The first Amendment on the Order Paper, that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Baldwin) is not in order. It proposes to leave out Sub-section (1) and to insert words which are already largely in the Clause. Any new matter, of course, to be proposed to be inserted, can be moved. The hon. Member for Brentford's Amendment comes next.

I beg to move, on behalf of my hon. Friend, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "superannuation" ["entitled to rights in a superannuation fund"], and to insert instead thereof the word "provident."

I should like to have a ruling as to whether the word in the Clause is intended to cover cases of pension funds which are sometimes slightly different from superannuation funds. For instance, on the North-Eastern Railway Company there is a superannuation fund for certain servants of the company, and there is also a pension fund for the wage-earning servants of the company. If not, I think I should, after the word "superannuation," move to add the words "pension or provident."

If the word does not cover what we desire, I think it ought to be amended. My intention was, after the other few Amendments had been disposed of, rather to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford, and to insert "provident" instead of "superannuation," as that would cover everything.

May I suggest "pension or other provident fund"? Then the words of the Clause would be "superannuation, pension, or other provident fund." I do not want to alter the words more than necessary.

I will not go into a legal argument with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it seems to me that that would make the word "pension" more important, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is the provident fund that we lay stress upon. But if the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied with "provident" for the moment I will consider on the Report stage whether that will cover the case.

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman suggests on the understanding that we are to consider the matter on the Report stage.

I object to the word "superannuation" here, and the kind of fund that is meant by "superannuation" is quite different from that that is spoken of as a "provident" fund. I do not think the word can well cover the two. There is a distinct difference between superannuation funds so far as railway companies are concerned. A superannuation fund of a railway company is not a provident fund in the ordinary sense of the word. While it is true that it deals with invalidity it does not deal with sickness at all. I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered really the whole position as between superannuation and provident funds for purposes like this, and in the light of the Report which was issued from the Board of Trade by the Committee that was appointed? There is a distinct difference between the two funds. There is also a distinct difference between the methods in which the railway companies deal with these funds. It seems to me that you cannot cover the whole of them by leaving out the word "superannuation" and inserting the word "provident." For my part, if the superannuation funds are to have the rights of the rights of an approved society—I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman has considered that point—they ought to come in under their own name, and not that of a provident society.

I wish to mention the case of the Small Arms Factory. I do not know whether I am in order in bringing the matter before the Committee now, but I do not like this Clause to be put through without making my protest.

It is the thing that matters, not the name. I cannot say whether the funds I have in my mind are superannuation, pension, or provident funds, or what their name is. But I want to call attention to a particular kind of fund—let it be called what it may—that I want to be protected by the Bill—that established by the South Metropolitan Gas Company and similar funds throughout the county. I do not care twopence whether they are called superannuation or pension funds. Let us have regard to what the fund is, and not what it is called. If my hon. Friend thinks that does not meet the case let us find other words, but let us not rule out funds because they would not come under some particular description.

I should have thought the offer I made covers what my hon. Friend desires. If he does not think so of course he is perfectly right to divide against them. It is a question of legal interpretation; if the words do not mean the same thing I shall see to it later. I say "superannuation" or "pension" is not as comprehensive as "provident," and if put in before it may limit the word "provident." When I saw this Amendment on the Paper I came to the conclusion, and was so advised, that "provident" was more a comprehensive term and therefore better. If not I shall look into the matter. We are agreed in substance, the only point is as to the words.

Seeing that we are agreed in substance and that it is merely a question of words, might we not, instead of putting in either the word "superannuation" or "provident," simply say "funds for providing benefits similar to those conferred by this Act?"

That obviously would not meet the case. I have in my mind the North-Eastern Superannuation and Pension Fund. The object of that fund is different from that contemplated by the Bill. It is to provide pensions for retired workmen and those who reach the age of sixty-five. I think we should be prepared to accept the Chancellor's assurances that it is his intention to bring in all those societies and that will satisfy me.

I now move to leave out the word "superannuation" in order to insert instead thereof the word "provident."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by an employer or a number of employers." As the Bill stands it talks of funds established by an employer or employers, but many of these funds have been established by the men themselves, and are helped in one way or another by the employer or employers. My object in asking that these words be omitted here is in order to insert them in their proper place later.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "workmen" ["for the benefit of the workmen employed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "person."

The next Amendment is consequential. There are two on the Paper, one standing in the name of the senior Member for York and the other in the name of the junior Member for York, dealing with the same point. I think the form of the junior Member's the better.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "him or them" ["workmen employed by him or them"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one or more employers."

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["the society may be approved"], to insert the words, "on the application of the employer or employers and with the consent of a majority of the members."

This is very important, not only from the point of view of the employer but also of the fund. Take the Metropolitan Water Board, they have an enormous fund, and I do not think it would be quite fair for a bare majority of persons employed to convert the fund into an approved society. It is even more important from the point of view of the members of the fund. I think the consent of a bare majority is not sufficient to say whether the fund should be converted. In the majority of cases the employés bare the whole cost of administering these funds. The reserves as a rule bear interest at between three and four per cent. In large railway companies the interest on their reserves is about four per cent. on their debenture stock, and in the case of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board it is about 3½ per cent.; and if a fund becomes an approved society in future the reserves will only earn about three per cent. I think, therefore, this is a reasonable Amendment.

I think there is no difference between the Bill as it stands in this matter and the Amendment of the hon. Member. As the Bill stands application must come from the society. The hon. Member wants the application to come from the employer or employers with the approval of the majority of the society. The hon. Member will see that the application by the society must be an application with the approval of the majority of the members of the society. The society consists of the employer or employers and its members. The hon. Member asks that the application should be by the employer or employers and the majority of the members. That is really the same thing as the society itself. The society will be governed by the majority, and therefore I think the hon. Member will see that it is not necessary to insert this Amendment.

There is another objection and it is the application having to come from the employer or the employers. I think it should come through the secretary of the society in the ordinary way.

I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last. In many cases the employer has made himself responsible for the solvency of these societies and my hon. Friend wishes to have the consent both of the employer and employed to the transaction. I want to have the consent of both parties as well, but I would rather the application should be made by the society and sent to the employer rather than by the employer and sent to the society. The proposal here is that the persons constituting the society may, on application, and under certain conditions, become an approved society. Where an application is made by the society supported by the employer I want power given to the Insurance Commissioners to exempt the society from the operation of this rule. If I cannot raise the question here I would like to move a new Sub-section at the end of the Clause. I will indicate the case I have in view. It is the case of the superannuation fund which I referred to a moment ago, established by the South Metropolitan Gas Company. They sent a deputation to interview me—I do not know whether they have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and they were able to make out a case to me which I think is unanswerable. I do not know whether or not I ought to reserve what I have to say upon that until a later stage of the Clause, but I propose to take any opportunity that offers itself of raising the point and pressing it strongly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It would not be in order here. The only point here is whether the Bill already provides for such action. The provision that application should come from the governors of the fund is sufficient to cover the case. This is only a slight additional point, namely, "on the application of the employer or employers and with the consent of a majority of the members."

I think what is suggested would be more satisfactory, and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight asked me to look after his Amendment. I understand it is not in order, but I also handed in an Amendment which covers the point and which is not printed on the White Paper. My Amendment was to add in place of paragraph (a):—

"Provided that its rules or constitution definitely provide that the membership of such society shall not be a condition of employment."

I think those words are better than the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

That is already on the Paper.

The hon. Member will notice that there is a star against his name and the Amendment is on the Paper. I am proposing to call first of all upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave out paragraph (a), and then I will deal with the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Stockport, which, of course, will take precedence, having been on the Paper longer.

I understand you have ruled out my Amendment, which is intended to apply not generally but simply to these special funds.

I did not rule out the hon. Member's Amendment, but I stated my opinion that I thought it was covered by the provision of absolute control in Clause 18. If the hon. Member wishes to show that it is not covered that is a matter for the Government to deal with. Does the hon. Member desire to move?

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "approved" ["the society may be approved"], to insert the words, "Provided that its constitution provides that the election of all the committees, representatives, and officers elected by the workmen shall be by ballot."

This Amendment is intended to secure the workmen against any possibility of undue pressure. The women's trade organisations are strongly of opinion that in the case of societies consisting of girls the voting may not be free if it takes place under the eye of the employer or the forewomen.

Our notion was that this point was covered by the provision made yesterday for complete control. It is true that you can choose this or any other system which commends itself to the Insurance Commissioners. My hon. Friend wishes to make the position absolutely clear in the case of workers that the voting is to be by ballot. Voting by ballot is not always easy to accomplish, and it is difficult to set up a ballot in some scattered, outlying districts. If the hon. Member will move any words which will allow the Insurance Commissioners to make arrangements in a case of that kind I do not object to the principle of election by ballot if it is so desired. I can understand that it is desirable in certain cases. In the cases mentioned there may be reasons why the workers should have a free choice. I should be prepared to accept the Amendment subject to any words being introduced later on that will govern exceptional cases. You cannot lay down that there must be a ballot in a small, country, wayside station, because it would cost so much. All those cases have to be taken into account, but I will accept these words subject to regulations by the Insurance Commissioners.

