afforded to him and the relief which he would have received had the authority duly complied with the provisions of the said Sub-section."

I should like the Minister to reconsider the matter. The purpose of the Bill is to some extent to bring the law in England into conformity with that in Scotland. In the Scottish Standing Committee I moved an Amendment to provide that, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Department that these exemptions have not been carried out by the local authority, the applicant shall be entitled to recover arrears of payment. The Amendment was slightly altered and put into proper legal form and was accepted by the Committee. One of the difficulties we found in Scotland was that, if a Poor Law authority disregarded a particular exemption, there was no authority to enforce them to carry it out. There were large public assistance committees which ignored the law. The Secretary of State for Scotland ultimately persuaded them to carry it out, but meantime for months and for years poor persons did not receive payments that they were entitled to. It may well be that the number of authorities that do not carry out the law may be small, but poor persons should not be penalised. What powers has the Minister to see that no poor person loses? By the time he takes action months may have elapsed. Why should a poor person who has proved his case to the satisfaction of the Minister be punished for weeks or months by not receiving sums to which he has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he is entitled?

I think it would be very much better if compulsion were put upon people who tried to evade the law. No such powers are given under the Bill. The Minister says that if an appeal were given in this case it would only be an appeal to him upon a small section. That may be so, but this is a rather a new thing and a particular thing, and we are justified in asking that there should be an appeal in these circumstances. There is a vast difference in treatment as between various authorities up and down the country. We think there ought to be no difference between any authorities as regards these payments, but we are afraid there will be, and, if there is, is it asking too much that those who are suffering should have a right of appeal to the Minister to have given them what is laid down in the law? I do not think that we are asking for anything that is extraordinary, and I hope that, in view of what has been said, he will see his way to alter his opinion and give us that for which we ask.

There is a difference in administration in this matter. Take two similar cases in respect of Health Insurance. In the case of a man, wife and four children, the rate is 35s. Here is a case in which the husband is in receipt of Health Insurance and receives 15s. We know of cases in this respect where the authorities have not given the £2 2s. 6d., as they ought to have done since they are giving 35s. where there is no sickness. We know of cases where instead of giving £2 2s. 6d. they have given 37s. 6d. What can such persons do to secure the benefit of the Act? I agree with the Minister that every individual case could come up on appeal, but is it not possible to have some safeguard so that a man can secure the full benefit of the Act? There may be next door neighbours. One of them may be sick and the other may not be sick. They come under the provisions of the law, and, surely, an Amendment that asks that something should be done to secure the full value of the law is not asking too much. If the wording be wrong, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest some other method of getting the full benefit of the law?

I was surprised to hear the Minister this morning refuse the request of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) which is contained in the Amendment. I can well remember that the Minister of Health, when he thought that a few of us in South Yorkshire were paying too much, was not very long in coming after us. He surcharged your humble servant and others £284. We made an appeal, and the amount was ultimately reduced to £2 10s. If the Minister of Health can investigate the case of public assistance committees whom he thinks are paying too much, I want to know why he cannot investigate cases where we feel that they are not paying sufficient and are not carrying out, the law. The hon. Member for Ince, (Mr. G. Macdonald) bas stated several cases, and I could state cases galore, where Health Insurance has not been taken into account. They have refused to take it into account.

First of all, let me clear up a misconception contained in the remarks of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). Under this Bill, the people of England will have precisely the same benefits as the people of Scotland. The purpose of the Bill is that all that is secured in the Scottish Bill shall be secured to the people of England. I think that hon. Members who have spoken have been mistaken in supposing that the Bill will not secure to the persons it is intended to benefit the full enjoyment of the benefit the Bill intends to secure. The picture of local authorities, who, in widespread manner, generally disregard the terms of the law, or the picture of public assistance committees, who, in an equally widespread manner, administer the law without care and with a wide degree of variation, is a completely mistaken picture. That was the picture which hon. Members produced. But it is not so.

"to secure uniformity throughout Great Britain in the provisions relating to the disregarding of sick pay, etc."

