asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when he expects to be in a position to give answers to the petitions presented from His Majesty's dockyards?

On 9th May last concessions in respect to rates of wages were announced in reply to the Petitions. The consideration of the great number of other questions raised has taken somewhat longer than was anticipated, but the replies to the whole of the Petitions are practically complete, and will be issued with the least possible delay.

I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "towards such cost, expenses and purposes," and to insert instead thereof the words, "for the purpose of medical benefit."

I desire to explain to the Committee the exact objects I have in view in the various Amendments to this Clause which I have placed on the Paper. If I make that clear in moving this Amendment, I do not think it will be necessary for me to occupy the attention of the Committee at any length on the other Amendments which I have put down. Generally I may say that my object is to introduce some limitation on the generality of the words of this Clause. As it stands at present it is absolutely general, without any limitation whatever either as to the purposes to which the moneys can be devoted, or as to the amount of the moneys which can be voted in this way. The Committee will remember the reason why this Clause has found its way into the Bill. This is not a Clause which finances the Amendments in the rest of the Bill. It does not do that at all, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me as to that. It is a Clause intended to carry out a pledge given by the Prime Minister during last Session to regularise what was done then. On the 11th February of this year a Supplementary Estimate was brought forward by the Treasury for the amount of £1,825,000, mainly intended to cover the two and six pence per head per person extra for the doctors. When that Supplementary Estimate was brought forward objection was at once taken on the ground that this was in conflict with Section 3 of the National Insurance Act of 1911, which laid down the provisions under which the employer and employed on the one hand, and the State on the other were to provide the moneys required for the benefits and cost of administration of those benefits. That objection was taken as a point of Order, and Mr. Speaker ruled on it on the 11th February, 1913, and it is that which has really led to this Clause being inserted in the Bill. Mr. Speaker on that occasion said:—

"I do not think it is really a question for me to rule upon. The matter has been very clearly put in the debate we have had. I think it must he evident that this procedure does vary Section 3 of the Insurance Act. The question then arises does it vary it to such an extent as to become illegal. That would he a question of law—as to whether the Appropriation Act when it appropriates this sum will over-rule the Insurance Act or not, and upon that the House will receive the report and advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General who is the officer appointed by the House to consider and to see whether all sums paid out are paid out under proper authority. The House would be advised by him in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1913, col. 898, Vol. XLIII.]

Upon that the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to take steps to regularise what had been done, and put it formally into an Act of Parliament. He accepted the principle that it should not be done merely with an Estimate and Appropriation Bill, but that it ought to be done by Act, of Parliament. This is in order to carry out that—

Do I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing you on a point of Order, or speaking on this Amendment?

I am awaiting his conclusion.

I am speaking of my Amendment and explaining the reasons for bringing it forward. After Mr. Speaker's ruling, the Prime Minister promised that the procedure should be regularised, and it is to carry that out that this Clause has been put into the Bill. But the Clause goes very much further.

I do not think it is in order to elaborate too far the past history of the point which the hon. Member has raised. As I understand it this point is that he wishes to argue that this Clause must be limited. That question is not a point of Order. He has a perfect right to move the omission of these words but he need not elaborate that.

I was not going to elaborate it any further, as I had come to the end of my explanation of the genesis of the Cause, which goes very much further than what was necessary to carry out what the Prime Minister then said he was going to do. In fact, it goes so far, as I read the Clause, that it would enable the whole Act to be made non-contributory by a mere Estimate and Appropriation Bill. There are some Members of the Committee who think it would be an advantage that the Act should be non-contributory, but I am not going, for the moment, to discuss that question. Whether it be an advantage or a disadvantage we think it is a thing which ought to be done by Act of Parliament and not by mere Estimate and Appropriation Bill. As the Clause stands at present the whole of the provisions in the original Insurance Act are made subject to this Clause. The original Act by Section 3 provides that two-ninths is to be provided by the State and the remaining seven-ninths by the employer and the employed, and it then goes on to provide how the employer and the employed respectively are to contribute, but in the words of this Section all that is made subject to additional moneys being provided. If you read the latter part of this Section you will see that the provisions of the original Act are only to apply to any balance that remains over and above what has been provided by Estimate and Appropriation Bill. So that assuming the total required from employer and employed is 20 millions per year, and assuming that by Estimate and Appropriation Bill you vote a sum of 20 millions, the result will be that there will be no balance at all to which the provisions of the original Act could apply. If the 20 millions voted by Estimate and Appropriation Bill is sufficient to meet the total expenditure, in that case what balance will there be to which the whole of the original provisions of the Act can be applied. There will be none, because there will be no balance upon which those provisions will have any effect at all. What I propose is by these words, to limit the generality of this Clause. I was endeavouring to explain before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) came in that the Clause as it stands is so general that the whole Act could be made noncontributory by a mere Estimate and Appropriation Bill. I do not think that is the intention of the Government, and I think if they had realised that that is the effect of the Section they would not have framed it in the way in which it has been framed. My proposal will limit the moneys which can be provided in that particular way by an Estimate and Appropriation Bill to the case of medical benefit, because that was the purpose—

The hon. Member has already explained that to the Committee and I do not think he is entitled to go aver the argument again. We must have it explained by the Minister in charge of the Bill.

This is the first time I have had the privilege of serving on Grand Committee, and I am not so familiar with its procedure.

Therefore I wished to explain to the hon. Member we are not accustomed to repetition.

I wish to make it quite clear that the object of the Amendment is to limit the Clause for the particular purpose for which the Supplementary Estimate, out of which it all arose, was brought in. But I am willing to extend the words which I have put down, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks they are not wide enough in the case of Ireland, to moneys voted in lieu of medical benefit for the purpose of medical certificates, because I think under the original Estimates of the 11th February, 1913, in addition to medical benefits there are also moneys provided in Ireland for the purpose of defraying the cost of medical certificates on sickness, and the expenses of administration arising owing to the absence of medical benefits in Ireland. I am quite willing to add those words to the words of my Amendment. I do suggest to the Committee that there ought to be, either as to the nature of the medical benefits, or the amount of money, some limitation on the generality of this Clause. I submit that regularity of financial procedure is a most important thing in a Democratic country, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the first person to welcome a continuance of the safeguards which regularity of financial procedure provide. The temptation to vote money for purposes that may be considered temporarily popular is undoubtedly very great, and one which it is difficult even for any Government to resist, and therefore, I submit to the Committee that it is of the utmost importance that we should maintain regularity in our financial procedure, and that so vital a question as to whether the Act is to be contributory or not ought not to be determined upon an estimate. I believe there is no precedent whatever where a Clause of this kind is so general in its character, and so unlimited in its scope, has been inserted in any Bill, and, therefore, I beg to move the Amendment in my name.

Before proposing the Amendment to the Committee, I will call upon the clerk to read the Money Resolution.

read the Resolution, which was as follows:—

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911."

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken is proposing that the Committee should limit the powers of Parliament and really impose the new rule upon the House of Commons. The House has always from the beginning taken what course it pleases in voting Aids and Supplies for the Crown. It has not only done so in connection with Bills every day, but it has done so from time to time in direct contradiction of Bills. It is the one fundamental principle that Parliament has always determined it shall possess. What is the history of this Clause? This Clause is put into the Bill practically in response to the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Parliament voted last January, by a Supplementary Estimate, which was afterwards included in the Appropriation Bill, a sum of money for doctors, and special purposes connected with the Act. It was then suggested that the Public Accounts Committee had criticised from time to time, or brought before the attention of the House for criticism, moneys voted in contradiction of a Statute, and the point was whether this was or was not in contradiction of the National Insurance Act. But in any case the Prime Minister said, in order to make this quite clear in the future, that in addition to gathering up these Supplementary Estimates in an Appropriation Bill, he would propose at the first convenient opportunity that the moneys voted for the National Insurance Act should be placed in exactly the same position as money votes voted for any other of the various purposes for which Parliament voted money. Money is not voted to any great extent in. Bills or Acts; it is voted through Estimates and the Appropriation Act. Take, for example, education. All Estimates increasing from time to time the money voted for Education are voted on Estimates, and the Appropriation Act without any special Act. All the Navy expenditure, all the Army expenditure, and practically, I should think, three-fourths of the expenditure required by the House of Commons or which ought to have the approval of the House of Commons, is so voted. We could not consent to any such limitation as this Amendment proposal placed in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in stating that two-ninths was the limitation in all cases in the Act.