Before this Amendment is finally dealt with ought not the Committee to remember what they are asked to do? They are asked to impose conditions upon these funds which are different from the ordinary approved societies. The idea is democratic management of the State section, and surely, therefore, it ought to be left for the rules to be made by the members themselves whether they will have a ballot or some other form of voting. As it stands, the Chancellor is going to throw still more on to the regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners, and, if for no other reason, I shall oppose it, because it is still further fettering the liberty of the individual and allowing the central authority to dictate how they shall carry on their business. There seems to me no special cause for them having a different method of voting from the ordinary approved society. If you introduce the ballot into this Clause, you ought to introduce it into the 18th Clause relating to approved societies. It seems to me far better to let the members of the fund say how they will carry out their voting and not have the Insurance Commissioners meddling in their management more than it is possible to avoid.

You are dealing with a society where the employer takes a part in the management, and we have to guard against any undue influence. The object of the Amendment is not to interfere with the management, but rather to give the rank and file of the membership liberty to make rules free from intimidation. Those who have had experience of these societies know perfectly well that even the presence of an employer or a foreman does tend to influence the men, and it is because we believe this is a peculiarly exceptional circumstance that we think the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be accepted.

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this matter. It is most important the men should be allowed to manage their funds. In every case I have come across they have themselves carefully drawn up rules, and they have the power of altering their rules free from the interference of any employer. The men belonging to the North-Eastern Railway Pension Fund have drawn up their rules. There are 19,000 members, and they have the power to alter the rules in any way they think fit without going to their employers at all. It would be a very serious inroad upon the democratic constitution of this fund if we were to give a discretion to the Insurance Commissioners to interfere with them. How would these large bodies of men, after having provided a particular method of electing their officers and committee of management, like to be told by the Insurance Commissioners that they did not know their business and that they would prescribe for them a new set of rules? It is a most undemocratic proposition, and, mark you, it is not merely the committee of management for the purposes of the fund under this Bill that will be dealt with, but also the committee of management of the pension fund, which has nothing to do with this Bill at all. It does not appear reasonable to me that when the men have selected their mode of electing their committee to manage their pension fund the Insurance Commissioners should come in and say, "Because you are going to get additional benefits under this Act, you must alter your mode of electing your committee of management." I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accede to the Amendment in the form in which it is put. If there are men who wish their committee of management to be selected by ballot, by all means let them have it, but they can do that by their own rules. Therefore, in the interests of the men and the right of liberty of election by the men, I hope this will not be accepted.

The hon. and learned Member seems to me to be trying to show that voting by ballot is antidemocratic. He says he wants full liberty for the men. That is exactly what my hon. Friend wants. He wants to guarantee that they shall have full liberty. I am not suggesting, and I do not think my hon. Friend is suggesting, there is any undue influence, but there is at times a suspicion of it, and we get rid of that suspicion by this means. It is far better in the interests of the employers and the foremen that it should be known it is the free, unfettered choice of the men. The men may think the foreman does not represent their views, but it would be very awkward for them to vote against him. The foreman would be in the position of knowing how the men voted, and if he subsequently had any cause of complaint against a man that man might be under the impression he was dismissed or degraded because he had voted against him. It is not a good thing for the foreman himself that he should be in that position. It is infinitely better he should have no knowledge of the way the men vote. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) asked why we should introduce here what we have not introduced in the State scheme. There is not the same suspicion of undue influence in the case of the State scheme. It is a totally different case. These are cases where the men ought to be protected against any possibility of undue influence, and I think my hon. Friend has really pointed out a respect in which the Bill ought to be strengthened. I am sure the employers would not object. They would infinitely prefer that the men should exercise their own choice in their own way.

It is not a question of the employer. I object to the Insurance Commissioners being imported into the management of these societies. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he would accept the Amendment subject to some additional words he was going to put in, leaving it to the decision of the Insurance Commissioners as to whether the voting should be by ballot.

I am sorry the hon. Member misunderstood me. On the contrary, what I said was it must be left to the Insurance Commissioners to make regulations so as to meet the case of scattered areas where it would be difficult to set up the ballot. I never suggested the Insurance Commisioners should have any control at all with regard to the arrangements. I do suggest that where you have five or six country wayside stations with probably only seven men to vote it would be very difficult to set up a ballot box at each station. All I suggested was that probably it would require a little regulation in that respect. It did not enter my head that the Commissioners should decide whether there should or should not be a ballot. On the contrary, I am accepting frankly and fully the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I simply suggest that if it should be necessary to make provision for exceptional cases, they should decide as to the best method of carrying it out.

I certainly share the misunderstanding in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend. It merely arose, as misunderstandings will often arise. We gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Commissioners would have the deciding voice as to whether or not a ballot should take place. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] It is no use saying "No, no"; that is the impression we gathered. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman's statement removes to a large extent the objection of my hon. and learned Friend, and certainly a great deal of the objection which I entertained. I have no objection to the ballot, but I felt very strongly that the intrusion of the Insurance Commissioners, as I thought, into the matter, and giving them the deciding voice, was not right. If either the employers or the men are not satisfied with the conduct of the business of their funds, the withholding of the consent of either of them would be fatal to any application to become approved under the Bill; and therefore, if these superannuation funds are to be brought under the Bill as approved societies, they can only be so brought by mutual consent, both of employers and employed.

I would suggest an addition to the Amendment which would certainly meet my views and possibly those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to add the words, "If a majority of the workmen so desire," so that if a majority of the workmen desire that the vote should be taken by ballot, they can do it. I cannot myself see any objection to that. You would have a meeting of the society and take a vote upon this question of having all votes by ballot. If the existing rules provide for a ballot there is no question at all, but supposing the existing rules do not provide for voting by ballot, then they can call a meeting to vote upon the question, aye or no, whether the vote for electing a committee is in future to be taken by ballot; and, if the majority of the meeting decide that the vote in future shall be by ballot then it shall be so. That, to my mind, gives the workmen entire control in the matter. If they say "yes," the ballot follows, and if they say "no," I see no reason for coercing them. I would therefore like to move, at the end of the Amendment, to put, "If a majority of the workmen, in general meeting assembled, so desire."

If the hon. Member desires to add further words afterwards, there is nothing to prevent that being done.

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the question before this vote is taken. The proposal is that the workmen at a sort of general assembly should decide the question. What does that mean? I do not know how many hundred thousand workmen there are on the London and North-Western Railway.

Eighty-eight thousand.

Eighty-eight thousand. Well, that will do. The suggestion is that you should have a meeting of eighty-eight thousand people in Crewe, say, from all parts of the line; that in the meantime the traffic is stopped, and that you should declare a general strike for three days.

I do not want to prevent these awful pictures being drawn, but I want to point out that it is perfectly ridiculous, because meetings of these societies constantly take place in accordance with the rules. It involves no general strike, no calling out of the military. The meeting takes place in accordance with the rules, and the meetings I refer to could take place with perfect ease.

We have not got this matter before the Committee. I think if it is desired to move it it should technically come as an Amendment to the Amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to put to the Committee the words he just now read.

I think, perhaps, it is better you should put the Amendment as it stands.

It might affect the votes of some hon. Members upon the first proposal whether the addition was made to it or not. Will the hon. and learned Member move his words as an addition to the Amendment?

I beg to move as an Amendment to the Amendment that these words be added: "If a majority of the workmen voting in the manner prescribed by the rules of the society so desire."

I am very glad the general assembly is gone, at any rate. We have now got something that is very vague, but it is practically the same thing. The hon. and learned Member says it is very easily done; but how? If you call a meeting of all the railway workers only a certain number go there. It is only a proportion—one, two, or three per cent.—who go, and you are getting the views only of those workmen who, first of all, can afford the expense to go up, and, secondly, get the assent of their foremen to go. That makes a very great difference. I do not suggest that foremen would only allow those people to go who were favourites of theirs, but there is always that suspicion attached to a case of that kind. A general meeting is practically an impossible thing, as I have pointed out. It was a ludicrous picture, because it is the only possible picture which will enable you to get a vote of the whole of the members. I cannot imagine why the hon. Member spoke against the Amendment for a ballot. I should like to get at the real reason.

I did not.

Then why should he press his Amendment?

Because I want the men to say what they wish themselves.

But how will they say it?

I have explained that they have already laid down rules as to how they shall vote. With those rules they are perfectly content. If they are not, they can alter them. I want the men to have power to vote as they like.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says they can alter the rules. But how? By ballot? Are they going to alter them as he explained to us? He said their method now is by a meeting. That is a perfect farce. I should like to know how. He tells me that it is their general rule at present. How is it their present rule? He has never yet pointed out to the Committee why he objects to the ballot. That does get the real views of the workmen, whereas this Amendment might not.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The reason for this is that the 10,000 limit was omitted yesterday, and this is therefore unnecessary.