The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is very disappointing. He has not met the case that has been put. He is trying to have it both ways. On the Second Reading of the Bill I was reproved and told that this was not a Bill for bringing in things like workmen's compensation, but merely to bring English and Scottish law into line. When we seek to-day to do that, the right hon. Gentleman tries to dodge out of it in a way that does not meet our case at all. When the Scottish Bill was before the Standing Committee there were members of the Committee who felt there ought to be safeguards provided for people who were in future to enjoy these additions to their benefit, or, rather, to be excused from having their benefits reduced. Some of my hon. Friends felt that it would be right to insert a safeguard to make sure that these people did get what they were entitled to under the law of the land. I know quite well that the whole structure of Scottish law is different from our English poor law.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is designed to give the same benefits to England as to Scotland. Without entering into our difference of opinion, I would say that that is precisely the point on which we differ. If the inspector finds that a man has not got the allowance, he is paid back in Scotland the sum to which he is entitled, but in England under the Bill if the inspector finds that a man ought to have been paid this sum but has not been paid it, he will not be paid the back money. In Scotland it was illegal for the Poor Law authorities to pay poor law back money, but we have altered that. Where it is found that a. man should have been paid and has not he is now paid it in Scotland, but it will not be the same in England. Take the case of two ex-service men. In Scotland if, through a mistake, the man has not been paid, he will be paid back the sum to which he is entitled, but in England he would not be paid. We say, that the same benefit ought to be paid in England as in Scotland.

We were able to quote numerous cases in Scotland where payment had been withheld and that was why we were able to get the provision put in for Scotland. Suppose one of the right hon. Gentlemen inspectors finds that in a case of sick benefit an applicant for public assistance has not had the first 7s. 6d. taken into consideration and that the authorities have actually reduced his amount of public assistance by 7s. 6d., having looked upon it as income going into the house. Assuming that the total amount that the man would have received per week had there been no health benefit going in was and he was only paid £1 12s. 6d. The 7s. 6d. going in for sick benefit is treated as income and they disallow a portion of the public assistance which he would otherwise have received. Let us assume that that case goes on for four weeks before the inspector comes upon the scene. That means that the individual loses 30s. to which he would have been entitled. According to the Bill that we are now discussing such a man in England will not receive any of that back money, but his 7s. 6d. will be added when the inspector has shown the Public Assistance Committee that they have not been carrying out the law. It will only be paid the first week after the investigation makes it clear that the 30s. has not been paid but the 30s. will not be recoverable by him. A Scottish applicant in a similiar case, a man who has not received the allowance in respect of sick benefit by an evasion of the law, unconscious perhaps, can apply to the Department of Health for Scotland, who can give an order to the public assistance committee of the particular locality to pay the 30s. arrears for the four weeks to the man.

I listened with some interest to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. We put down certain Amendments to the Bill which have been ruled out on the ground that they do not conform to the general principle of the Bill, which is designed to secure uniformity in the law as between England and Scotland. But the Amendment which we are now discussing, and which we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept, is designed to secure uniformity of benefit as between England and Scotland. We are asking that the same rights shall be given to English workmen to secure their full benefits as are given to Scottish workmen. When we point out that there is this right in Scotland and put forward the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman says that while the Bill may be designed to get uniformity of benefit it is not designed to get uniformity of procedure. Why not? Is there any reason why there should not be uniformity of procedure? The right hon. Gentleman gave no reason. He said that the atmosphere in Sotland is different, the Poor Law system in Scotland is different, that there is a difference in national characteristics. I do not know whether this is the case or not, but I am sure that there is a similarity between people in England and Scotland in that they are equally anxious to secure as much of these benefits as they can. It may be that if a Scottish applicant is refused these benefits he will kick and make himself generally unpleasant, whereas in England he might say nothing about it.