I did not say in all cases.

There are provisions that do not refer to two-ninths, and there was a Supplementary Estimate brought forward, at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite, while the Bill was in Committee. This Bill does not commit us to half-penny expenditure beyond that in the estimates of the year, but as more experience of the Act is realised, it is well that it should not be necessary for Parliament to reopen the whole Insurance Act in alteration or amendments on all kinds of clauses, with the opportunity of unlimited expenditure of time, if it simply wants to add a small sum to the administration of other expenses of the Act. We have done nothing more or less than carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister, and I therefore invite the Committee to reject this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, said this Clause was put into the Bill at the request of the Opposition, and he proceeded to say the Government would not accept any limitation on the powers of Parliament. This Clause was never put in these words at the request of the Opposition. What the Opposition did was this: They pointed out to the Government the irregularities of which they were guilty when they were voting a Supplementary Estimate of £1,800,000, and they challenged that position in the House, and the Prime Minister himself, differing from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, thought the position we had taken up was quite right, and that it was an irregular procedure, and in consequence of that he made a promise at the earliest possible moment to regularise the procedure. The right hon. Gentleman is also unfortunate as regards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night stated this first Clause simply regularises the vote of £1,800,000 already made by the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no doubt about the necessity for this Clause for the purpose of regularising the vote already made. The Secretary to the Treasury, unfortunately, I suppose did not hear what the Chancellor said last night in the House. The point really of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is this: What is intended by the first Clause? Does the Government intend it to cover more than medical benefit, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, upon the financial Resolution, assured the House it was intended to cover? The Chancellor was asked what is intended by the Financial Resolution? Is it or not intended to give powers to do anything beyond regularising the Supplementary Estimate? and the right hon. Gentleman said: This first Clause simply regularises the vote of £1,800,000. If it is intended to regularise this Vote, it ought to be so stated in the first Clause of this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out it could be made to cover something much more than medical benefit as the Clause now stands, and the Secretary to the Treasury admits that, because he says that the Committee has no right to limit the power of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night said it was merely intended to regularise the vote already given, and the Secretary to the Treasury this morning says: "We cannot be expected to accept that limitation. We are going to use this for any purpose we think fit in the future." The Committee ought to have before it a definite statement of what the Government do really want this power for. If it is simply to regularise something, there seems to be no reason why the powers should not be limited to dealing with medical benefits If it is not for that purpose, the Government ought to tell us, and not leave us in doubt as to what is intended to be done by the first Clause. The Secretary to the Treasury says: "We could do it at a future time by a Supplementary Estimate giving us the aid for the Crown, without coming down to the House."

Without coming down to the House?

For an Amending Bill but coming simply for an Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman knows there is a very great difference. A Supplementary Estimate is put down by the Government and the Government choose the Amendment to be made. The House does not, in fact, choose them. If, on the other hand, the Government brings in a Bill to amend the National Insurance Act, everybody interested in insurance throughout the country immediately considers what can best be done with the money. If the sum is £500,000 the various approved societies and organisations can say: "We would prefer it used in this or that manner." If, on the other hand, it is done by estimate by the Government then the Government can choose the objects for which that money is to be applied, and can in effect prevent the House, or those most interested in National Insurance, from choosing how that money ought to be spent. I think my hon. Friend has made a good case which has been in no way met by the Government, except by a mass of contradiction, and before the Committee rejects this Amendment, I think there should be some better argument from the Government.

I would like to correct the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. When he stated that I said the Insurance Act provided that in every case only two-ninths should be found out of State Funds. I do not think I said anything of that kind. The cases where more than two-ninths are found by the State are specifically set out in the Act of Parliament. Just in the same way, we want specifically set out in the Act the purposes for which more than two-ninths are to be found. The other point that the right hon. Gentleman made was to express a doubt as to whether this really was contrary to section three of the National Insurance Act.

I did not say that.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, but if there is any doubt upon the subject, I would refresh his memory by reminding him of the fact that Mr. Speaker said: "I think it must be evident this procedure does vary Section 3 of the National Insurance Act." Then the right hon. Gentleman said that I am trying to limit the powers of Parliament. Nothing of the kind. It is quite impossible to limit the powers of Parliament. What I am trying to do is to limit the effect of this section, which is introducing a novel procedure into Parliament, and which the Speaker thought to be an irregular method. It is for that purpose that I have moved this Amendment, and in no way with the intention of limiting the powers of Parliament, but to limit the powers of imposing new burden's by a mere estimate and Appropriation Bill, so as to vary the terms of an Act of Parliament, a procedure which I think has hitherto been regarded as irregular.

I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Committee some clear indication of what method he really intended to pursue. It is pointed out by my hon. and learned Gentleman that this Clause gives to the Government of the day far wider powers than they now possess with regard to amending or providing funds for the purposes of the National Insurance Act. My hon. and learned Friend behind me points out that if the Government do so desire they really ought to lay Estimates before Parliament; if they desire to substitute a non-contributory for a contributary basis of National Insurance. I am sure that nobody wants to make so drastic a change in the Insurance Act without the full discussion in the House with all the details of the proposals before the Members. My hon. and learned Friend raised this question in this House when this Financial Resolution was under discussion, and the Chairman of Committee then said that although my hon. and learned Friend would not be in order in going into the matter fully on that occasion, his contentions were sound, and it did appear to him (the Chairman) that some amendment of the Bill ought to be made.

No.

I am speaking from my own recollection.

And I from mine.

If the hon. Member for Pontefract wishes to lay his recollection before the Committee, I should have thought he would have been able to take the regular opportunity of doing so without interrupting me. I do not want to labour the point, but I do think that we ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some reason for the extraordinary width of the Clause.

I think that as this is the first sitting of the Committee I might appeal to hon. Members, especially those beyond the Gangway [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"], that we should conduct ourselves in a businesslike way so far as possible, and avoid interjectory remarks. It is very difficult in this room to hear what Members are saying, and particularly for the public and for the Press at the other end of the room. Unless we consider these matters it will not conduce to peace.

The only point I wish to make is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said in the House that this Clause was simply to regularise what had been done. My hon. and learned Friend points out that the Clause, as drafted, goes a great deal further than that. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is: Is it the intention of the Government to go further than what he undertook to do? If it is not the intention of the Government to go further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend?

I rise in response to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman; not because I do not think the position has been clearly stated by my hon. Friend, but because I feel bound to answer the courteous appeal made to me. I think I really have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said. This is, in my judgment, an attempt to restrict the powers of Parliament, a very futile attempt, as the hon. and learned Gentleman admits. Suppose you incorporated this in the Bill to-day, that would not prevent your voting a sum of money which would make the scheme noncontributary in spite of it. Why should you put words of this kind in? If these words, or similar words, had been inserted in the Education Bill of 1870 and the Education Bill of 1876 for every additional grant for education, you would have required an Act of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: No!] Just imagine how that would have hampered the work of education in this country; not merely the work of education which had been engaged in by our party, but by the party opposite. When they were in power they were constantly making new grants. It is true that they embarked upon a policy which involved not merely additional sums of money but something like a new departure. I refer to free education. The party opposite then had a Bill. But I cannot conceive any Government attempting to introduce a non-contributary scheme merely by means of the Appropriation Act. That, I agree, of course, would really be an outrage upon precedent. But you cannot limit the powers of Parliament. We are simply pursuing the same policy in regard to this. The hon. Member has asked me what the view of the Government is. The view of the Government is that we should pursue exactly the same course in regard to National Insurance as has been pursued with regard to education. Where you are spending small sums in order to improve and extend in certain directions you ought to be free to do it without having to go through this (indicating the Amendment Paper) because the moment you introduce an Act of Parlia- ment every conceivable Amendment is germane, and the Committee will have to sit for long and late and every day in order to get through all sorts of Amendments, while the one thing you want for the time being is in jeopardy for that very reason. That is really what you want. I will give an illustration. Suppose you wanted a little more money for Sanatoria services? You are getting pressure from local authorities constantly. Suppose you want £40,000 or £50,000 for the purpose of improving Sanatoria service in this country?

We have the power already.