Will the point of numbers arise when the new Clause comes to be considered. The new Clause does provide that there must be a certain number. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us an assurance now that when the new Clause comes to be considered, which provides that an approved society is to have at least 5,000 members—

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the new Clause, he will see there is a special exemption.

I was coming to that point. The special exemption makes it dependent absolutely on the will of the Insurance Commissioners. They may say in the case of one society that they do not consider that particular society a good one and they will not exempt it, but in the case of another society they may grant exemption. What I want to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to is, that if this Amendment is accepted and the new Clause passed as it is, it will be discretionary for the Insurance Commissioners to exempt or not from the limit of numbers in the case of these societies. I am not going to vote against this particular Amendment, but I raise the point now in order that it may be open when the question arises on the new Clause. I think the proper way of dealing with it will be to provide in the new Clause that these societies shall be absolutely exempt, but not at the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners.

The question of numbers is involved in this Amendment. Shall I be in order in referring to the differentiation in numbers of approved societies in the different countries? We had very little satisfaction from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department yesterday.

That does not arise here.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "fund" ["body administering the fund"] and to insert instead thereof the word "society." I think it is clear that this is a better word.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the word "fund" is right, because in some cases the employer is entitled to some representation on the committee administering the fund. He will not be entitled to any representation on the committee administering the benefit fund under this Act at all.

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to insert the words, "if the employer, in addition to the employer's contributions payable by him under this part of this Act, is responsible for the solvency of the fund or for the benefits payable there out or is liable to pay a substantial part of, or to make substantial contributions to, or substantially to supplement, the benefits payable out of the fund.

Provided that no such society as aforesaid shall be approved unless by its constitution it is prohibited so far as concerns the benefits under this Part of this Act from refusing to allow a member to transfer to another approved society and from refusing to allow a member who is discharged from or leaves the employment of the employer and is unable to obtain admission to another approved society on account of the state of his health to continue a member."

I only desire to say that I am grateful to the Government for having brought forward this Amendment in this form. It seems to me that the case of railway companies and other societies ought to be met. I am all the more grateful because it is substantially in the same form as the Amendment down in my own name.

I beg to move to add at the end of the proposed Amendment the words, "Provided also that its rules or constitution definitely provide that membership of such society should not be a condition of employment."

If we put a Clause in the Bill providing that an employer shall not make it a condition of employment that the employé should join a particular approved society that will not be within the scope of insurance, but it is perfectly clear that in an Insurance Bill you can enact as a condition of the approval of a society that the condition shall be put in. Under Section 1 of the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, it is already an offence for an employer to make it a condition of employment that a workman shall discontinue his membership of any society, or that any workman should not become a member of any friendly society other than a shop club or thrift club. That is already provided by the Shop Clubs Act, 1902. But I want to make it perfectly clear that there shall be set out on the face of the rules of any society to be approved under the Bill a distinct proviso that membership of the society is not to be made conditional as a condition of employment by the employer in whose works the society is formed. I have submitted the language of my proposed Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment in any form whatever which will really carry out the object I have, which is, I am sure, the same as that of the hon. Member (Mr. J. H. Thomas), to prevent any employer making it a condition of employment that a workman should join this particular approved society. I think the Law Officers would be compelled to say that you cannot alter the general law relating to shop clubs in an Insurance Act. I have the approval of a prominent lawyer who sits on the other side of the House. I think there is no doubt whatever that that is the case. I should be quite willing to put a Clause altering the general law into this Bill if it were possible, but it would be outside the scope, and the Chair very rightly rules it out. All we can do, therefore, is to go as far as possible in that direction by making it a condition of approval for approved societies that the society shall contain in its rules, for every man to see who joins it, a rule providing that the employer shall not make it a condition of employment that a man shall join a particular society. I think that object will be carried out by my Amendment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are advising him suggest any other form of Amendment I am quite willing to meet their views.

I am not certain whether the words even now proposed meet the particular point that we on these benches have in view. The position briefly is this. At present practically every railway company in the country has connected with its service, pension and superannuation funds, and in the majority of cases the companies make it a condition of service that the employés must join them. I myself was a member of a friendly society before I joined the railway service. On the very day that the railway company made me a fireman it was a condition before they registered me that I had to become a member of their mutual friendly society, the entrance fee of which was £1, and the contribution 1s. 4d. a week.

At what date did the hon. Member enter the service? Was it before or after 1902?

That does not touch the point in the least. This has been in operation since 1882 to my knowledge. The railway companies make it a condition of service. It is not a question of the rules of the society. It is not a question of members determining what the rules or what the benefits shall be, but it is purely a question of the railway companies themselves saying, "Unless you join our particular society we shall not employ you. That is the position in a nutshell, and the result is that there are many men to-day who have previously made provision, by joining a provident society, which is ample for them, but before the railway company will employ them it says, "No, you must join our society." That is not the worst. Notwithstanding the fact that he has already made provision, and that they have compelled him to join, in many cases, when he leaves the service, he is not allowed to take with him the contributions that he has paid. So that there shall be no mistake, here is an official circular issued by the London and North-Western Railway Company. They insisted on their dining saloon staff joining a particular society. It is quite immaterial what the name of the society is, but it is connected with the railway. Some time after they decided, without consulting the men, that they would not enforce, that condition, and they issued this circular to the staff.—

"It has been decided to cancel the regulations requiring the staff in the dining saloon department to join the provident and pension society, and to allow those of the present members who desire to do so to withdraw. No member withdrawing, however, will be entitled to any return in respect of premiums already paid."

Members on all sides of the House, no matter whether employers or employed, will readily agree with me that that is an unfair condition. There is one typical illustration of where they exacted the whole of the premium, and when I myself, after years of service, resigned engine-driving to become a Member of Parliament, they did not even allow me to take with me all the contributions that they had exacted from me. I have agreed from the first time that I saw this Bill that it would unduly affect these railway clubs, as we term them, and I felt that it would be a hardship unless some provision could be made that these clubs should get the benefit of this particular Bill. But concurrently with that I submit that before they should be allowed to have that benefit, before they should have an opportunity of enjoying the State grant no employer in the future ought to make it a condition of membership that a man shall belong to that particular society. If the words proposed by the hon. Member are intended to meet the point I have just raised, I am willing to accept them. We press our point seriously in the interest of the great mass of the railway men of this country. We press it also in the interest of the friendly societies. I am not sure that the Amendment of the hon. Member does meet the point, but having stated my view I hope the Committee generally will agree that there is a hard case in this matter which ought to be met.

That is exactly the case I have in view. I have heard of employers compelling men to join a particular shop club. I quite agree that this form of Amendment will not meet exactly the wish of the hon. Member opposite, but it does so as nearly as you can get it in the Insurance Bill.

I do not like the form of words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, and I think it is possible that we might find a better form. These are the words I suggest: "Provided also that no such society shall be approved if the employer makes membership of such society a condition of employment." Will the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment and accept these words?

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I am not quite sure that the words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get over the questions which might arise in the courts. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting as a condition of the approval of a particular society that an employer should abstain from doing something. I am not sure that the condition is one which can be imposed, and if it is done, I think it would probably lead to-trouble in the law courts. I do not want this Amendment, which is a very important one, to have a flaw in it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is importing a condition as regards the approval of a society which is not dependent on the society, but which is dependent on the action of an employer outside the society. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the responsibility for the form of his Amendment, I will accept it.

I beg to move, to insert at the end of paragraph (b)—

"(2) A member of a society which has been approved under this section on the termination of the employment in respect of which he has become a member of that society may subject to the consent of the Insurance Commissioners be required to transfer his membership to that society in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act."

This Amendment provides that an approved society should be able with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners to transfer a member if they think it advisable to do so. It is rather unfair that a society which has become an approved society should be obliged to retain a member who has ceased to live in the locality. A member of a London society might go voluntarily to Newcastle for higher wages. You cannot set up local committees to look after these people. How could they be supervised in regard to questions of malingering and arrears? I think it would be in the interest of the fund that these people should be transferred to other societies. The Commissioners would have to consider each case on its merits, and no transfer would be allowed without their consent.

I realise the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view. I sympathise with him, but I rather think the words do not quite carry out the purpose. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Amendment, I will consider the point. I do not care to accept the Amendment in this form.

Before it is withdrawn I may be allowed to refer to the object of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already provided that a man who cannot join another society should be entitled to remain on the fund. If he can join another, he ought to be enabled to go. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer find and move some words which will enable him to be transferred? I agree that these are not the best words.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the promise that I will see words are introduced for carrying out the object.

Before this Amendment is put I would like to know what is becoming an approved society? Is the State section becoming an approved society, or the whole superannuation fund under this Clause as it now is?

The State section.

So any other benefits which may be part of the same society are not part of the same fund for the purpose of approval.

With reference to the Clause as to the election of the committee of management by ballot, I would like to know if that applies only to the State section, and not to the committee of management of the fund itself?