I do not propose to enter into a discussion in regard to the Scottish case. They are starting a revolution in Poor Law administration which has been going on since the war, and in facing these new conditions the Scottish Standing Committee and this House have laid down new principles. That would not have been done had there not been good evidence that it was necessary. I cannot see why the Minister says that there is no need for this change in England and Wales. I have had as much experience in administering the Poor Law as anyone, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if between now and the Bill going to the House of Lords he will make inquiries of the London auditor, who surcharged myself and others because we did take into account health insurance. I appeared before him on at least three occasions, and on each occasion he said "if you continue to take this into account you will lay yourself open to a very heavy surcharge." As the Audit Act had been passed we had not the courage to face the results of such a surcharge. It would have been a considerable sum of money.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to add:

On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the wording of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper which refers to "the Poor Law Act, 1932"—

That matter has been mentioned and has been put right already. It should be "the Poor Law Act, 1930."

That was my mistake, and I admitted it. The hon. Member need not rub it in.

I desire to support the Amendment which asks that the law of England and the law of Scotland shall be brought into line on this matter. The mover has mentioned the case of the miners and I wish to go a little into that question. In the street in which I live there are miners to-day who got relief on loan in 1926 and are still paying it back. Some of them still owe as much as £10 or £15 and are repaying it at the rate of 1s. for each week in which they work three days or more. If they do not work three clays a week, but only 21 days or 21 days, they do not pay that week's instalment. There are some men in the South Yorkshire coal-field who are only receiving is. 6d. per day, and if they have three days' work in the week that represents 22s. 6d. less stoppages, and the stoppages are often about a half-a-crown. Out of what is left the miner has to pay 1s. towards repayment of the 1926 lock-out relief on loan. That was not a strike as far as the miner was concerned but a lock-out.

I do not think this has anything to do with relief on loan.

I wanted to point cut that he wanted this relief, not on loan, but that they would only grant it to him on loan. The point is that on the medical officer's certificate he could only get it on loan, and he did not receive the benefits that the doctor prescribed. I could cite other cases, and I hope the Committee this time, instead of turning down the Amendment, will at least see that we in England and Wales shall have equal to what Scotland has, not relief on loan, hut, if relief is required, that the man or woman shall have it without having a debt hung round his or her neck.

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of bringing the law of England into conformity with that of Scotland. It is another case where the Scottish Standing Committee and the Scottish Members have stolen a march upon the English Members almost unawares. This relic of medieval practice in our Poor Law ought really to be got rid of, and here is an opportunity which presents itself to the Minister when he is seeking to bring the law and the administration in this country into conformity with what it is North of the Tweed. If it is right there, it is right here. I have come across the most dreadful cases of the way in which this Act is being administered, cases of people who have been out of work for weeks or months, who have got rid of anything on which they could realise anything in their homes, who are indebted to their friends, who have parted with their goods and chattels, and then, one bright day, they get a job and begin to have a little hope, but suddenly they are confronted with a demand for repayment.

This Bill and this Amendment are an illustration of the great amount of confusion into which our services have fallen in this country. They are symptoms of the disorderly way—I do not use the word with any offensive meaning—in which these services have found their way on to the Statute Book. The whole field of social services is littered with proposals which have reached the Statute Book in response to some sudden economic emergency or social need, and I welcome this Bill for what it does, as indeed I would welcome any other Bill for the purpose of removing any inequalities in the law and practice of the Poor Law, or to eliminate any inequality or unfairness of treatment between any other classes of persons whose needs were the same, but who came into some other administrative class for some technical reason.

That question hardly arises on this Amendment.

I agree. I rose to draw attention to the necessity of either the proposal which is embodied in the Amendment or some similar proposal if we are not to reach a state of great confusion in the administration of these services.