We have only got the power by putting the sum down in the Estimates, that is all! You have to put the sum down in the Estimates and then you have the power, and unless you do put it down and have your Appropriation Bill, you have not got the power. If you are going to do that with Sanatoria, why not do it to ease some other branch of National Insurance Administration? I think Parliament ought not to be restricted in that way. I think it is exceedingly undesirable. The proposition is always stated in this form and would have been so stated by the hon. Member if I had not interrupted him: "The Government can of its own will always put down £50,000 or £100,000 without consulting Parliament"! It can do nothing of the kind. The Government cannot spend a single penny without taking sanction of Parliament. If we claimed to extend the provisions of the National Insurance Act or to increase the sum of money which is necessary in order to make it effective, we would have to put the sum down. It would have to be voted in Committee. It would have to be voted by the whole House, and be incorporated in the Appropriation Bill. You would have to discuss it on Second and Third Reading. The Appropriation Bill is an Act of Parliament. I do hope that we will not, by any action of ours, restrict the freedom of Parliament to vote sums of money from time to time for the purpose of supplying any deficiencies which experience may discover in the working of the National Insurance Act.

I do not propose to press my Amendment to a Division. In view of what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman that this matter would be treated on a somewhat similar footing as to education, and that no such large proposal as, for instance, making this scheme non-contributory would be introduced without an Act of Parliament. In view of that, I think I need not press my Amendment. May I just answer one point that the right hon. Gentleman made? I think he will find there is a provision in the original Act.

No.

Under the circumstances I felt it my duty as a matter of procedure to bring the matter to the attention of the Government.

The other Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman are consequential.

had an Amendment on the Paper, in Sub-section (1), after the word Parliament ["Parliament may from time to time determine"], to insert the words "have already been granted and."

This is really a drafting Amendment. I do not care whether it is moved or not, if the Section as it now stands regularises the payments referred to. It is a matter for the Government and not for me.

I do not think it is necessary.

If not I withdraw it, but I trust the Government will reinsert it on Report if they find that I am right.

I think, Mr. Chairman, you have left out the last of my Amendments, to the effect that the Section shall be deemed to have been in force on and from the 11th day of February, 1913.

I consider that that is absolutely consequential on the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester. I must put the Amendments in the order on the Paper, and the Amendment has already been disposed of by the previous ones.

I do not think it has.

I am very sorry, but I cannot go back to the Clause. Hon. Members will kindly observe when I say other Amendments are consequential, and proceed to put the Clause. Provided I have not taken the vote, I will, of course, go back to any matter to which my attention is called. It is quite possible to overlook an Amendment, but I do not think I have overlooked it in this case.

The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), although apparently they seem to come within the title of the Clause "Abolition of Reduction of Benefits in Certain Cases," appear to open up a very large question, and I think it would be more suitable that those matters should be dealt with as a new Clause. I therefore call upon Mr. Goulding.

I should like to ask if my hon. Friend is not in order at this point, because this Clause is for the abolition of reduction of benefits in certain cases? Under the Act I think the same Clause deals with the reduction of benefits in cases of those under twenty-one as in the case of those over fifty. At any rate, it is under the same part of the Act.

I quite understand that, and of course, if the Committee consider it more convenient to take these Amendments here, I shall be quite ready to do so. In my survey of the matter it seemed a different question to that which is dealt with in Clause 2.

Of course I cannot deal with the point of Order, but I think it would be more convenient for the Committee to consider this question as a new Clause, because it is the first of the Amendments designed to very much increase the expenditure of money on the Bill.

Not designed.

It would be better for us to deal with the Government's suggestions as to the Amendments which do not involve an increase of expenditure, and then deal as new Clauses with the various Amendments which are being brought up by hon. Members opposite as proposals for increasing expenditure in addition to the Government Clauses. I therefore make an appeal to the Committee to consider these Amendments as a new Clause.

There are many at great new Clauses already down, a before the Committee has and probably gone half or three-quarters way through the Bill there will be a great many more new Clauses put down. When you come to the end of the Committee stage and approach the new Clauses there is very little time left, and a proper discussion is hardly ever given to the new Clauses. It seems to me that this question comes in at the point of the Bill where we ought to discuss the principle whether benefits ought to be given to these young people. The right hon. Gentleman says these Amendment are designed to increase the cost. There was a consequential Amendment put down on the Paper last night which does not throw the cost of these benefits on the State at all, because the cost is covered by a very short prolongation of the Sinking Fund period. The Amendment provides that the whole of the cost shall come out of the Sinking Fund period, consequently there will not he any cost thrown upon the State at all. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this early stage of the Bill we could get some pronouncement upon the attitude the Government intend to take up with regard to this class of Amendments. I am quite certain in my own mind that when we come to the new Clauses, we shall be told that the time is very short, that there is no time to discuss many of them, and we shall not be able to give them that discussion which they require. For these reasons I think it will be far more convenient to discuss the subject at this point.

On the point of convenience I strongly support the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend. I certainly shall not oppose the suggestion which has come from the Chair, but I may say that I shall strongly oppose the insertion of Amendments of this kind. This means an additional expenditure of £275,000 a year. I think when we come to consider such suggestions we ought to consider them altogether. I hope the Committee will first of all dispose of the suggestions to which the House of Commons has generally given its approval on the Second Reading, and which no one has criticised, before we consider suggestions which are open to very serious objection, and which as Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall have to state that I cannot possibly accept. When the times comes I should like to make a statement with regard to the whole of these demands, but this is not a proper opportunity. I therefore urge the Committee to deal first of all With the proposals that have not been objected to in any quarter of the House, and then consider the other alternatives.

I do not think we must go into a general discussion now. I have given my ruling that for the general convenience it is better that this question should be dealt with as a new Clause. The hon. Member has protected himself by saying it should have been an Amendment to Clause 2, and I think he is justified in having put it down. I do not, however, think it comes within the limits of Clause 2.

You rule that it is a matter for the general convenience of the Committee?

If they wish it.

In Clause 9 persons under twenty-one are dealt with at the same time as persons over fifty, but here in Clause 2 of the amending Bill you are dealing with persons over fifty, and I submit it is in order that the question relating to persons under twenty-one should be dealt with here. It seems to me that we are bound to consider the question as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits that we have to deal with this question. He has already given us some indication of the view he takes with regard to it, and I think we had much better get it over rather than postpone it to the end of the Committee stage.

I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Salisbury would be wise in insisting upon discussing the matter here unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a general statement more or less explaining what the Government mean to do in respect to the extra demands made in the additional Clauses. So far as my experience of Grand Committees goes, it is a general thing for the Minister in charge of the Bill to make such a statement. No such statement has been made, and when these Clauses come on, the practice is to use the argument that you cannot add these proposals because they have already been settled in the Clauses of the Bill. If a statement was made in the nature of a compromise it would alter the whole condition of things. It is an unusual and a very undesirable thing in Grand Committee to postpone Amendments to come on as new Clauses because that would be used as an argument against them afterwards. Under these circumstances I think my hon. Friend would be well advised to press his Amendments.

Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of Order, that these Amendments are not in order? I am not quite sure what the Committee are discussing. May I call attention to the fact that this is an Amendment of Section 9 of the original Act? The first provision of that Section relates to those under twenty-one and the third provision relates to those over fifty. On a strict point of Order I should like to know whether your ruling is that my hon. Friend's Amendment is out of order? If it is not, and my hon. Friend does not choose to give way, I presume we may insist upon moving the Amendment now before the Committee, and I would like your ruling on that point?

The hon. Member has very much expressed the way in which I look at it. I still think that, as a matter of convenience, it would be better it should come as a new Clause, but, having regard to the point which the hon. Member has raised, I do not insist on that view if the responsible Members present wish to proceed with it.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "sickness" ["The rate of sickness benefit"].

The whole of this batch of my Amendments is practically one Amendment, the others really being consequential, so that the Committee need only divide once, because in that Division the whole of the Amendments will be decided upon. I propose this Amendment because I feel that minors, persons under twenty-one years of age, are extremely hardly dealt with under the existing system. Under the existing system, they pay full contributions, and, as everybody knows, they get reduced benefits. What makes it all the harder really is that while they are paying full contributions and getting reduced benefits you are now proposing to give additional benefits to persons at older ages. It will be found as a matter of fact that practically the whole of those additional benefits which you are now suggesting to persons of over fifty years of age will very largely come out of the funds which ought to be at the disposal of persons under twenty-one years of age. I should like to point out—I did point it out before to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that I do not propose that any of this cost should fall upon the State. I have put down a consequental Amendment to the effect that the whole of this cost, so far as it relates to persons under twenty-one years of age, shall be paid out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commisiosners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values. I am not able at the moment to say exactly what the extension of the Sinking Fund period would be if this Amendment were accepted by the Government, but I believe that it would be a very small extension, and the important point is that it would not fall upon the State at all. The Government may say that it is very inadvisable to extend the Sinking Fund period, but I should like to point out that under their own Bill they are extending the Sinking Fund period over and over again for the benefit of people over fifty years of age. They will find that on the last page of the Actuary's Report. I really do not see why, if you extend the Sinking Fund period for the benefit of persons of over fifty years of age, you should not go a little further and extend it in this very hard case of young persons under twenty-one.