You have a fund with which the State has no concern. You have a second fund with which the State is concerned. The rule governing that is that the Committee of that fund must be an approved society. You may have the same body of managers for both societies. In that case both societies will be elected by ballot.

I am very glad of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Clause as to electing the committee of management by ballot will only apply to the committee of management of the State fund, and does not interfere with the committee of management of the fund itself.

I do not see how that arises on the Motion before us.

I beg to move after the word "voting" to insert the words "by ballot."

This provides that the members will be free from undue interference when they are deciding the original main question as to whether they will accept the scheme at all.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) has handed in an Amendment at the end of the Clause which I have not had time to study. Therefore I cannot give a definite ruling as to whether it should come at the end or not. Perhaps the hon. Member will explain his Amendment and the Government will give me their assistance as to whether it is pertinent to this Clause, and whether these powers do not already exist.

The Sub-section which I have handed in raises a question to which I have alluded very briefly in an earlier part of our discussion. I am very sorry that I have had to give such short notice of it, but I thought I could have raised it on an Amendment at a later stage, and I found I could not. The Sub-section which I propose is:

"The Insurance Commissioners may on the application of a majority of members of the society supported by the employer or employers exempt from the operation of this part of the Act any society which might be approved under this Section, and this part of the Act shall not apply to such society or to any member of such society."

I move that in order to raise the case of workmen and employers who are partners in firms which give benefits that the workmen prefer to the benefits given by the Bill for the subscriptions or contributions which are lower than have to be paid under the Bill. If we take a concrete case it will enable the Committee to judge more clearly what I mean. I will take the case of the companies to which I have already alluded, the South Suburban Gas Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, who have funds of this kind. Deputations from these companies have come to see me and laid their case before me. They say that the present contribution is a sum which is lower than the sum they would have to contribute under the Bill. The employer guarantees the solvency of the fund and manages the fund free of expense. The benefits that the workmen derive are better in some respects than the benefits which the Bill will confer, that is to say, the payment during temporary sickness is larger than the payment under the Bill. It is only fair to say that the payment on account of disability under their fund is less than the payment under the Bill. I think that there is a time limit upon it. Of course there is no time limit upon the disability benefit under the Bill, but the men pointed out to me that their rate of continuous sickness is extremely low, and they would prefer to have the benefits which they have secured by their present contribution out of their own fund, and they asked me to do what I could to get them exempted from the operation to this Bill altogether. I pointed out to them, and they were quite alive to the fact, that supposing they were taken out of the operation of the Bill and a man wished to change his employment he would be in a difficulty. They said they are quite alive to that point and are prepared to meet it, and that if they are taken out of the operation of the Bill they ought to create their own transfer values, so that if any of their men seek to join another society they may take his place. In other words, he would have to become a new member and would have to pay a rate for his age. They say they are willing to create these transfer values, and they say they can do that by means of bringing the contribution which they now pay up to the level of the contribution which would be demanded of them by this Bill.

Now look at it from the employer's point of view. The employer guarantees the solvency of the fund and manages the fund free of expense to the working man and to the public servants. The employers I think have worked out that it costs them I think just under or just over 2d. per week per man. The employer is also willing to bring up his contribution, and neither of the parties to this fund want to save their own pockets from the point of view of contributions. The employer is willing to bring up his contribution to the same charge as would be placed upon him under the Bill. By means of that there would be created a fund out of which the transfer values could be fully secured, and out of which there would be made valuable contributions to sanatorium benefits and so forth. They point out to me that 20 per cent. of the present members are fifty years of age and upwards. Under their present scheme these men get 12s. a week in case of temporary sickness, and under the Bill they would only get 7s., falling to 5s. The men naturally take a gloomy view of the prospect which lies before them. All they ask is that if they can satisfy the Insurance Commissioners that the benefits of their present scheme are greater, are more satisfactory than the benefits to be conferred upon them by the Bill, they may be allowed to contract out of the Bill altogether. That is not an unreasonable demand.

The hon. Member handed to me this Amendment, and I told him that it would require consideration. When we reached this I had not had a moment to give that consideration. I do not complain in the least. I have now had time to consider the question, and it seems to me we really must be taken to have already settled the question of contracting out. For instance, on the first Clause we had an Amendment to leave out "shall" and insert "may." It was a similar point which was raised. The Committee decided to retain "shall" in the Bill. We have been discussing the Clause all the time on the assumption that employés and workmen's societies are to be included in the Bill. It is evident that it will be quite inconsistent with our previous decision to go on to consider at this stage whether certain groups should be left out absolutely from the Bill.

I do not wish in the least to controvert the proposition which you are laying down, Sir, but if this Amendment is ruled out does your ruling necessarily involve that a similar Amendment arising on Part II. of Schedule 1, providing for exemptions, would be out of order? When we were discussing "shall" and "may" it was said that special cases of exemption, such as the South Metropolitan Gas Company, could be dealt with when we came to deal with Part II. of Schedule 1. For instance, one class of employed exempt are teachers, and I understood that such cases as the Metropolitan Gas Company would be considered under the Schedule. I am not controverting your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is out of order now, but your decision seemed to go so far as to say that all these exemptions were already swept away, and I wish to know whether, under your ruling, we will be at liberty to deal with special exemptions?

Anything I have said applies only to Part I. of the Bill.

I was only referring to Part II. of Schedule 1, which relates to Part I. of the Bill, and provides for exemptions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Exceptions."] Yes, exceptions. The first exception has relation to Government employés or employés of municipal authorities who have already got certain funds. One Amendment which personally I should like to move would be to add to municipal authorities statutory authorities who have got similar powers to municipal authorities. I am not objecting to this Amendment being ruled out of order if, when we come to the exceptions under Part II. of Schedule 1, Amendments are not ruled out of order. When we dealt with "shall" and "may" on Clause 1, I think it was clearly understood that special cases like the South Metropolitan Gas Company should be open to discussion when we deal with Part II. of Schedule 1.

Upon the first Clause I moved an Amendment to exempt certain classes of contributors, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in resisting it, said if we decided it further discussion of exemptions would be prevented. The discussion, he said, could be renewed on the Schedule or new Clauses, and I withdrew my Amendment for the purpose of leaving the discussion open.

May I point out that Amendments to the Schedule have been put down on the assumption that the hon. Member states?

I think the hon. Member is quite correct, that Part II. of the Schedule is the proper place to raise questions of this kind, bait I do not rule on this Amendment in regard to those questions generally.

May I explain that I raise the question now lest I should be told, when we come to the Schedule, that I had not taken this opportunity.

I want to get a statement from the Government as to those societies which have a superannuation fund or other funds. When we come to the committee of management and the benefits under the Act, I think the Committee would be quite right if they insisted that the committee of management should be appointed by ballot of the men. The point about which I want to ask an assurance from the Home Secretary is this, that when this Amendment has been carried providing that by the constitution of the society the committee of management shall be elected by ballot, that that only applies to the committee of management of the benefits under the Act, and it does not apply to the committee of management of the other fund. In other words, that it applies to the State benefits, and not to the benefits between employer and employed.

I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. He accused me just now that I objected to this Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton because I objected to the ballot. I wanted to tell him, and as I cannot tell him I will tell the Home Secretary in his absence, that that is perfectly unfounded. I can assure the Home Secretary that I am a much better friend of the ballot than the Chancellor himself. I should like him to have a ballot of the people or a referendum, to which I shall not refer further, as it would be out of order, but I am glad to give the Chancellor the assurance that in my opposition to the Amendment I am not objecting to the ballot in any shape or form. I agree it is the right of the workmen to decide in what manner they will select their committee of management of the fund itself, but I do hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell me that it is not the intention of the Government, by a side wind, as it were, and in a Clause simply and solely providing the conditions under which those societies may become approved 'Societies, to interfere with the mode by which the workmen have already decided by their rules to appoint their committee of management of the fund itself. It might be a very serious matter for the workmen to have a ballot in appointing the committee of management, and might cause great expense. Supposing the society has, as many of them have, 20,000 members situated in different parts of a railway system, the way in which they work now is that they select men in their districts in whom they have confidence to go and represent their views and vote for the committee of management. In that way they get a committee of management which is perfectly satisfactory to the men. If the danger I apprehend is a real one, then it would mean that on every occasion when the society of 20,000 men have to elect an officer, a committee man, or anyone else, they will have to have a ballot over the 20,000 men, which I think would mean a very large cost, and I think would be a very unfair burden to throw on them. I agree that the referendum is excellent in its proper place, but I think that in this connection it would throw a cost on the workmen which they do not want to bear and which I think they ought not to be called on to bear.

I think I can reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman very shortly. I understand he is stating the case in which there is the same body of management for the funds which come under the provisions of the Bill, and for the funds already in existence, and which do not come under the provisions of the Bill.

May or may not.

Supposing there is the case of one committee of management for both?

I want to take the case of one committee of management for both, and also the case where there are two.

