House of Commons
Wednesday, May 16, 1923
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Bromborough Dock Bill.
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Calne Water) Bill.
Read a Second time, and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bradford, Mid Sussex Water Board, Northwich, Scarborough, Stourbridge and District Water Board and Thornton Joint Hospital District and Keighley and Bingley Joint Hospital District," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cardiff, Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage District, Isle of Thanet Joint Hospital District, Poole, Sheffield, and Goole," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Poulton-le-Fylde, Todmorden, and Willenhall," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
Warrington Corporation Bill
Order [ 13th March ] that the Bill be committed read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Refugees
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many refugees are now being maintained by His Majesty's Government, what are their nationalities, respectively, and what is the monthly cost of this maintenance?
:As regards British refugees, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Baronet the Member for Clapham (Sir John Leigh) on 20th April. I am not aware that any alien refugees are at present being maintained by His Majesty's Government from Imperial funds, but it is possible that a small number of those who have reached Cyprus or Malta may have become a temporary charge on local funds.
:Does that mean that the Russian refugees we were maintaining are now off our hands?
:In so far as it comes under the answer which I gave, that must be so.
Russia
British Trawlers (Arrest)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information about the Hull trawlers recently arrested for alleged illegal fishing in Russian waters; and whether the men detained have been visited by British representatives and what has been done to assist them?
I am afraid I can add nothing to the information which I gave the hon. and gallant Member yesterday, except that the British agent at Moscow has been instructed to appoint a legal representative to defend the interests of the master and owners of the "Lord Astor" at the forthcoming trial. I understand that the owners are in communication with the master, to whom they have succeeded in remitting funds.
:Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be advisable to send a permanent representative from the Petrograd staff, either to Archangel or Murman, to look after these people?
:I think that is too far-reaching a question to be dealt with offhand in reply to a supplementary question.
:Can the hon. Gentleman yet say whether the Soviet Government are attempting to impose a money fine upon the owners and the masters of either of these trawlers?
:I have no reason to suppose I was inaccurate in what I said yesterday on that subject.
:Do the Government intend to avail themselves of the offer of the Soviet Government to arbitrate with regard to the trawlers which were lost?
:That question does not arise.
20 and 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether, in view of the repeated acts of piracy of the Soviet forces against British working men fishing in the White Sea, steps will be taken to strengthen the British naval force in that area;
(2) how long ships of the "Godetia" class can remain at sea under normal conditions without relief on fishing protection in the White Sea; how long is required for these ships to remain at their base for refuelling, etc.; and whether two ships will suffice to ensure a constant patrol and consequent protection for British working men fishing in these waters?
:Ships of the "Godetia" class can remain at sea on patrol for about eight days, and have recently been remaining in harbour for re-fuelling only two or three days. Steps were taken recently temporarily to increase the number of vessels in North Russian waters so as to ensure that one vessel will always be on the fishing grounds, but as the trawlers may be operating anywhere within an area extending to upwards of 150 miles in length, it is obvious that even moderate security from seizure cannot be assured unless the fishing vessels are fitted with wireless telegraphy.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement contained in the first question as to repeated acts of piracy?
:Yes.
:Is there any justification for that belief?
:Were the trawlers which were captured the other day fitted with wireless apparatus?
:No, Sir; I am afraid they were not. I should have mentioned to the House that when the representatives of the fishing industry approached the Admiralty in the autumn, we strongly advised them to equip the trawlers with wireless, so that our sloops could go rapidly to their assistance. They did not see their way to do so, possibly on account of the expense.
:Is it not a fact, that every one of these trawlers captured has been captured during the absence of the gunboat; was not the Admiralty asked to strengthen the patrol long ago, and was not a refusal given?
:I am not sure, in these cases, had the trawlers been equipped with wireless, that our sloop might not have arrived in time.
:Would the right hon. Gentleman object to these fishing vessels being armed when in the White Sea?
Consulate, London
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a communication has been sent by the Government to the former Russian Government's Consulate in London to the effect that a breach with Russia is anticipated, followed by the withdrawal of the trade delegation; and whether Russians in this country are to be given the alternative of exchanging their Soviet passports for passports issued to them by their former Consulate or of leaving the country?