Very hard case!

Yes, I think that it is a very hard case. I have been in touch lately with a great many officials and members of friendly societies, and they tell me that a great many of these persons under twenty-one years of age are young men who come up to our great towns and who to start with earn very low wages. They have to keep themselves; they are not living with their families; they have to pay for their board and lodging, and, when they fall ill, the low benefits which they get are really not sufficient to provide the necessaries of life. I think that it is an extremely hard case. I may say also in support of thy Amendment that I believe the whole of the friendly societies, without exception, are in favour of additional benefits being given to young persons under twenty-one years of age.

No.

I say "all the large friendly societies." I am not referring to the collecting societies, but rather to societies like the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Manchester Unity of Odd fellows, and big societies of that sort. I am only referring to them, but I do not think that the desire for this Amendment is restricted to them. The whole of those big friendly societies are in favour of this Amendment, and I would commend it to the favourable consideration of the Government, especially as practically it is not going to cost the taxpayer anything at all.

This is the first of a series of Amendments which would very greatly increase the cost of National Insurance, but that to a certain extent is hidden by a suggestion which I think is unprecedented, and which I do not think the Committee could adopt, that not only the reserve values but also the normal yearly expenditure for which the State now provides two-ninths should be put upon the Sinking Fund. No one has attacked us, courteously but more violently, in the House than hon. Gentlemen opposite for endeavouring to give additional benefits by enlarging the Sinking Fund. The present proposition would lengthen it by from one and three-quarters to two years. The whole company of insured persons would have to wait for one and three-quarters more years before obtaining the additional benefits, including these very young persons who would then be about the age of thirty-four or thirty-five, in order that additional benefits might be given to these young persons, and the State would have to provide £65,000 or £75,000 per year in perpetuity. The hon. Gentleman is raising a question which was really settled in the National Insurance Act and I know nothing that has happened in connection with this particular matter which would lead us to re-open the question at this time. There have been certain changes in connection with other matters, and experience has been gained which has led us to re-open questions even of finance, but not in this particular matter. I would ask the Committee to remember, first of all, that in spite of this limitation every boy or girl who enters at sixteen years of age receives from the beginning insurance to the full amount of the employer's and their own contribution, so that it is absurd to talk as if we were robbing these young persons of their insurance. Secondly, those hard cases where these young persons have dependants upon them are fully met by full insurance being given when dependants exist. Thirdly, although this may be asked for by some friendly societies, it certainly is not asked for by all the approved societies, and there are other things for which the friendly societies ask which they regard as of far greater importance. If we had to reduce some other expenditure in proportion to the amount which we gave to this, then I do not believe that any of the friendly societies would ask us to reduce any expenditure we suggest in the Bill. Fourthly, and this is a new question which I should like to put seriously to the Committee, there have been widespread complaints as to the demand for excessive sickness, and those complaints we hope to investigate with a Committee during the autumn. If there is one thing which is absolutely proved it is that where the amount received in sick pay approaches or in some cases even exceeds the amount earned, then it is almost certain that you will get large claims for excessive sickness.

I should have thought that would have applied to the old people.

You have, for instance, boys of sixteen earning 5s., 6s., or 7s. per week, and, if you are going to give them 10s. per week when sick, you are going to have a state of affairs which must lead to a tremedous artificial demand on the friendly societies. We do not want to increase the Sinking Fund period by one and a half years, and in addition we do not want in any way to do anything to encourage the excessive sickness which it is alleged exists. It may be difficult in the future, without investigation into excessive sickness claims, to see that they do not exceed too much. We give these young people the full benefit of their employers and employed contributions, and we meet the hard case in which they are dependent, as well as giving other advantages. I strongly urge the Committee to support the Government in this matter.

I think that there is a very strong reason for this Amendment, namely, that it is desired by, at any rate, the older and larger friendly societies. I should also like to impress this fact upon the Committee, that if we pass this Amendment there is no extra payment put upon the public purse, and that being the case, surely it is a matter upon which the approved societies ought to be consulted. I am not at all satisfied that the Government go the right way about getting information from the approved societies in these matters, and I venture to suggest that if my hon. Friend is beaten upon this Amendment, the Government should seek the opinion of the approved societies, and particularly of the friendly societies, and should be prepared to deal with the matter on the Report stage, after they have found out what are the real opinions of the approved societies. If the Government find out that, after all, the approved societies are in favour of something being done for the younger men in this respect, they should be prepared to accept on the Report stage an Amendment which will not put any drain upon public funds. I have only one other thing to say, which is that there is a very strong feeling amongst the members of approved societies that this amelioration of the lot of the older men, which we all desire to see carried out, will, in effect, give an unfair advantage to the older men, as compared with the younger members of approved societies, particularly as the Sinking Fund is being interfered with under Section 3. When the Government is doing this, in order to remove certain acknowledged grievances, in the interests of the older men, it necessitates some alteration of the system so as to redress the balance between the older and younger members of friendly societies. I venture to suggest to the Government that this is essentially a matter upon which the opinion of the approved societies ought to be taken.

I am very much astonished that hon. Members opposite should come here and attempt to voice the opinions of the friendly orders, or of the general run of approved societies, because if they had inquired into the matter, they would have found that these societies were diametrically against them. I hold in my hand an official document. The hon. Member claims for his Amendment the virtue that it does not increase the charge upon the State, and then he says the friendly orders are in favour of it. I will read the exact words as supplied officially to me:—

"The Amendments proposed by Mr. Locker-Lampson to Clause 2, with the above object, might therefore be accepted"—

Who is this?

If the hon. Member will wait, I will give the name.

On a point of Order. Should not the hon. Member give us the name first?

I think the hon. Member ought to say from what he is quoting.

I have already done so. I said it was an official document handed to me. I will read it, and will give hon. Members far more than they want perhaps.

Are we not entitled to know the exact source from which this emanates?

Certainly, and I shall state it. That is what I got up for. It reads:—

"Extension of benefits to persons under twenty-one The Amendment proposed by Mr. Locker-Lampson to Clause 2, with the above object, might therefore be accepted, subject to the inclusion of the words: 'The cost of this extension of benefit shall be met by moneys provided by Parliament.'"

It is entitled:—

"Observations of a Joint Committee of Approved Societies representing the following bodies:—

• National Conference of Friendly societies;
• General Federation of Trade Unions;
• National Union of Deposit Societies;
• National Union of Holloway Societies;
• National Federation of Dividing Societies.
• National Association of Approved Societies."

Hon. Members say that the friendly societies are in favour of this Amendment. I think that shows that they are not.

I want to explain that I think the hon. Member is rather unfair. I put down the Amendment and framed it in such a way that the expenses would come out of the Sinking Fund, so that I might bring it in order within the terms of the Financial Resolution. That was the whole object I had in placing it on the Sinking Fund, and I must say in answer to the hon. Member that in regard to the principle of these young persons under twenty-one having those additional benefits, it is agreed to by every big friendly society in England.

It is said that I did not read the whole of the particular paragraph. Perhaps I had better do so. It begins:—

"Extension of benefits to persons under twenty-one. There is no objection to the normal rate of benefit being given to those under twenty-one as well as to those over fifty if the societies are given adequate financial compensation for the additional burdens imposed upon them."

It then goes on: "The Amendment proposed by Mr. Locker-Lampson, etc.," which I have already read.

I think we have had enough of those personal explanations.