I will take the case of one fund with the committee of management, part of the fund coming under the provision of the Bill, and part not coming under them. In such a case the committee of management under the Bill will be elected by ballot. If, on the contrary, you have in the same service, in a railway company or any private firm, two wholly distinct funds, one being a fund of an approved society under the Bill and the other being a totally distinct fund with a separate body of management dealing with quite separate matters such as superannuation or other benefits not being compulsory benefits laid down by the Bill, in that case it is quite obvious that the fund which relates to the provisions of the Bill would be managed by a committee of management elected by ballot, and the other fund may be administered by a body of management elected as the rules of the society or body might approve. There is no intention to force on any society which does not come under the provisions of the Act, and has got nothing to do with the benefits of the Act, rules other than the rules which they may already have, but if the society comes under the Bill as a recognised approved society, then its body of management under this Clause must be elected by ballot. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are occasions when a universal ballot might be an unnecessary expense. He took the case of the appointment of a particular officer, and asked would it be necessary or desirable to put the society to a universal ballot an the selection of a minor officer My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, stated it would require consideration, but on the question of the election of the committee of management that that must undoubtedly be by ballot. Whether or not officers should be elected by ballot he stated would be the subject of further inquiry by the Government, and my right hon. Friend promised to reconsider that particular part of the Amendment on the Report stage. So far as the committee of management is concerned, which is substantially the management, it is quite clear the election will be in every case by ballot.

I am very much indebted to the Home Secretary for the very clear explanation he has given on perhaps a rather doubtful point. I hope the Committee will allow me, as it is a very important matter to me, to say one or two words on the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I happen to be chairman of the Superannuation Committee of the Great Northern Railway Company, and I was afraid, listening to the statements of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, that that superannuation fund, which has nothing whatever to do with sickness, except where a man becomes disabled and is pensioned, but in other instances has nothing to do with sickness, that that might be brought in under management elected by ballot. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that that will not arise—that is, that this fund, which only deals with pensions, will be left in exactly the same position as it is now, unless the managers of the fund go to the Insurance Commissioners to make arrangements with them. We have a sickness fund entirely managed by the men; the directors have nothing to do with it beyond paying a certain contribution. That fund, I presume, can come in if they desire, but even in that case there would be no compulsion on members of that fund to become an approved society. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is very clear. I think I have understood it, and I am much obliged to him as I wanted the point made clear.

I understand the case put by the hon. Baronet to be one in which there are two distinct funds under two separate bodies of management. In such a case as that, one fund which had no functions at all under this Bill, and would not take advantage of the provisions of Clause 19, would not be an approved society, and therefore would remain under its own management.

There are two points I desire to raise in connection with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer embodying the following words:—

"Provided that no such society as aforesaid shall be approved unless by its constitution it is prohibited so far as concerns the benefits under this part of this Act from refusing to allow a member to transfer to another approved society and from refusing to allow a member who is discharged from or leaves the employment of the employer and is unable to obtain admission to another approved society on account of the state of his health to continue a member."

I am in warm agreement with the general purport of those words, but two difficulties may possibly arise. First, I would ask the Government to consider whether any time limit should be introduced. A man may join for a week or two and then leave, and I think under the words as they stand there might be some difficulty with regard to his continuance. As to the second point, by the words of the Amendment the privilege of the employer to appoint one-fourth of the committee applies only to societies consisting of persons entitled to rights in the superannuation fund. This Amendment compels the society to retain persons who have left the service of the employer, but such persons will in the vast majority of cases have ceased to have any interest in the superannuation fund. I think, therefore, that words will be needed to make sure that the society can still be approved.

Under this Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appears that the continued insurance of a large body of persons will depend upon the security afforded by the employer's solvency and not, as in other cases, on the security afforded by the State scheme. Under the Amendment as worded, if an employer goes out of business I imagine that his responsibility under this Amendment will continue to exist. But suppose the business ceases to exist and the employer becomes insolvent, the whole security afforded by his undertaking ceases. What then becomes of the men insured under this Clause? There will be no great attraction after, say, the first thirteen or fourteen years to induce ordinary approved societies to accept these men in large bodies, even making due allowance for old age not being taken into consideration. They will have credited to them no accumulations; there will be nothing credited to them except the State contribution, whatever that may be. Have the Government considered what will happen to the persons under this Clause, whose insurance is taken out of the general scheme, if the business comes to an end and the employer is found to be in a condition of insolvency, and unable to afford any security?

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), who has a Motion on the Paper, I desire to oppose this Clause altogether. Many of the Amendments which have been discussed have been devoted to securing that the workman shall not be in any way worsened in his employment by membership of these societies, and that the societies shall be subject to democratic control. I believe that all those Amendments will prove to be entirely illusory. Take, for instance, the condition that a man shall not have imposed upon him as a condition of employment membership of one of these shop clubs. It is all very well to put that on paper, but those who have had experience of workshops know that such provisions on paper are absolutely no good when face to face with the facts. Take a shop where there are 200 or 300 men employed and one of these shop clubs exists. There may be a legal prohibition of the kind suggested, but there are such things as foremen in workshops and a sort of atmosphere in which a man must live and work. If there is a shop club, and it is the desire of the employer or foreman that he should be a member of it, the workman very soon finds that if he does not join he is not wanted in that particular shop, and on some plea or another he has to go. No doubt the Amendments have been put forward perfectly sincerely, but I think they will fail in their object. Other Amendments which have been adopted have for their object not only the perpetuation of shop clubs but their encouragement. I am against shop clubs altogether; therefore I oppose this Clause lock, stock, and barrel. It cuts into the principle of the mobility of labour. I make no charge against employers in this respect. Many of them formed shop clubs at a time when there was no provision made for workmen in case of sickness, when possibly trade unionism was in its infancy, and there was no provision of the kind now made by trade unions. But we have passed that stage. Workmen have now formed their own trade unions or friendly societies. Trade unions, in addition to looking after the workmen's interests in an industrial sense, in many cases look after their members in the event of sickness and unemployment. Therefore, any legitimate need for shop clubs that there may have been in times gone by has now very largely disappeared, and is still further diminishing. Apart, however, from those employers which have formed shops clubs from a legitimate desire to help their workmen to tide over special periods of difficulty, there are many other cases of shops clubs which have been formed by employers for the express and deliberate purpose of keeping all their workmen from association with their fellow-workmen in other workshops.

These clubs are formed with the express and deliberate intention of breaking up the solidarity of labour, of interfering with the mobility of labour, of preventing men from shifting freely from one workshop to another, and therefore of preventing the men doing what they may in a case of industrial warfare for the furtherance and protection of their own interests. When workmen are free to join workmen's associations all over the country they can and will do so. For my part I am against all these Amendments, which have for their object not only the perpetuation of the shops clubs which now exist, but the setting up of further shops clubs in the future, as will be the case under this Bill. We as trade unionists could not be otherwise. It will be expected of us outside. I am casting no aspersions on certain employers who perfectly legitimately have set up shops clubs, but as a matter of principle I take this stand, and in order to maintain the right of the men to shift about from place to place freely, unhindered by being locked-up in any particular place by a shops club, to maintain the right of the men to form associations covering not only a few shops but all shops, if necessary, in their particular industries. We as trade unionists are called upon to maintain that right, and to urge that these shops clubs should not be encouraged to break into that right. I have much pleasure in moving that the whole of this Clause should be deleted from the Bill.

I only want to point out that I should have thought some of the objections which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken entertains in regard to this Clause might have been removed by the reflection that it is a purely voluntary matter. The Clause does not compel these shops clubs to become approved societies. It is left entirely to the decision of the men themselves. If the men themselves were satisfied enough with the provisions as to make the society to which they now belong an approved society, I should have thought it certainly right that they should have the opportunity of doing so.

I am bound to say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes), that whilst I sympathise very much with his arguments as to the desirability of doing everything which would promote the mobility of labour, I really think he has a little misunderstood the purport of this Clause. He rightly says that the shops clubs in themselves do tend to root the men to the employment in which they are engaged. The reason for that is that a member of an existing shops club, if he leaves his employment, loses all the benefit then and in future which he would receive as a member of that club. On that ground my hon. Friend proposes to vote against this Clause. What does the Clause do? So far from the Clause accentuating and extending the evil to which my hon. Friend refers, it goes a great way towards removing it. It compels, as a condition of recognition, that very mobility which my hon. Friend desires.

I say it is illusory.

Not at all. For the first time it is made a condition of the recognition of an approved society that every member of such society may carry his benefits with him if he wishes to join another society. That is to say, under this Clause the very object which my hon. Friend desires is attained. Under this Clause the workman carries the benefits of the shops club with him. Therefore, my hon. Friend's argument, instead of being an argument against the Clause, is an argument in favour of it. With regard to another point put to me, in the absence of the Attorney-General I rather agree with the hon. Member that the words of the Amendment referred to are a little bit difficult to follow. Let me also say, in answer to the hon. Member opposite, that what the effect of this Clause will be seems to have been overlooked.