:The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
Territorial Waters
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at the Barcelona Conference held in the spring of 1921 a Report of a sub-committee, on which there was a British delegate, stated unanimously that it cannot be said that any territorial law exists on the question of territorial waters, and that the only point established in international law is that it is a national question; that the Soviet Government have expressed their willingness to negotiate on this subject with the British Government, and that the Russian Government have arrived at a settlement with the Norwegian Government on this point; and whether similar agreements can be negotiated between the Russian and British Governments?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Soviet Government have expressed their readiness to take part in any international conference on this subject, and to accept its findings, but have not arrived at an agreement with the Norwegian Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
United States (Imprisoned British Subjects)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that six British subjects are now serving terms of imprisonment in America for opinions expressed during the War; and will he take steps to secure the release of these men, who have already served five years in the penitenitaries of the United States?
:I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on the 10th instant.
Mexico
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position between this country and Mexico; and if any negotiations are taking, or are likely to take place in the near future with a view to reaching a mutual understanding?
:I would refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to the hon. Members for Central Wands-worth (Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) and East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) on 14th March, and to the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Erskine), on the 30th of last month in reply to questions on this subject. The position remains unchanged.
Peace Treaties
German Reparations
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now consider the advisability of consulting Allied Governments with a view of finding a solution to the German reparations question through the medium of the League of Nations?
:I would refer the hon. Member to statements made in the House by the Prime Minister and by myself on 19th February and 13th March, to which I cannot at the moment add anything.
:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this suggestion has on several occasions recently been made in a number of important organs of the French Press?
:Yes, but the answer which I have given holds good all the same.
Saar Valley Ordinance
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give or summarise the new Ordinance in the Saar Valley against peaceful picketing; whether it was submitted to the Advisory Council of 30 representatives; and whether reasons for it have been given to the League of Nations?
:The Ordinance in question prohibits picketing in any form as well as attempts to interfere with the freedom of workmen to work or of employers to dismiss or employ workmen. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. Information is being obtained with regard to the second and third parts of the question.
:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Ordinance has rendered illegal a practice which is perfectly legal in this country?
:That follows from my answer.
Vilna
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Lithuania is a member of the League of Nations; and if, having regard to the strong censure passed upon the Polish Government for its occupation of the Vilna territory by M. Leon Bourgeois, President of the Council of the League, in his letter to that Government, of 14th October, 1920, the British representative on the Council of the League will be instructed to recommend that the Lithuanian Government will be given the opportunity of appealing to the League against the recent decision of the Council of Ambassadors in regard to the Vilna territory?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have already explained, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain), that the decision of the Ambassadors' Conference is final, and the answer to the last part of the question is therefore in the negative.
Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have been heard by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal; how many judgments have yet been given; what is the number of cases still to be heard; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of again suggesting that additional Courts be constituted to expedite the hearing of cases?
:Up to 12th May the number of cases heard by the Tribunal was 163, in some of which the hearing had not been completed; 111 judgments had been given and 1,578 cases were outstanding, of which 12 are awaiting judgment. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Farnham on the 8th May.
:Is the noble Lord aware that the whole of this business has been appallingly slow, and unless additional Courts are created, most of the claimants are likely to be dead before they get judgment?
:The Government are aware of the severe congestion and are at present contemplating an additional tribunal by getting a neutral chairman arid the British member of the Anglo-Hungarian and the Bulgarian Tribunal to sit with a German member as a judicial Court. If that does not prove sufficient the Government are quite prepared to consider further steps.
:Will my noble Friend assure the House that if this new Tribunal be not set up in a week or so, further steps will be carried out?
:It is impossible to fix a time limit because, of course, the British Government is not the only authority concerned. It will have to communicate with the neutral and the German.
Turkish Troops (Iraq Frontier)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether additional Turkish troops have been recently sent to the Turkish frontier of Iraq?
:His Majesty's Government have no information to this effect.
China (Protection of Railways)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent outrage on the Tientsin-Pukow Railway, he will consider the possibility of arranging, by international agreement, either through the medium of the League of Nations or otherwise, for more effective control over the main trunk railway lines in China either by the formation of a Chinese gendarmerie, with foreign officers, or through some other force, which would be able to protect both railway passengers and goods from the depredations of disbanded soldiers and others who at present roam the country without either let or hindrance?