I think I am correct in saying that this system is continued because of a judgment some years ago in favour of the Ministry of Health which implied that an able-bodied man was obliged to maintain his family although the labour market might be closed against him. This Statute has been made to apply on account of an anachronism of that kind. I cannot see how the Minister can legitimately allow this provision to continue in England and Wales when it does not obtain in Scotland. One can appreciate the argument that it would act as a detriment against trade disputes, such as strikes in particular, or lock-outs. As it does not apply in Scotland, however, that argument cannot be applied to England and Wales. In Glamorgan we have on a number of occasions tried to remove this load from the shoulders of those who are, generally speaking, destitute people, but we have been unable to do so. At one time we endeavoured to estimate the amount that had to be spent in collecting this money, and we discovered that the amount spent in paying officials to call at houses to collect in some weeks 3d. and in other weeks 1s. was so excessive that it was hardly worth their while, and certainly not worth the while of the authority to engage collectors to get very small amounts of money. It led to a number of administrative difficulties.

The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) gave good reasons to show that as this system was not in operation in Scotland it ought not to be continued in this country. It is not often that a Scotsman gives anything without getting good value for what he gives. Scotland has experienced this system and are getting good value for their money, and surely we ought to follow their experience and adopt the same method. I would remind the Minister that in introducing this Measure he said he wanted to march side by side with Scotland, and that that was why he brought it forward. There is a grand opportunity to put this country on the same footing as Scotland and so enable the two countries to march side by side. There is a stronger reason than that. Two of my colleagues mentioned miners' stoppages. I remember several of them, and I recall vividly how in one locality the men marched to the Poor Law-offices in order to try and get relief. Thousands of them got it on loan and to the present time much of that money remains to be paid back. The men cannot pay it back and probably it will become a bad debt, for it costs almost as much to collect it as the amount that they collect. The book-keeping and the collecting will about balance when all the money has come in.

On this Amendment, which was introduced in a closely reasoned speech by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), we have had some interesting speeches challenging the whole principles of the Poor Law in this country. I note that the hon. Member corrected a mistake on the Order Paper with regard to the year 1932. When I first read it, I thought he was trying to pretend that the National Government perpetuated this relief on loan, and then I realised that he always says what he thinks and is never backward in coming forward even in criticising his friends. It must be remembered that the whole principle of relief on loan was approved, endorsed and continued in the Act of 1930, passed by a Government of which the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) was such a distinguished member.

That is a consolidating Act.

The principle of relief on loan became an issue at a recent by-election. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government which gave endorsement to that principle was not sufficiently brought out there. I did my best to bring it not, but apparently the electors did not appreciate the point. In the issue raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals there are two points—the point of principle, and the point of administration. On the point of principle, which has been accepted for at least a century, surely it is right that a man who borrows money should give an undertaking that he will try to repay it. That principle was introduced into the Poor Law not only in the interests of the administration but in the interests of the recipients themselves. Indeed, in many parts of the country men who claim relief prefer to receive it as a loan, because it preserves their independence. I cannot speak for Scotland, but as far as England is concerned it is not only a question of good administration by local authorities but applicants for relief themselves accept the principle that if their circumstances recover and they can afford to repay in whole or part they will do so. I say that principle is right, and in practice it has been shown that very few harsh cases arise. We are the most sensitive barometer of all the Government Departments. If anything goes wrong the Minister or myself knows about it almost as soon as it has happened, and I have never heard of a case of harsh administration in this respect. No member of this House has ever brought me a single case since I have been at the Ministry. I say that this system is working fairly, and that it is generally efficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals talked about shops, and it is quite true that the shopkeeper would come into that 5 per cent. who had passed from the Unemployment Assistance Board and come under public assistance. If a shopkeeper gets relief on loan and subsequently manages to make a good profit out of his business. makes, say, £500 a year, surely it would he wrong that 116 should not recognise his past liability. Members have spoken as though local authorities in all cases claim repayment of relief. That is not so. The local authority has the discretion to decide whether to claim the whole or part of the loan and in every case the circumstances of the individual are taken into account.

Is it not the fact that the local authorities have acted not on their own initiative but on the instructions of auditors and have sent out claims indiscriminately to all persons to whom relief has been granted?

No, not to my knowledge because the Labour Government's Act of 1930 gave a local authority discretion as to the exercise of this power to claim repayment of relief on loan. It is no use my right hon. Friend trying to get away from that.