The effect of the Clause is to convert existing societies into approved societies at the discretion of the members, notwithstanding that these societies will not conform to the other rules of the Bill-That is to say, notwithstanding the fact that the employer retains special rights in regard to management. In return for these special rights, the employer is bound to make a special contribution over and above his ordinary contribution under the Bill. With that difference, and that difference only, this kind of approved society in every other respect conforms to the ordinary provisions of the Bill. A member of such approved society, if he leaves that society, will carry with him his actuarial reserves. He can join any other society. My hon. Friend says "yes, but supposing he leaves his society and leaves his employer, and does not join another society because he is out of work?" He will then remain a member of his old approved society, the shops club which is now an approved society. But is it right that he should remain for ever a member of such society, although his employer and he himself will be contributing nothing to it? Well, he would not remain for ever a member; he would come under the ordinary regulations governing ordinary members of ordinary approved societies.

After he had been in arrears first of all for thirteen weeks and then for twenty-six weeks, he would drop out of the benefits of membership just as any other member of any ordinary approved society. But he would retain his rights, although he might have been discharged from employment on account of slackness or through no fault of his own. He would retain his ordinary rights to remain a member of that particular approved society just as any other compulsory contributor retains his rights to remain a member of his approved society. These societies when they are recognised as approved societies will in every respect come under the ordinary provisions governing other approved societies, with the exception only in regard to the management and the other exceptions that are contained in this Clause itself. As to the insolvency point, here again the general solvency of an approved society will be secured just as the general solvency, under the Bill, of every other society is secured. The employer will be bound to pay 3d., the workman 4d., and the State 2d., and the ordinary rule governing societies will govern this society. The employer will be personally liable for the solvency of the society, in addition to the ordinary guarantee of having inspection of accounts by the Government actuaries. The employer will also be liable for the solvency of the society in respect of such additional benefits as he promises to give to the society. If the employer fails, that liability will also fail, but the society will not fail in its benefits under the Bill.

But surely the maintenance of the society depends mainly upon the financial support promised by the employer.

Oh, no. It will get its 4d. from the workman, 3d from the employer, 2d. from the State, and the ordinary conditions of inspection will apply to these societies just the same as to other societies.

My whole point is this. Supposing the employer himself becomes bankrupt the society must necessarily also become impossible of maintenance.

The society cannot be continued in its then existing form, but the necessary reserve appropriate to the ordinary conditions of ordinary approved societies will be in existence. The Government inspection of the accounts will take care to see that the ordinary reserves are maintained intact, and all the members of the society on the liquidation of the business of the employer will have their ordinary reserves, appropriate to the conditions of ordinary societies, intact, and will be able to carry their reserves to another society.

I think the point is perfectly clear. What would happen is that the extra liability of the employer, if he could not carry it out, if he became bankrupt, would disappear; but the ordinary conditions would remain, and the only thing that would be changed would be the management. The society would lose the additional guarantee it had, namely, the guarantee of the employer, but otherwise it would be in the position of any other society. The statement made by the Home Secretary has completely demolished the reasons for opposing this Clause, because the Home Secretary has shown that any workman getting employment where a shops club was in existence and joining that shops club would not be injured in any way if he afterwards left the service of that employer and went to the service of another employer.

From my point of view that does not affect my argument in the least. The employer roots the man in his shop by giving him special advantages over and above any in this Bill. The workman, if he leaves, does not carry these away with him to another workshop. All he will have then is what is provided in the Bill. The employer roots him in the shop by giving him something over and above these.

I think the hon. Gentleman has rather shifted his ground. He now says there will be additional benefits accruing to the man in the shops club over and above those contained in the Bill, and that if he leaves he would lose those benefits. That was not the argument that he brought forward first, although there may be something in it. In addition to that this Clause is voluntary, on which account I like it better than a compulsory Clause. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is of the same view. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman something that he seems to have forgotten. Trade unions can become approved societies, and, if that is so, I want to know why trade unions should become approved societies and shops clubs should not. I do not know why the working classes should object to shops clubs becoming approved societies. If trade unions can become approved societies shops clubs should also be able to become approved societies. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. His idea of fairness and mine differ. His idea of fairness is that the advantage should be all on his side and none upon the other. My idea is that both should be treated the same.

The employers' shops clubs can never be democratically controlled whereas the trade unions can.

The Amendments moved, which, as I understand them, provided for representation by the men by ballot. If that is so the argument of the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. The hon. Member, if he will allow me to say so, and I do not say it in any offensive sense, desires that there should be only one body which a man can join, and that is the trade union. He wants to use that as a lever. I shall never be a party to assisting that spirit. The workman, like everybody else, should be free to join any society he likes, and therefore,

I do not wish to object to the words being left out, but I want to suggest a drafting Amendment, and if I am permitted to do so now it will give the Government a moment to consider it. I recognise that it would be more strictly in order to postpone my observations until the words are actually moved to be inserted. The words proposed read, "Provided that no society shall be required to give any security which proves." I suggest to the Government that the words should read "Provided that no security shall be required from any society which proves, etc." I think that would get over the difficulty.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "Society shall be required to give any security" and to insert instead thereof, "security shall be required from any society."

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).

The Amendment refers especially to trade unions. It is provided that security may be asked from branches, but we think where you have branches and yet a centralised financial management it would be far better if you had a central security for the good behaviour and financial soundness of the branches. That is the object we have in mind, and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in sympathy with us. Make the central security as complete as you like, and be quite certain it covers all the branch operations. If that is done, we think it is quite unnecessary to ask the branches for security.

The Government have considered the point raised by my hon. Friend, and they are quite clear that "branches" here refers to registered branches, and branches of trade unions would not come under that definition. If that is not sufficiently clear they are quite prepared to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, and make it clear on the Report stage.

Would you put in the word "registered"?

I take it that with an equalised society only a central guarantee would be necessary?

Might I point out an example? The society I represent has something like 170 or 180 branches. The funds are centralised, and, although the branches are scattered over the length and breadth of England, the west of Scotland, the whole of South Wales and Monmouthshire, yet the trustees of all the branches are the central trustees.

I am not quite sure I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Sheffield.

The case I have in mind is that of an equalised society, like the Sheffield Druids, with branches which are equalised. In a case like that, will one guarantee on the part of the governing body be considered sufficient or will separate guarantees be required from the branches?

I should want to know more about it before I could give a definite answer. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Hodge) the liability is a centralised one. Where the liability is that of the branches, there must be some security on the part of those who are liable.

I am afraid the suggestion to put in the word "registered" will not do, because we use the word "branch" right through with a single meaning. We will, however, consider it again, and, if we think there is any doubt at all about it, we will introduce words which will make the matter more clear.

The matter requires a little more consideration than the Government have yet been able to give to it. What is wanted is that security should be given by the person or body who is good for the security, and who can be made to pay if there is any default or anything of that kind.

He must be liable.

We can make him liable or he can make himself liable. As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must be primarily liable under the Bill. I do not think that is necessary at all. If a central body, which is substantial and as to the credit of which there is no doubt, undertakes for reasons which we need not go into and which do not concern us, to give security for the debts of its branches, even although there is no original liability on the part of that central body, there is no reason why we should not accept that security. It might be a convenience to the branches. The central body will not be liable, and cannot be liable without their own consent and goodwill. They cannot assume liability except at the request and by arrangement with the branches, but, if it is more convenient that some central body not primarily liable for the branches, should give a common security for all the branches, or for any of the branches, and is willing to do so, and can satisfy the Commissioners that the security is good, I do not think there is any reason why we should step in by Statute and prevent it.

It does not say the security should be given by the branches, but in respect of the branches, so that a central body could give security under this Sub-section.

If that be a true interpretation of the Sub-section, I should have thought it scarcely necessary to amend it at all. If it does require amendment, then I want to be sure it is wide enough to cover such cases as I have suggested.

I would like to put one important point, namely, on the question of local management. If you allow a society highly centralised to take upon itself these matters by giving security for all branches, it will dictate terms, and some of those branches might find themselves deprived of much local autonomy, as the price of the central body guaranteeing them. I mention it to be borne in mind.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).

I am pleased to see the Government are going so far to assist us in viscerating this obnoxious Clause as to accept Amendments to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), and 4. I hope they will also agree to omit Subsection (1), which is perhaps the most obnoxious of all. We have been told the friendly societies are to continue as great democratic bodies. If this Sub-section were to remain in they would be robbed of the last vestige of democratic character. They would become nothing but subject to the bureaucratic dictation of the Insurance Commissioners. The Commissioners, under this Clause, are given power practically to draw up the rules for these societies. If this Sub-section passed into law it would not lie any longer with the societies to draw up their own rules. There would not be a single one of their rules about which the Insurance Commissioners could not legitimately say, "This does not satisfy us." They might find as the result of experience that certain kinds of rules have proved more satisfactory than others. They could then go to any society which applies for registration and say, "The rules which you present we do not consider as satisfactory for the government of your society," and there is no authority in the land which could interfere in that absolute power of dictation as to what the rules should be, as regards the government of a society and its branches, and as regards the termination of disputes.