:The question of what measures can be taken to secure the better protection of foreign lives and property on the Chinese railways is already engaging the consideration of His Majesty's Government, in consultation with His Majesty's Minister at Peking, to whom the suggestions of my hon. Friend will be referred by telegraph.
Royal Navy
Royal Dockyards (Establishment Charges)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in calculating costs in Admiralty Yards to compare with private builders, local rates, interest on capital, salaries and pensions are taken into consideration?
:As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
In assessing the proportion of establishment charges to be added to the direct charges for labour and materials expended in the Royal Dockyards on new construction and repairs of His Majesty's ships, salaries and pensions are taken into account, together with all other forms of establishment expenditure met out of Admiralty Votes. It has not hitherto been the practice to include local rates, a contribution in aid of which is paid by the Treasury.
As regards interest on capital no sum based specifically on a valuation of the buildings and machinery in the yard is included, but the annual cost of repairs and maintenance of machinery and buildings, as well as the cost of additions of machinery and buildings required in connection with output, assessed on the average current cost spread over a term of years, are charged to the establishment account and distributed.
A proposal to include Treasury contributions in lieu of rates in dockyard establishment charges is now under consideration.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of workmen and officals employed at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Rosyth, and Pembroke Dockyards on 1st February, 1922, and 30th April, 1923?
:As the reply contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The reply is as follows:
The numbers of workpeople employed (including the Works Department employés) were as follows: Dockyard. 4th February, 1922. 28th April, 1923. Portsmouth 17,698 14,519 Devonport 14,382 12,483 Chatham 10,779 9,661 Rosyth 6,533 3,514 Pembroke Dock 2,104 1,308 The numbers of officials (including clerical staff) were as follows: February, 1922. April, 1923. Portsmouth 1,030 941 Devonport 673 605 Chatham 586 530 Rosyth 504 325 Pembroke 140 108 The dates are the nearest to those mentioned in respect of which returns are available.
Pay
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange for evidence to be taken from representative officers and men of the Royal Navy by the Committee appointed to consider the question of a reduction in naval pay before any decisions are arrived at?
:I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to the Anderson Committee on the present standard of remuneration of State servants. It is for the Committee to determine what evidence is required for the purpose of their inquiry, and I am informed that it is not possible to state at the present stage what evidence will be taken.
Overcoats
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can arrange that all men who joined before 1916 can be granted overcoats and oil coats free of charge?
:An overcoat and waterproof (both optional articles of kit) were added to the free kit of new entries as from 1st October, 1917. The articles still remain optional kit, but the rates of kit upkeep allowance (also introduced on 1st October, 1917) provide for the maintenance of an overcoat and waterproof. Actually, all men at present in the Service have received, in the aggregate, since that date an amount for upkeep more than sufficient to cover the first cost of providing these articles The reply is, therefore, in the negative.
:Does that mean that those men who have not been supplied will receive that allowance?
:They already receive it.
Boys (Recruitment)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether boys are still being recruited for seamen for the Navy; if so, in what manner are such recruits obtained; if local educational authorities are applied to in order to send in suitable candidates; whether there is any Recruiting Department for London boys; and if any special steps are taken in order to enlist the London boy in the Navy?
:As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The reply is as follows:
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, recruiting is carried out by Recruiting Officers stationed in London and certain other towns, assisted by Pensioner Recruiters at various out-stations; also by the Commodores of the Royal Naval Barracks at the home ports and, for Seaman Class boys, by the Commanding Officers of the Boys' Training Establishments. Recruiters have instructions to visit periodically the different towns in their districts, to arrange for the display of posters and handbills and to avail themselves of every opportunity offered to make public the requirements and advantages of the Service. As regards the third part, local educational authorities are not applied to in order to send in suitable candidates except for special appointments such as artificer apprentices, it being contrary to practice of the educational authorities to act as recruiting agents for the Service. As regards the fourth part, the Headquarter Naval Recruiting Office in London is at 55, Whitehall, and there are out-stations at Hackney, Stratford and Kingston-on-Thames. As regards the fifth part, no special steps are taken to enter London boys at the expense of boys in other parts of the country, but it may be stated that 34 per cent. of the total entries in Great Britain during 1922–23 were entered from the London district.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether boy artificers are still being recruited for the Navy, and, if so, will he state the number which are at present accepted annually; whether numbers of recruits are allocated to various parts of the country; and, if so, what number is allocated to the London district?