I propose to address myself to the Amendment generally. I am very strongly opposed to the Reserve Fund being trenched upon, but if you are going to do it at all, then I say it is only fair to do it in this case, so as to counterbalance the other. I say that to trench upon the Reserve Fund is equivalent to a breach of contract by Act of Parliament. Assuming, however, you are going to do it, you ought to give young men the benefit as well as the older ones. You have put a provision in the Bill to give additional benefit out of the Reserve Fund to older men, although it was the intention of Parliament that the Reserve Fund was specially to provide additional benefits for younger entrants to insurance. It does not seem fair to provide it for the older members and not for the younger ones. Those who contribute the same contributions ought to get the same benefit. I fully recognise what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, that if the wages are low we are likely to get a larger number of sickness claims according as the sick pay approaches nearer to the wages, but that cannot be a reason for refusing people equivalent benefits when they pay equivalent contributions. Unless you do that, you ought to have lower contributions for these young people. If they pay the same amount, I think they have a legal and equitable claim to the same benefits. If you are going to make a raid upon the Reserve Fund for one thing, I warn you that once you begin, the example will be followed in numerous cases. The danger is in starting the precedent of raiding the Reserve Fund. I think it is really a breach of contract to raid the Reserve Fund at all, but assuming you are going to do it in one case, I see every justification for my hon. Friend moving that the matters should be equalised, so as to give young men the same benefit.

I wish to say that, so far as we are concerned, we are opposing this Amendment, because it does not provide the money from the State for the purpose, and I can assure the Committee that that is the common view held by all the friendly societies. We are not against the principle of the matter, but we think the whole question ought to be discussed at a proper time and that in this matter we ought to have the money provided by the State at the proper time. But as to the merits of the Amendment before the Sinking Fund itself we cannot agree to the extension of the Sinking Fund in order to provide the money.

I rise only because the remarks of the hon. Members for Pontefract and Leeds have led the Committee to suppose that all friendly societies are against this proposal unless the money is provided out of Parliamentary funds. I want to point out that the Member for Salisbury has considerable justification. I received to-day this document from the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, which says, "It is also desirable to press for full benefits to be given to minors when the contributions paid on behalf of whom are sufficient to pay for these benefits without any Government subsidy." That shows that one of the most important, if not the most important of all the great friendly societies in this country is desirous of this being done; and I think, therefore, my hon. Friend has made out a very sound case indeed and that we aught to support the Amendment.

I only intervene because I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has been quite fairly dealt with by the hon. Member for Pontefract. My hon. Friend said that the friendly societies were in favour of this Amendment. They are. I do not think there can be any doubt about it—both the Manchester Unity and the Foresters. My hon. Friend, the member for a Dorset division, has just read what the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows say. The hon. Member for Leeds said that he was Chairman, I think, of the Joint Committee of the Approved Societies, from whose manifesto or statement the hon. Member for Pontefract has already read. Their attitude seems to be this: We should agree to full benefits to those under twenty-one, but we are quite conscious that the approved societies, having no funds to spare, cannot possibly pay for it out of their existing funds, and that, therefore, the only way in which it can be got without an additional contribution is for the State to come in and give an extra Grant." We may say, I think fairly, that they are neutral, but inclined to be in favour of the Amendment if they could see their way to finance it. I do not suppose there is any doubt about this: that if we could persuade the Government to find the funds they would be only too delighted that this Amendment should be made. Well, then, do not let us have any more talk about the friendly societies being against this as a matter of principle; they are not at all. As long as the Committee understands where we are let us get to the real position. Where is the money coming from? That is really the question. The right hon. Member the Financial Secretary said, "Oh, we cannot raid the Sinking Fund"; but it has been done. It is going to be done under this very Clause we are considering. He is going to raid the Sinking Fund to a large extent, equivalent to something like six hundred thousand a year for the purpose of paying for other benefits under this Bill. He pretended just now that there was no sort of precedent for the proposal that my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury, has put down upon the Paper. As regards seven-ninths of it, it follows exactly the precedent set by the Government themselves in this Bill. As regards two-ninths, I agree it is a new precedent. Why is it put down in that form? The Government can very easily alter it if they like. If they say "now we will find two-ninths out of moneys provided by Parliament," then my, hon. Friend will accept their offer at once and will bring his Amendment into line exactly with the proposals of the Government. With regard to the men over fifty, there is no point. Let us clear away any cobwebs that may be overlaying this Amendment. There is no point in a want of precedent, because so far as he has been able to do it, he has followed the precedent set by the Government. As regards the two-ninths, that, I agree, is beyond precedent. But the Government have it in their own hands. All they have to say is "We will find the necessary £65,000 a year to give this additional two-ninths out of State funds." As to the question of merits, the Government are themselves raiding the Sinking Fund, and they are doing so at the expense of the young men, and this is a balancing or compensating Amendment. To say that a decision on this was come to on the original Bill and that therefore it cannot be opened now, as the Secretary to the Treasury has just said, is really to say that we are not going to amend the National Insurance Act at all; and it is a reason for not considering the Amendments which the Government themselves have put down just as much as for not considering this particular Amendment. The Government are going to take some £600,000 a year from the Sinking Fund for the purpose of other Amendments, the bulk of it going to men over fifty. In consequence they are postponing the time when the younger men under this scheme are to get the additional benefits. Hon. Members will remember that in the original Bill brought in two years ago there was a wonderful Clause, Sub-section 8, I think, which said that as soon as the Reserve Values had been redeemed, which was then estimated at about eighteen years, that the money then set free (some two millions a year or so) would be brought forward to the credit of the younger men. I remember very well the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us why that was so. "Oh," said he, "these younger men are getting no part of the benefit of the State subsidy for the next eighteen years, but see what we have for them at the end of eighteen years. We are to give them two millions a year, and they will have it all to their direct benefit." But now he is taking away that two millions a year for a whole year and a-half, or two years, and giving it to the older men who are already getting a much larger amount in proportion than the younger men under the scheme. It is to redress that balance, to redress the very inequality caused by that Amendment, that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has put down his Amendment. He says you are going to postpone the benefits which would have been given to the younger men. Give these younger men something now. That seems to me to be a businesslike compromise which any two business men would come to if they were considering what was to be done with the funds. What has been the answer to this? The answer of the Secretary to the Treasury has been, "Oh, but if you go on giving the young men under twenty-one the full benefit of 10s. you are going to have malingering by these men. Sick men lately have come on for sick claims which they ought not to come on for." But it is much easier, as anyone knows, to check malingering on the part of young men than on the part of old men, and the risk is nothing like so great in regard to young men under twenty-one as in regard to men over fifty. There is a provision under the Act by which societies can reduce the amount of sick pay to two-thirds of the wages. They could do so if they chose—I do not advocate it—in connection with these young men, but hen they would be obliged under the Act to apply the difference in giving these young men some other or additional benefits. If that were done it would meet the suggestion that undue claims would be made on behalf of these young men, and it would also be preserving to them a fair compensation for the raid which has been made upon the Sinking Fund and which directly affects them, and puts them in a worse position than they were in when the Act became law.

I am discouraged immediately I get on my feet by the Government trying to shut me up. I am not going to occupy the time of the Committee more than two minutes. I want to say I propose to support the Government upon these Amendments if they go to a Division because they tell us that financially they are impracticable; but I should not like to give a vote which would be interpreted to mean that I do not agree with the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment that an injustice is done, or at any rate that an inequality is imposed, on these young men of sixteen. I should not have said anything, only during the last week or two I have been in my own Constituency. [Laughter.] I know it is rather unusual for one to go there, but I should not have thought that a visit of a Member to his own Constituency would have produced so much hilarity as this statement has done. While I was there I used every endeavour to find out what my working class Constituents were thinking about the details of the Insurance Act, its operation and administration, and one of the things that was prominently brought to my notice by my friends there who have seen the working of the Act was that these boys of sixteen were unequally treated, inasmuch as they are called upon, out of a very low wage, to pay the full insurance fourpence, and only receive a restricted benefit, if sick, of six shillings instead of ten shillings. The Government must know that the Insurance Act is creating a certain amount of friction and uncomfortable feeling even among their own supporters in the various constituencies of the Kingdom. I think it is right that one of their most loyal supporters, who is now addressing the Committee, should tell them plainly what their own supporters in the country are feeling about this matter. The very point which has been brought up by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is one of the points which is causing soreness.

There are no votes for those under twenty-one.

I agree also with the remarks which were made about the undesirability of touching the reserves. I do not like these reserve funds to be tampered with at all, and so far as that goes I disapprove of the proposition which has been made, but I do hope that some day and as soon as possible, when a real amending Bill is proposed by the Government, they will try to equalise the burden which is laid upon these lads of sixteen who get very low wages, with the contributions that are made by older men.

I only desire to say one word upon this matter. So far as I under- stand it, if we go to a vote now we shall be voting whether or not we are going to do something to extend full benefit to people under twenty-one. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

And deal with reserve values.