Not at all, I do not dispute the fact a bit, but it is a bad law and it wants altering. The hon. Gentleman says the Government want to assimilate the law of England to the law of Scotland. Here is a chance of doing so. We should make up for the errors of the past.

Now we are on the next point, which was fully argued by my right hon. Friend. In this Bill, which is limited to assimilating the law of England to that of Scotland as regards four objects, we are not trying to amend the whole law and practice of the Poor Law. The hon. Member for Birkenhead' (Mr. G. White) spoke about confusion and anomalies. I cannot pretend to know Scottish law, but in so far as I do know anything about it I claim that on the whole the principle and practice of poor law administration in England is not behind that of Scotland. We have long accepted the principle of relief for able-bodied men, and Scotland did not get it till 1921. Relief on loan was in operation in Scotland from 1927 until 1934. In Scotland relief is a right, and though in this country it is not a right we get the same effect by saying that it shall be the duty of a local authority to relieve. As to the right of appeal given to the Scottish applicant we get it in a different way, that is by the general supervisory power of the Minister to see that in cases of complaint these matters are attended to. But why should there be confusion because, for hundreds of years, the difference between the Scottish law and the English law has been a marked difference? On the whole I am not sure that it has not been to the advantage of us English. All we claim is that we should have home rule for England in this well-established principle. Anyhow, this is not a Bill on which we are going to upset and change the law, but to assimilate it to that of Scotland.

I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has again refused an Amendment which we thought would improve the Bill. I am glad that he did not repeat the arguments of the Minister as to why England should be treated differently from Scotland. The Minister told us that Scottish tradition, mentality and characteristic are such that we could not expect to apply to England what Scotland has in all cases. I do not think that is the reason.

Does the hon. Member question that proposition which he has just stated?

With a name such as I have I could not. I suggest that the reason for the difference is that Scottish Members in Standing Committee were more powerful in argument and more persuasive, or that the Scottish Minister was more easily persuaded than the Minister of Health for England. I cannot understand how any person can justify the poor in Scotland never being relieved on loan and the poor in England running the chance of relief on loan. If instead of comparing Scotland and England we take the case of Lancashire and Yorkshire the position will be much more clearly seen. Could we suggest that miners in Yorkshire should have relief, but not on loan, but that the miners in Lancashire should have relief on loan? The House would never agree to such a thing. If this is applied to the miners in Scotland, why not to the miners in Durham and Northumberland? I cannot understand how the Minister can resist the appeal to give the same treatment to miners in Northumberland as is already given to the miners in Scotland.

This Bill applies to the shopkeeper as it does to other classes. Why should a little shopkeeper struggling in a miserable side street be penalised? After the Welsh disaster the pit shut down, and that means distress not only for the miner but for the poor shopkeeper. His shop also shuts down, and he goes on poor relief. The miner goes on what the Tories call national poor relief, but the shopkeeper is not treated in that way. It is suggested that he might later earn £500 a year; but so might the miner, although he seldom does in practice. What applies in one case should apply in the other. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has earned a reputation in this House, and I gladly acknowledge his capacity. In the Committee proceedings upstairs he said this:

"There is a good deal with which I disagree in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but one point which he made should be emphasised; that is, the extreme undesirability of putting a millstone round the neck of a young man starting in life."

"The decent man who feels he owes something to the local authority is handicapped in his mind, whereas the other fellow who is a careless sort of man, does not mind a bit. It puts a handicap on the decent man who is trying to do his best, and it does not count in the case of a man who is out to get whatever he can."—[Official Report, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 8th May, 1934; col. 51.]

I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that this principle has never been challenged, but at least one board of guardians challenged it. Years ago the Merthyr Tydvil Board challenged it.

My point was that no one challenged it in the House in 1930 when the Bill was going through.

On a Consolidation Bill, an Amendment to challenge this principle would have been out of Order.

We had a Bill of 400 Clauses last year, and endless Amendments and new Clauses were moved.