Some societies may like to have disputes settled in one way and others in another way, but it would under this Clause rest entirely with the Insurance Commissioners to say whether they considered it satisfactory or not. I say that the societies ought to be able to determine for themselves how they would like to settle disputes. Then again, with regard to the administration of benefits, the rules must be satisfactory to the Commissioners. As to the keeping of proper books of account, that part of it I do not object to, but it is unnecessary, because it is covered by Clause 28, which provides for that, and similarly with regard to Sub-section (e). Are the societies in future to be able to frame their own rules, or are they to be framed by the Insurance Commissioners. If they are to have the power of framing their own rules, then this Clause either ought to go or to be considerably modified. If the Government can suggest any modification which makes the powers of the Commissioners less stringent, I am perfectly willing to consider that as an alternative to my Amendment, but as the Clause stands it gives the Commissioners power of saying with regard to any single rule "we do not consider it satisfactory, and therefore you must alter it. If you do not, none of your members will have the benefits of the Act."

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has seriously exaggerated the effect of this. What does it mean? You have got ten millions of people coming in. I have no doubt there will be a good many new societies started; at any rate, there will be a good many new sections of old societies. They must have fresh rules, and somebody has got to approve them. Who is it? At present it is the Registrar of Friendly Societies. What is proposed here is that where you have got rules for the administration of funds under this Act the Insurance Commissioners shall approve those rules.

The Registrar of Friendly Societies cannot refuse to approve rules if they deal with certain matters specifically set out in the Act.

It is the same here. What does this Bill do? For the first time it proposes that there shall be a considerable subsidy from the State. In addition to that, it levies 3d a week from the employers compulsorily. There is a sum varying from fifteen to seventeen millions of money a year which is not contributed by the members of these societies, but which is handed over to these societies for the purpose of distribution. Surely the Insurance Commissioners, as representing the Government, or some other body representing the Government, ought to have the power of saying what the rules are under which you distribute those funds. The hon. Gentleman says that, in his judgment, these societies ought to be allowed to frame their own rules without any interference at all. Surely that is not a condition which he can support upon reflection. I think he knows enough about the Bill and is far enough informed to realise that he went too far when he laid down that proposition. After all, the Commissioners can only exercise their control within the limitations already prescribed by the Act. In Clause 18 you have a considerable number of conditions, which are directions to the Commissioners in the framing of the rules. For instance, these rules will provide for self-government, and the self-government must be real. There are all sorts of conditions of that character. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the Insurance Commissioners would have absolute power without there being any control over them. Of course they are all subject to the control of Parliament, and if they exercise their powers wrongly, the hon. and learned Gentleman and others will have the power to call the attention of Parliament to the matter. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the conditions I think he will find that they are very desirable indeed. For instance, with regard to keeping of proper books of account, it is of primary importance that there should be rules dealing with that, and who but the Insurance Commissioners, who are responsible to the Government, not only for seeing that the money is properly expended, but that it is properly accounted for, should have the making of those rules. I think we have met the hon. Member very fairly by proposing the omission of Sub-section (2), and I hope he will withdraw his opposition to this Sub-section.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right the societies must necessarily put up with a degree of supervision and control they have not hitherto experienced, and for which there has been no reason to impose it upon them. It seems to me as we get along with this Bill that it becomes apparent that the powers of these Insurance Commissioners are going to be very wide, and are going to touch all kinds of interests, in all sorts of places, and at all sorts of times. It is one more illustration of the extent to which we are now making the life of the country—I am not saying this critically, because it is inevitable in the circumstances of legislation—much more subject to officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, and I daresay it has been said in similar circumstances from that bench, that all these officials are not irresponsible people who cannot be touched, but that you can always haul them before the House of Commons. Theoretically I suppose we can.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what happened this Session when he hauled an official over the coals? When I inquired into the matter he knows what happened.

I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dispute the first half of my statement, which was that he held men responsible to the House of Commons theoretically. I had not finished my sentence, and if I had been allowed to do so I do not think there would have been a great deal of difference between us. Theoretically you can hold a man responsible; sometimes you can in practice. You can bring every case which appears on the face of it to be a gross abuse touching large public matters before the House. You can get the attention of the House and you can find an opportunity upon which it is in order to get the attention of the House, but we all know there are minor matters, which very likely would not be approved by the House if they came before them, which very often do not come before the House at all, or, if they do come before the House, do so at such a time that the House gives no attention to them. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions and to give him notice of another which I presume he would not be ready to answer without notice. What will be the opportunity of the House for reviewing the action of these Commissioners if they should wish to do so? What Minister is it intended should be responsible to the House or what office? The question to which I do not expect an answer now, but to which the Committee ought to have an answer in the course of the next few days, at any rate before we come to Clause 41, which is the enacting Clause establishing the Commissioners whom we have not yet set up. I think it would be in accordance with precedent that when we come to that Clause the Government should be in a position to state who are the gentlemen to whom they propose in the first instance to entrust these powers. It would be perfectly unreasonable to ask for an answer to that question now, but I take the opportunity of giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice of it, and I think the Committee ought to have the information before they deal with Clause 41.

I gladly answer the questions put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. There must be at any rate two opportunities of challenging the action of the Insurance Commissioners. One is on the Vote, which will be an annual Vote, for the contribution of the State, and the other will be on the Vote for the salary of the Minister who is in charge. With regard to the last question the right hon. Gentleman put to me, I doubt whether it would be possible for me before we reach Clause 41 to give the names of the Commissioners. I hope to give the House the information before the Bill leaves the House. Obviously the character of the Commissioners is a very vital matter to the success of the scheme, and I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman will not press us to come to too hasty a decision as to the persons who are to consitute the Commissioners. We will do our best to give any information to the House before the Bill passes from it, but if we fail I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not in the interests of the public to come to too hasty a conclusion. It is a difficult matter to secure the very best men in a great hurry. That is as far as I can go now.

I think having the information before the Bill leaves the House is not of much use. We really want to know the names of the men at some stage when we can review their powers in the light of the persons who are chosen. That is to say, that what has led to this demand on previous occasions—without making any unfair aspersions on anybody—is that when you are giving great powers to a new body the House likes to be assured before it actually confers those powers that the people first chosen are people who command its respect, and may be safely entrusted with them. I should certainly not press the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Committee stage, but I think that there are precedents for asking him to give the names between the Committee and the Report stage. I was under the impression that some at least of the gentleman had been chosen already.

I have no objection to the Chancellor giving the names of the Commissioners at whatever time he finds it convenient to do so. I only rise to submit my objection to the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) for giving the names of the Commissioners under an Act of Parliament. If we are to discuss legislation having in mind the Commissioners or the persons to be appointed, either now or in the future, it would be a very dangerous thing. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself has given that matter full consideration, for after his long experience I should have thought he would be the last Member of the House to suggest it. Surely legislation of this wide character cannot depend on the individuals who are appointed.

It has always been done.

I do not think it has ever been done before. I have watched legislation outside and inside the House for a good many years, and I have never known the merits of a Government Bill discussed on the question of who should be appointed to any of the offices under the Bill. If that is the case we must consider who are to be the subsequent officials. It is a very dangerous suggestion, although I have no objection to the names being given for any other reason.

My recollection is entirely different to that of the hon. Gentleman. It is that we have always during some stage of a Bill, and not at too late a stage, when an important Bill of this kind is before the House and Commissioners are to be chosen, had the names given to us. I cannot give instances at the moment, but there passes through my mind several instances where a request has been made that the names of the Commissioners shall be given, and it has always been granted. Whether or not the proper time to do that is on the Committee stage, I do not know. There may be something in what the right hon. Gentleman says, that these are important functions, and that time must be taken to choose the right men. Only yesterday, or the day before, he said the Bill had been six months before the House of Commons, therefore he has already had six months to consider the names of these people, and I rather agree with my right hon. Friend that, at any rate at the commencement of the Report stage, the names should be given. The object, as far as I understand, of giving the names of the important officials who are going to carry out the work which is outlined in this Bill is to let the House know before they pass a Bill how far they can trust the people with the important functions which are to be carried out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] The hon. Gentleman is a man of business. If he goes into partnership with someone else and is proposing to appoint a manager to an important branch, does not he consult the people with whom he will be in partnership as to who is to have the management of the important branch? It is most essential that we should know who these people are going to be. I believe it has always been done in the past, and I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate if he finds I am correct in my statement, will comply with the usages which have always been complied with.

I ought to point out that the discussion which has just taken place ought to come really on Clause 41—the appointment of the Insurance Commissioners. We cannot go any further at the present stage.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it as a reason for not accepting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend that it was necessary, inasmuch as the State and other persons contributed considerable funds, that the State should have control. If that is so, why is the Clause limited to a society having branches?

Drafting words are to be inserted in order to make it apply also to societies without branches.

That meets my objection.