We are not now settling the precise way in which the cost is to be met. [HON. MEMBERS:" Yes, we are."] The reason I have risen to speak is that I want to make my position perfectly plain, that in voting for this Amendment, as I propose to do, I wish to look very anxiously at the source from which the money is to be derived. I do not want to commit myself to anything that will throw an increased burden upon the funds of the societies. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I take a rather serious view as to the burdens which are likely to be placed upon the funds of the societies in the future. Throughout the Debate in this Committee, I propose, for my own guidance at any rate, to watch very anxiously that no increased burdens shall be thrown upon the societies funds. Subject to that, I propose to vote for the Amendment.

It seems to me that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has very peculiar ideas as to how to benefit these young men. He proposes to increase their benefits at this early age, when they are under twenty-one, at the expense of their benefits at a later age. He has already made a strong point against the Government for the raid they have made, as he says, upon the sinking fund and the reserve values. He proposes to make a further raid.

Hear, hear.

This raid is to benefit the young men at an early age at the expense of their later benefits. I am quite sure that this is not in the interests of the young men. I am in favour of increasing the benefits of these young men, I am in favour of giving them the ordinary benefits, and I am in favour of doubling anybody's benefits. I will support any Amendment for increasing benefits if there is any chance of getting them out of the Government. But if the Government assure me they cannot find these funds, then I am not going to help to carry an Amendment which will wreck the benefits already provided in this Bill.

I desire to say a word or two as to what fell from the bon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) as to why he proposed to vote for the Amendment. He seemed to think it possible at this stage to split up the proposition of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I think he has forgotten the hon. Member's speech. He commended the proposition to us as a single proposition, and referred to the Amendments as a batch constituting a single proposition What I am voting against is the proposal of the hon. Member for Salisbury, and I do it with a very clear conscience.

Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I am not going to have hon. Members on the other side stating in the country that we are voting against the principle. I am voting in the interests of the friendly societies and the trade unions, who, while they will gladly accept the abolition of the reduced benefits in respect to young persons under twenty-one, are strongly resentful of that being done at the expense of their sinking fund. We have to choose here between the extension of the benefit in respect to young persons under twenty-one or the extension of the benefit in respect of aged members of friendly societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the point with which we are really concerned here. For my own part, I say that having regard to the limitations of the financial possibilities, the case of the old men is by far the most urgent. I have had some experience of the friendly societies, who recognise that there is some need for inquiry into this matter before we definitely depart upon this new venture. We have desired to inquire as to whether it is necessary to pay the full benefit in respect to young persons, say, of seventeen years of age. You may find it expedient, as a result of your inquiry, that you shall grade the benefits. Therefore I apprehend that the time is altogether inopportune. Further, I do not think the grievance is so widespread as some people contemplate. As a matter of fact, so far as my experience has gone, the friendly societies and the trade unions have turned this limitation to very fine propagandist account. They have induced young men to join as full members of their respective societies, and these young men are having the benefits made up to the full ten shillings out of the general payment that they make to these friendly societies. Therefore I do not think the grievance is so widespread, but, having regard to the fact that the financial resource is very limited at this stage, and that we have to choose between extensions at one or the other, for my own part I have a preference for the case of the old men. I trust that before we decide upon the removal of this restriction in the original Act we shall fully inquire into what it will involve, what is desired by the friendly societies, and whether some grading is not essential to protect the friendly societies and the members themselves.

The hon. Member who has just spoken and the two previous speakers both referred to the limitation of financial possibilities. I do not know on what grounds they assume that the Government cannot, if they wish, increase their financial responsibilities, because, during the discussion on Clause 1, the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly refused to accept any limitation, and last night in the House, on the Report stage, he again, in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, said he could not possibly assent to any condition, because the Committee might upstairs be giving a wide discretion if necessary to spend money. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be able to satisfy their constituents by going back and saying they could not possibly vote for this because they were tied hand and foot in the matter of spending money. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend these limitations, and, if he does not do so, hon. Gentlemen must themselves take the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Act.

May I say one word on the subject raised by my hon. Friend? It is quite true that the Government is not absolutely limited with regard to finance, but, although I do not like to appear even to differ from my hon. Friend, I think we, on this side of the Committee, ought to resist any temptation there may be to put any sort of pressure on the Government to extend the amount of the cost of the Insurance Scheme. For my own part, in the discussions in Committee, I intend to look very closely at any proposals, whether they come from my own side or from hon. Gentlemen opposite, which will have the effect of increasing the cost, and I shall be very chary indeed in supporting any Amendment which will have that effect. I want to know very much what is our exact position with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am inclined to agree with what fell from the hon. Member opposite that the whole of this batch of Amendments must stand or fall together. I want to know whether we are in the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, that we can support this Amendment, at the same time keeping a perfectly free hand with regard to the method by which the finances may be arranged. So far as I understand what has been said in the Committee hitherto, there are only two possible methods open to the Committee for financing this Amendment. One is that it should be done by the State, and that is, as we said just now, impossible. If the proposal were to carry this Amendment and to finance it at the expense of the State I should vote against it. On the other hand, is it impossible to do it in the method proposed by the hon. Member for Salisbury by a further raid on the Sinking Fund? I quite agree that of the two proposals that is much less objectionable. The matter which will weigh with a great many Members of the Committee is whether or not an Amendment financed in that way by a raid on the Sinking Fund would meet the desires of the great friendly societies. On that point there seems to be a certain conflict of evidence before the Committee. I confess I should very much like to know the truth about that matter. For myself, I will only say that, as at present advised, I do not think I can support my hon. Friend in his Amendment. I would suggest that the Government should give some sort of promise that they will find out by bonâ fide inquiry from the friendly societies whether they would like to see the Amendment carried at the expense of their Sinking Fund or not. If the friendly societies really desire that then the Government could consent to put the Amendment in the Bill at a later stage. But under the present circumstances, and speaking for myself, being most anxious not to press the Government in any way to increase the financial cost, I feel unable to support the Amendment.

I think this might be a convenient time to find out what is in order and what is not. Will it be competent for any Member of the Committee to move an Amendment which would throw an increased obligation on the State? I do not know whether any Member desires to do so, but. I should like to ascertain if it would be in order.

It is usual in these cases for the Chairman to reserve his opinion until he sees the particular Amendment. It is very difficult to give a general ruling.

I beg to move to leave out the second paragraph of Subsection (2)—"Provided that a person who is of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the time of entering into insurance shall not be entitled to medical benefit after he attains the age of seventy unless the number of weekly contributions paid by or in respect of him exceeds fifty."

Before this Amendment is taken may I ask what is to be done with my proviso It has not yet been put. Is it to come at the end of the new Clause?

Yes, I understood the hon. Member to explain that the proviso refers "to the foregoing provisions of the Clause."

The reason I put it down was because I thought it very likely that the first Amendment would be out of order. But you have now allowed me to move it.

I understand that the proviso, as stated in the memorandum explaining this Bill, has been put in for the protection of approved societies. I want very shortly to ask the Government is it really worth while to force this on these old people? It seems to me it is a very poor proposal. There is little or nothing to be saved by it, and it is perfectly clear that it will cause a great deal of trouble. At the present time the

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the proviso is in no sense of a niggling character. It is designed to protect the general body of insured persons who have redeemed their reserve, and also the societies themselves. Under the original Act, these people pay their fourpence or threepence, and the State pays twopence, and then they are entitled to such benefit as these contributions will secure, and if they are deposit contributors, to such benefit as the Insurance Committees desire. We say that they should be entitled to medical benefit for life, but not after seventy, unless they have made fifty contributions. If we strike the proviso out, the full medical benefit would be open to a person which has made one contribution. I do not think it is fair to a society that that should be possible, and it is entirely on the basis that other people have twenty-six weeks as a waiting period. I think it is a fair thing to consider whether we could not put that in the Bill in order to avoid enforcing on a society a person who would get benefit after making one contribution. The proposal is to put them on the same footing as other people with regard to medical benefit, and we would say that instead of having made fifty payments, they should make twenty- six payments which all other people have to make. That would avoid, so far as possible, the inflicting on a society of persons who have not made the necessary contributions. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether that would not be a compromise which would fairly meet him. We would say that the insured person should have to make twenty-six weeks the waiting period.

The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet the case. My object is to reduce the friction in the working of the societies. I do not press the Amendment.

I beg to move, after the word "insurance" ["at the time of entering into insurance shall not be entitled to medical benefit"], to insert the words "if the date of such entry be after the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirteen."