I thought the Minister was suggesting that it had not been challenged outside. I am unable to speak as to the proceedings on the Bill of 1930, as I was not then here, but I feel sure that, if the Minister took a census of the views held by local authorities and public assistance committees, they would not support the Ministry in this—certainly not in the distressed areas. I think that on this matter we ought to have the views of Members representing distressed areas. From time to time they have made many applications to the Minister for relief, and on this matter I am certain that Members representing the distressed areas would agree with me when I say that the local authorities in those areas would be at one in trying to remove this millstone, not only from their own necks, but from the necks of the poor people, who are just on the verge of destitution at all times. In the constituency of one of my colleagues, namely Methyr Tydvil, the rates are 27s. 6d. in the pound. There are scores of people there who have this enormous burden to face, and yet collectors are knocking at their doors and taking from them the few extra coppers that they get during the three or four days that they may be working at the colliery—

And the Poor Law authority does not want it.

The Poor Law authority does not want it. The same thing applies throughout the whole of Glamorgan. Nearly 40 per cent. of the people there are totally unemployed, and most of them are faced with a debt of this kind. This is one of the most irritating pieces of administration that can be conceived, and yet it is to be continued. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister in regard to it. It is no use saying that this has been the pracitice for 100 years. In the old days an individual could be treated as an individual, and it was possible to infer that he was responsible for his lot, but in these days masses of people are affected by some unforeseen incident. In law it would be called an act of God; here it is called depression, or something of that kind. Masses of people are struck at once, and 50 per cent, or more of them may be affected to the extent of being rendered destitute; but, because they are able-bodied persons, they are not entitled to relief. Although the market is closed against them, and they cannot sell their labour, they cannot obtain relief except on loan, because it is the English law that they are responsible to their dependants, although they cannot sell their labour in the market. In these days, when masses of people are affected in that way, the position is very different from what it was in the old days, when the individual may have been responsible for the plight of his family. There is no justification for the continuance of this as I think, very serious anomaly. That is putting entirely on one side the fact that it does not obtain in Scotland. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the position. I would ask him if he is prepared to inquire into the cost of collection, and relate it to the amount actually collected. If he will do that, he will find that it really is not a paying proposition, apart from the other factors.

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Two sentences only will be adequate to explain the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself in this matter. We are extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were unable to meet us on the Amendments that we moved in Committee, but we have considered the Bill as a whole, and we feel that we should not be justified in opposing the Third Reading.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not be justified in voting, against the Bill. I regret that it does not assimilate the law of England and Scotland in respect of the matters that we have discussed and one or two others as well, but it makes some improvement in the lives and conditions of the poorest section of the community and anything that does that is to that extent welcome. The bringing of trade unions into the same condition as friendly societies was absolutely necessary. I wish to thank the Opposition for putting their whips on. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is an even more faithful attender at the House than I am, is unwell and is unable to be here.

I should like to associate myself with what previous speaker's have said. We, too, in view of the fact that an improvement is being introduced by the Bill, have no desire to divide on the Third Reading. We also are rather sorry that suggestions that were put forward in Committee were not accepted. We hope that on a future occasion the Minister will take the opportunity of introducing further Measures to bring those suggestions into practical effect, particularly the suggestions in regard to workmen's compensation payments not being taken into consideration in the way they are at present, and, if the Minister finds it possible to do something in that regard, he will have taken a step in the right direction.

I should like to express the great appreciation that many of us feel as regards the exemption of maternity benefit. I hope this is only the beginning of considerable measures to be taken to improve maternity conditions. They are very much wanted. This is a small step, and there is a great deal that one could say on the subject, but it is a step in the right direction, and I hope it is the forerunner of further measures next Session in regard to health and maternity benefits.

I should like to ask whether the term "Dindings" in fact covers all the territories conceded to the Sultan of Perak under the two Agreements of 1826 and 1874, where the territories concerned are put down in a more complete fashion. The 1826 Agreement refers to the

"Pulo Dinding on the Island of Pangkor together with all and every one of the islands which belonged until this period to the Kings of Perak."

My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the word "Dindings" is used in the plural. I can give him a complete assurance that it includes both the island and the mainland territories.