I quite see the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying it is necessary that with regard to the administration of duties of an approved society under this Act, there must be State control, but I would call attention to the extraordinary width of the words of paragraph (a), "the government of the society and its branches." These words go far beyond the administration of the duties of an approved society, and they would give power to the Insurance Commissioners practically to upset the government of any society, possibly for reasons which do not appear on the surface. They have the power of telling any society, "You must entirely change your rules. Not merely must you have rules which we can approve for the administration of your duties under this Act, but your whole constitution must be reorganised." I understand the Ancient Order of Hibernians will become an approved society under this Act. Under these words of paragraph (a) it would be perfectly competent for anti-Irish Insurance Commissioners to insist upon rules, not merely with regard to the administration of benefits under the Act, but with regard to the constitution of the society, which would entirely put a spoke in its beneficent operations. That is one example, and I think Members below the Gangway might see that the position of trade unions under these words might become very precarious. It goes far beyond anything that is necessary to carry on the operations of this Act. It gives a drastic and arbitrary power to Insurance Commissioners to upset the constitution of any society which, with regard to part of its work, is an approved society under this Act. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would not be wise in pressing for the whole of Sub-section (1) to come out, but if no one else does it, I shall move the omission of paragraph (a).

If the omission of paragraph (a) is to be moved, I will withdraw.

I beg to move, after the word "Commissioners" ["to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners"], to insert the words "for the government of the society, and, if a society with branches."

I do not quite understand how (a) will read with this. Is this in substitution for (a)?

It reads on before you get to (a) so as to make it clear that the provisions apply to a society with branches and to a society without branches. There are subsequent provisions which make quite clear what is to be done by the society with branches. This is necessitated by our having to move later on to omit Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4).

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read out the whole of the first three lines as they will read with his Amendment?

"Every approved society shall make proper provision by rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for the government of the society, and if a society with branches."

Then this really is (a), and it is an extremely objectionable provision, because it puts the whole government of these societies, of whatever kind, whether purely philanthropic, semi-political, semi-religious, or denominational, or any other, entirely at the mercy of the Insurance Commissioners. They, in virtue of their powers to make rules for the administration of this Act, have the power in all these institutions to interfere with the constitution of the society generally. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] They have indeed. These powers sometimes will destroy some insurance society or some benefit society. I have known it happen through an official refusing leave, off his own bat and by laying down impossible conditions. This is putting an approved society absolutely within the power of the Insurance Commissioners. I know that is not the intention, but it is really the effect of the words of the Amendment.

How far do the Government intend that the Commissioners should go in this matter? Do they mean the Commissioners to have power to approve or to veto any rule unconnected with this Bill? Of course, a society must have a connection with the Bill—that is to say, a society must desire to become an approved society. But take the case of a society which, desiring to become an approved society, has to make regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of this Bill, while it has other rules and regulations for purposes of the society altogether outside of this Bill. Are the rules of the society, as a whole, to be submitted to the Insurance Commissioners? Are the Commissioners to have power because a society deals with the Bill, not merely to insist upon proper regulations for those purposes, but also to veto any rule made by a society for purposes wholly unconcerned with the Bill if the rule displease them?

The object of this Amendment is to make clear that the Insurance Commissioners shall have power to approve of the rules which relate to the purposes of the Bill, and that is shown by subsequent Clauses on particular points. It does not propose that they should interfere with matters which do not in any way concern the Insurance Commissioners. It is to enable them to deal with the particular scheme of an approved society which comes before them with rules affecting the scheme.

I am sure that the House gladly accepts the interpretation put on the words of the Amendment by the Attorney-General, but he does not know that the courts would accept that interpretation. I submit to the Government that these words are far too wide. I submit that the attention of the Committee and particularly of hon. Members opposite below the Gangway should be directed to the form of the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James-Hope) has pointed out that under this Amendment there is no trade union or friendly society which will not be obliged to submit every rule which deals with the government of the society and its branches to this somewhat bureaucratic body, the Insurance Commissioners. I cannot believe that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appreciate that. It is not just those rules which may deal with the desire of the various societies to become approved societies, and to obtain the benefit of the Act which are to be submitted, but every rule that deals with the government of a society must be submitted to the Commissioners, who may or may not accept them as they like. It may be said that we may raise in this House the question of the exercise of the discretion of the Commissioners. If that were done, I do not think it would be a very illuminating Debate. We might raise a question in relation to the discretion or the behaviour of an individual, but it would not be so simple a matter to raise a question as to the exercise of the discretion of the Commissioners. We would have to go into the whole question of their administration, and show that they were abusing some particular rule. I am sure if the Attorney-General will give the House an undertaking that he will reconsider the matter and try to find words to be inserted in the Clause which will reflect the intention which he has stated, the Committee would accept his promise.

As I read the Clause, I take it to mean that the Insurance Commissioners have to have rules made to their satisfaction for carrying out the purposes of the Bill. I do not know that any trade union is particularly desirous of concealing its rules from the registrar. The rules receive the imprimatur of the registrar, and the Insurance Commissioners will not be able to override the rules which he has sanctioned. I think this Clause applies only to the administration of the work, and trade unions have nothing to fear from it.

There is no doubt as to what is intended, but I think that possibly the words might be narrowed a little. I think it might be possible to give a wider construction to these words than is intended, and it is quite reasonable to ask that we should reconsider them with the view of introducing some words which will make quite clear what the intention of the Government is. I am willing to insert in the Clause words which will make clear the intention of the Government.

I would suggest the insertion of the following words: "in respect of the discharge of its duties and liabilities under this Act."

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "benefits," to insert the words "either by itself or."

The object of this Amendment is to enable the approved society to pool the maternity benefit. That is to say, to enable the approved society to take the maternity benefit off the shoulders of the branches. The Government actuaries based their calculations, on the general average birth rate throughout the country, but, as hon. Members know, the birth rate varies enormously in different parts of the country. In Durham it is 33 per thousand, in Nottingham 30, in Northamptonshire 20, and in Sussex 19 per thousand. Therefore, it is quite clear that in some districts where there is a high birthrate branches would be penalised very heavily, while in those localities with a low birth rate they would be able to get greater subsidies. It is quite possible, although each branch is going to hand over half its surplus in the ordinary way to make up the deficiencies of other branches, there will not be enough of these half surpluses to go round to make up all the deficiencies. I have been in communication with a gentleman whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has called the greatest friendly society actuary in the world, Mr. Watson, the actuary of the Manchester Unity. He feels very strongly in favour of this Amendment, and he has pointed out to me that already it is the custom of a great many of the affiliated orders to pool their funeral benefits. It is a system which they are quite accustomed to. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment from an administrative point of view it would be practicable and quite easy.

The difficulty of accepting this Amendment would be that by the introduction of these words you would be acting in a manner quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill. What we do is to make each branch in a society an independent body for this purpose under the scheme, subject always to this, that it has made its contribution of half the surplus to the central society. The last thing we want to do is to introduce any words into this Bill which will take the control away from the branches, which in these societies are self-governing branches. We do not want to interfere with that. If we insert these words the effect would be you would be giving to the central society power to take from the branches the right of administering benefits, which is what we do not want to do. The words are far too wide to carry out the objects which, I understand, the hon. Member had in mind, which was a very limited range of alteration. They go far beyond the argument which he has addressed to the Committee. It might be that it could be arranged in some other way—I do not know—but the words which he is proposing could not possibly be accepted for the reason which I have given.

It may be that the particular words suggested by my hon. Friend go a little too far, but I think that we must draw a great distinction between maternity benefits and, say, sick benefits or death benefits, because, while I understand that in the case of the other benefits you want to have the branches specially responsible for their own sick benefits, as otherwise obviously they might tend to give too much benefit, and in that case there would be a deficiency in the fund, that argument cannot apply to maternity benefit. You will not have malingering as regards maternity, and if more children are born in any particular district I suppose so much the better for that district, and I do not quite see why that should not go on the fund of the whole society. I am taking the Amendment on the argument of my hon. Friend behind me, and it seems to me that you might well accept it as regards maternity benefit, because the considerations which apply to the administration of sickness benefit do not apply to the birth of children.

May I point out to the Attorney-General that the Clause, as drafted, was only applicable to a society with branches, but it is now amended so as to make it applicable to centralised societies, and as it stands the whole Subsection really makes nonsense. It says that centralised societies must, by their rules, provide, to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners, for the administration of the benefits by the branches. I think the Attorney-General will recognise that, with the alteration which he has made in the Section in making it applicable to centralised societies as well, the Sub-section necessarily must have some amendment. I would suggest simply to make it "for the administration of benefits," because as it stands now it is clear that it applies to centralised societies. It seems to me—

May I point out that the words last inserted make these paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) apply only to the case of branches.

If that is so, then I would suggest that the simplest course is to say that the rules only apply for the administration of benefits which would leave the question open.

The question with regard to maternity benefit is one which I would like to consider if the hon. Member will not press the matter now.

Would the right hon. Gentleman limit it to maternity benefits in this paragraph.

No, I would rather not say at present.