This Amendment is in order to safeguard those older people who have entered into insurance during the first year after the coming into operation of the Act. I think it is a sound Amendment, because I feel that under the Insurance Act these old people have been very unfairly treated in the past. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that certain regulations were issued by the Commissioners in the first instance, and two alternative tables were held out to approved societies for their adoption in reference to members between sixty-five and seventy years of age. One of these tables provided for benefit of 6s. for thirteen weeks and 5s. for thirteen weeks. The other table provided for the payment of a small sum per year in the shape of an annuity during the insured person's life. The second table proposed that the amount per year should be utilised by the insured person in part. payment of his contributions to any insurance made by him at the time of sickness. These were alternative tables. Another provided for no medical benefit at all. This was considered such a grievance by all the approved societies throughout the country that the Commissioners brought out a third alternative table under which medical benefit might be secured to these old people if the sickness benefit was reduced to 4s. 6d. per week in place of 6s. Now we have this fourth alternative before us at present. I only mention that to show that these old people have been in suspense for a whole year, and I think they have been very badly treated by the Government. This Amendment is in order to safeguard these people who have entered into insurance during the first year of the coming into operation of the Act. I should like to recommend this Amendment to the Committee on one of the grounds in its favour, that it will really cost very little indeed. I do not believe that the charge will be anything considerable, and as a matter of fact, medical benefit is so enormously valuable, as I think the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Addison) will admit, to the older people especially, that it is essential they should have it. Supposing medical benefit is not given under the Act to these people, the cost in the end will fall upon the Poor Law. During the debates on the principal Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out over and over again that under the Act in all probability the cost to the Poor Law would be very largely decreased, and therefore, I feel that he would do anything in his power to prevent the cost of the Poor Law increasing more than is absolutely necessary. I think this Amendment would really remove a considerable grievance. Take the case, for instance, of a man sixty-eight and a half years of age at the commencement of the Act. He was too ill to work at the time, but he got well enough to do a little work, say, this spring. If he stamps his card every available week, he cannot possibly make fifty payments, and so he would be debarred medical benefit at seventy years years of age.

The hon. Member will remember that the period is to be made twenty-six weeks.

That rather alters the case. I was not sure whether the Government concession covered this.

The hon. Member's Amendment is substantially covered by the Government Amendment.

It does meet it in part but not altogether. In view of the tact that the Government have met a considerable part of my Amendment, I will not press it.

had on the Notice Paper an Amendment to leave out the words in the proviso "unless the number of weekly contributions paid by or in respect of him exceeds fifty," and to insert instead thereof, "a sum equal to not less than the amount of fifty weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him."

That Amendment is consequential.

It is quite different.

I do not understand it unless it is consequential upon the Amendment which has been withdrawn do not quite understand the meaning of the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Member. The Government mean that the insured person will have to pay fifty contributions for fifty weeks.

Twenty-six weeks.

Does it mean that he will have to pay for twenty-six weeks twenty-six contributions, or a capital sum representing twenty-six weeks contributions? I think it might incur a considerable hardship if he had to wait twenty-six weeks. My proposal is that he should be able to pay a capital sum equivalent to twenty-six weeks contributions without having to wait. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a very dangerous thing to do."]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can really mean that.

I should like to get an answer from the Government on the subject.

So that this discussion may be in order, I had better put the Amendment.

I should like to make it twenty-six weeks.

I do not know that the hon. Member wants to anticipate the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester.

I hope the hon. Member will feel that we have met this Amendment very fairly in the proposal which my right hon. Friend made in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). It is a very dangerous thing. I am perfectly certain the doctors will threaten another strike if this be carried. It means that all a man has to do is that immediately he is ill is to get somebody to pay the twenty-six weeks' contributions, and then he is going to claim medical benefit.

After the age of sixty-five.

I think this is a very dangerous thing. I think the hon. Member, if he considers, will realise that we have met him very fairly.

May I ask how that will affect the payment of arrears of contributions?

I am bound to say that I find it a little difficult to support this Amendment which seems to be in the nature of a gamble.

"Gamble?"

Well, a very rash speculation, if I may say so. The drafting of this is most unsatisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman desires that it shall be incorporated in the way he wants, I venture to suggest that on the Report stage that the word "weekly," should be added after the word "pay."

I will consider that.

I will not keep the Committee for more than a moment, but I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say where the money is to come from to pay these benefits to the old men on this particular proviso. We are altering it now, and putting a greater liability somewhere. We are saying that the old men shall get benefits after twenty-six weeks' contributions instead of after fifty. If that liability is upon the approved societies, it will make a very considerable difference to them. If, on the other hand, the Government are paying this, I have nothing to say to it. But I want to know what is done in regard to the suggestion that the limit shall be twenty-six contributions to get additional benefits.

Not at any age!

Of course that will not do.

At any age beyond sixty-five.

The right hon. Gentleman must not put it quite so bluntly. These men have first to be employed cont1ibutors before they can get the benefit of the Clause. Here is some additional liability put somewhere. I hope the Government will consider that and say whether it is in the right form.

We will deal with it when we get to Clause 9 which deals with finances.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2) to leave out the word "fifty" exceeds fifty"] and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-six."

The hon. Member for Salisbury has, on the Order Paper, the next Amendment, which is not intelligible, but he has handed to me a MS. with certain words.

That will take rather a long time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee some indication as to how often he proposes to ask the Committee to sit?

And when?

And for how long?

To put ourselves in order, I understand that I have to move That the Committee do continue to sit this day, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House."

If that is moved, it is put without Amendment or Debate, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would wish to make a statement.

Mr. Chairman—

This Motion is non-debatable.

I have not accepted that. On a point of Order. Will you tell me what right the Government or anybody else has to impose this duty upon hon. Members?

This Motion simply carries the Members over 2.45 when we should otherwise absolutely have to stop on the stroke of the clock. It does not oblige the Committee to sit till four o'clock. It gives elasticity to the Committee.

In reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who wanted to know what are the ideas of the Government with regard to the immediate procedure, I am sure that those who have looked at the Order Paper must realise that in order to get through the Bill at all we must invite members of the Committee to make exceptional sacrifices, otherwise it will be quite impossible to get through. I am sure there is a general desire that at any rate these old people for whom the benefits are proposed in the measure should get them as soon as possible. It would be quite impossible for us to do that and get through the enormous list of Amendments which have been put down, running over twenty pages, if the Committee do not sit late and often. There is only another three weeks of this Session.

That is your business.

It really is not. It is the business of hon. Members, and we are trying to meet the convenience of everybody. I do not believe anybody wants to stay later than another three weeks. It is entirely a question for Members of the House. We are endeavouring to meet their convenience. It is very much better to sit late here in order to get through this work and to get away at the earliest possible moment. Our suggestion to the Committee will be that we should meet every day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" "And Friday?"]—every Parliamentary day, in order to get through these Amendments. If we find that we get through easily then we shall be able to reconsider the matter later on. But take the progress we have made this morning. I am not at all complaining of it. But at the rate of progress we have made this morning it will be quite impossible to get through this Bill unless we are prepared to sit late and every day. Quite impossible! Therefore the Government invite the Committee to do this. The Prime Minister has given notice of a Resolution this afternoon in the House—it is in the Orders for the day—that this Committee shall sit notwithstanding the fact that the House is sitting at the same time. It is the precedent set in the case of Unemployment Insurance; that was got through by this means.

Is it intended to sit on Mondays? There are a large number of Members who have to go into the country at the week-end.

I think after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the question of sitting on Mondays or Fridays can be raised subsequently. There is no Resolution which pledges the Committee to sit on any day.

It simply means that we must make this appeal to the Members. They have to decide between sitting often and making these sacrifices and losing the Bill. That is really what it means.

Does the Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred mean that we can sit after four o'clock?

After to-day, yes.

At twenty-two minutes before Two o'clock, the Committee adjourned for lunch till 2.15 p.m.

I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "at such date not later than the fourteenth of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint," and to insert instead thereof the words "immediately after the passing of this Act."

The Sub-section would then read, "This section shall come into operation immediately after the passing of this Act." I have two reasons for moving this Amendment; one is I do not see what reason the Government have for postponing the operation of this Sub-section possibly until January, 1914. I do not in the least see why, if this Amending Bill is passed into law in the next few weeks, we should postpone the operation of these benefits for old persons over fifty for six months. I see that there may be some difficulty in bringing it into operation immediately according to the text of my Amendment, but I do not see why the Commissioners should have power to wait for six months before giving the benefit of this Bill to the old people. After all, such a postponement is far more important in the case of old people than in the case of young people. These old people in many cases will have but few years to live, and to postpone the benefits for such people especially is serious. There is another point. I cannot help feeling that the Com- missioners have far too much power under the Act as it already exists. I have got nothing whatever to say against the ability or against the conscientiousness of the present Insurance Commissioners. Everybody knows that they have done their utmost to work this Act, and no people could have shown more ability in working it, but I feel it is most undesirable to give the Commissioners still further power. Under the Act, as everybody knows, they can practically legislate upon any question. If you look at the various Clauses dealing with regulations and powers of removing difficulties at the present moment, the Insurance Commissioners can practically alter the whole of the Insurance Act without coming to Parliament at all, and here you are now giving them additional power, which seems to me very undesirable. I think the Committee should make up its mind as to when it wants these benefits for the old people to come into operation. I do not see in the least why it should be left to the option of the Commissioners to postpone these benefits, if they thought fit, for six months.

I think we shall be able to meet in substance the desire of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and I shall ask him, after I make some explanation, if he is satisfied to withdraw his Amendment in order that we may move a Government Amendment omitting certain words. I agree with him that it is far better to fix a date which can be known by the Insurance Societies than to leave it in uncertainty. The only thing is we may have to put in a number of different dates for the different portions of the Act coming into operation. For instance, the doctors are under certain contracts with the Insurance Societies until the end of the year. This Act will put fresh obligations upon the doctors, and I think it would be a breach of the contract with them if Parliament tried to put this obligation upon them while their existing contracts are still running. As for sickness benefits, the actuarial calculation is from 13th of October next, and I should be quite prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman, that the 13th of October should be put in as a definite date for the bringing into operation of the extra sickness benefits for those old persons. The hon. Member must realise that the words "immediately after the passing of the Act" is an impossible proposition. We could not communicate with the societies, especially in those remotei districts by that time. I think, by putting in the 13th of October we will meet his case without leaving too much to the Commissioners. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment I propose then to move an Amendment to omit the first three lines of the Sub-section, namely, "This Section shall come into operation at such date not later than the fourteenth day of January nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and" and to leave the Clause to read, "the Insurance Commissioners may make such regulations, etc." Then I propose to bring up a new Clause at the end giving the various dates at which the various parts of the Act will come into operation, and I shall propose sickness benefit shall be from the 13th of October. In these circumstances I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.

Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to ask a question. We hear many claims for gratitude made on behalf of the Insurance Act, and I think the old people ought to be very grateful to my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker Lampson) for the benefit he has obtained for them by this concession. The question I want to ask is, what exactly is the financial difference which this Amendment will make in the figures supplied by the Actuary?

In the actuarial figures the calculation is as from the thirteenth day of October next, and that is the date I propose.

I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "This Section shall come into operation at such date not later than the fourteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and"—

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to add the words "and for increasing the reserve values so that no loss shall fall on any society or branch." I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division if the. Government can assure me that members of approved societies will be safeguarded. It is possible that after the actuarial calculations these reserve values are going to be ncreased, but it is quite clear if they are not going to be increased you will be affecting the solvency of the approved societies affected by the provisions already dealt with. I should like to have an assurance that these reserve values will be increased so that no loss shall fall upon the societies.

The hon. Member has anticipated the purport of our proposal. The new benefits we are now proposing to confer are met partly by monies from Parliament, and partly from the reserve values. Clause 9 of the Bill provides that—

"The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations with respect to all or any of the matters specified in the Schedules of this Act."

If the hon. Member will look at the Schedule, Sub-section (d), he will find the following provision:—

"The crediting or variation (whether by way of increase or decrease) and cancellation of reserve values."

The Clause says, "may make regulations."

That is optional.

There is no need for this Amendment, because we have taken power already under Clause 9, and under the Schedule of this Bill.

We have just had another characteristic reply from the Government. They say because it is laid down that the Commissioners may do something, the Government asks us to assume they are going to do something. That is the attitude of the Government towards anybody who attempts to criticise anything they do with regard to insurance, but I am not satisfied to leave the matter in that way. There is no statement before the Committee as to how these medical benefits are going to be met. Is there going to be a reserve value attached to these older men with respect to medical benefit? We have not even had that stated. We do not know whether there is to be a reserve value or how much it is. Up to date I believe no reserve value has ever been given for medical benefit. I should like to know whether that is really so, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will tell us now. I think the Committee is entitled to know if there has ever yet been any reserve value created for the purpose of meeting medical benefit. I do not mean an accumulation of contributions by individual members. I believe it is true that there has never been any reserve value attached to any man for medical benefit. If that is the case the Government ought to tell us now whether there is to be a reserve value and how much it is, or they ought to assure us that it is sufficient, so that there shall be no draft upon the funds of the societies for the extra benefits we are now asking to be given. What has the Government done? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty gets up and says the Commissioners have power to make regulations, which they may make or may not make. See what the difference is. If they do not make any such regulations, the society has to bear the cost. If they do make regulations, the society may have the expense taken off them. My hon. Friend moves an Amendment with the object of providing that societies shall not have to bear any part of this cost, and the answer of the Government is that the Commissioners have got power to make regulations which they may or may not exercise, and if they do exercise that power, the societies will not have to bear any part of the cost. I would like an answer to my question, whether there has been created a reserve value anywhere in connection with anybody for medical benefit except out of their own contributions? and I want to know whether the Government has done so in this case.

The answer to the first question is "Certainly, yes!" The reserve values already created include medical benefit for those over seventy years of age. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman said that he was only raising it in order to get a definite statement, which my hon. Friend has already given, and which we are very pleased to give. It is proposed to meet all the proposals under this Clause by the reserve values created. We have already issued an Actuarial Memorandum stating the exact amount that will be required, and we have no intention under any circumstances that a farthing of this expenditure should fall upon the approved societies. I cannot give now the calculations in reserve values, but they will be issued in due course by our Actuarial Staff, and will be revised by the Actuarial Committee, but either out of contributions from the State or out of reserve values the whole expenditure under Clause 2 will be met, and, unless there is some error in calculation against which no prudence could guard, nothing will fall upon the approved societies.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has been arguing under a complete misapprehension. His hon. Friend does not propose to make the Commissioners do anything. It is a permissive Clause. It says "The Insurance Commissioners may" do so-and-so, and the hon. Member adds "they may" do something else. His Amendment, in other words, is entirely unnecessary, and so was the speech of the hon. Gentleman.

As the Government has now made it clear that none of this expenditure will fall upon the approved societies, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

had given notice of an Amendment at the end of the Clause to add the words, "A woman who has been an insured person before marriage shall not be suspended from the ordinary benefits of the principal Act until three calendar months have elapsed after her marriage, and Section 44 of the principal Act shall be amended accordingly. The cost of this extension of benefits shall be met by moneys provided by Parliament."

The Amendment of the hon. Member is not in order on this Clause.

I wonder why?

It is not within the scope of reduction of benefits.

Surely women who were fifty and upwards at the time of entering into insurance would come under this Clause?

No, this Amendment refers to Section 44 of the original Act.

I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "who is a member of an approved society."

The object of this Amendment is to include deposit contributors in the great boon which this Clause gives. During the passage of the Parent Act through the House of Commons all sorts of promises were ma de to consider the position of deposit contributors, and, if something of advantage is to be given, it does seem to me very hard that deposit contributors should be left out. After all they need it most. They are the least regularly employed of any class of contributors, and, presumably, then have a larger quantity of arrears than any other class coming under the Bill.

On a point of Order. Would the Amendment of the hon. Member be in order on this Clause, seeing that deposit contributors could never be in arrears.

I think that is so. Unless the hon. Member can explain how they can be in arrear, the Amendment will not be in order. It might perhaps be put in the form of a new Clause.

May I ask this question? If there is no use in this Amendment, it is to be understood that a deposit contributor is, to all intents and purposes, an uninsured person? I should line to get from the Government some expression of opinion as to the position of the deposit contributor in this regard.

There is no question about that before the Committee.

:Shall I be in order in bringing this up as a new Clause? Cannot the Government see their way to do anything for the deposit contributors in this connection?

I think the proper course for the hon. Member to take is to put down a new Clause. I cannot express any opinion on the point, neither, I suppose, can the Government.

I give notice that I shall bring up a new Clause dealing with the matter.