:Artificer apprentices are still being recruited. The numbers to be entered are fixed before each examination, according to requirements at the time. The total number entered last financial year was 49. Definite numbers of recruits are not allocated to various parts of the country, but candidates are accepted up to the numbers required in the order in which they appear on the examination list, irrespective of the part of the country from which they come.
Sea Wall, Harwich (Wages)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Burnley, Limited, Sittingbourne, are supplying cement for the sea wall at Harwich, and, although Government contractors are not paying the overtime and holiday rates fixed by the Cement Trade Joint Industrial Council; and whether, under these circumstances, the contracts can be withdrawn or the firm removed from the list of contractors unless agreed rates are put into operation?
:This is not a Government contract, and from information in my possession there is no ground for supposing that the Fair Wages Clause is being contravened.
:Is it not a fact that a grant has been supplied by the Government for this scheme, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to study the conditions under the agreement that exists at the present time?
:I am not aware of any Government grant. This is private work, but I gave an answer on 28th February of this year to the effect that we had investigated the wages paid by this firm and had found that the rate of wages paid did not contravene the Fair Wages Clause of the Admiralty contracts.
:May I suggest that there is a distinction between the rate of wages and the conditions that apply to holiday and overtime rates?
:All that I am concerned with is the Fair Wages Clause.
Sick-Berth Staff, Plymouth Division
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that no advancements have been made in the junior ratings of the sick-berth staff, Plymouth Division, since 9th October, 1921, the Admiralty will promulgate their decision regarding Class Request No. 1 of Group 10 of 1922 Welfare Committee?
:Admiralty decisions on the Welfare Requests will be promulgated shortly.
Royal Cordite Factory, Holton Heath (Wages)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the reductions in wages which have taken place among Admiralty employés at the Royal Cordite Factory, Holton Heath, amounting to 16s. 6d. per week since July, 1922, in addition to the withdrawal of the workmen's season, tickets, which entails a further reduction in their purchasing power on the average of 5s. 4d. per week thereby reducing their actual wages to 35s. 8d. per week, and the prolonged period of short time at the same depot, as compared with other Admiralty establishments, the Board of Admiralty can see their way to review their previous decision on this question?
:I regret that I am unable to add anything to my reply of 30th April on this subject.
Dockyards (Valuation)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty upon what principle the valuation of the Royal dockyards is arrived at; what has been the valuation of each of the dockyards for the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923; and what amounts have been contributed to local rates in respect of these during these years?
:The preparation of the figures required involves considerable labour, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate them, when completed, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Government Departments
Admiralty
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty by what date it is hoped, having regard to reductions now being carried out, that the staff of the Admiralty will be reduced to normal proportions?
:It is hoped that the numbers will be reduced to normal post-War proportions by the end of the current financial year except in one Department where, owing to the residue of work arising directly out of the War, a small staff in excess of these numbers may have to be borne for part of the following year.
:What are the normal post-War numbers?
:As they are arranged at present—they are continually under review—they would be about 50 per cent. above what they were.
Ministry of Pensions (Women Clerks)
asked the Minister of Health how many women above the clerical grade were employed at the headquarters of his Department in August, 1921; and how many women of similar grade are now employed there?
:The number of women above the clerical grade employed at the headquarters of the Ministry of Health in August, 1921, was 24; the present number is 29.
Housing Accommodation
asked the First Commissioner of Works if his Department have at the present moment any programme ready to be put into operation as soon as funds become available for the housing of Government Departments and subsidiary offices in permanent buildings of the character of those in use by most of the senior Departments and in concentrated areas; whether he will consider the advantage of such a scheme forming part of an architectural reconstruction of Whitehall; and whether, in view of the expense of the policy of adaptation of unsuitable buildings scattered over London on inconvenient sites, as at present in vogue, such a policy can gradually be abandoned by immediately starting on such schemes, as a contribution towards diminishing unemployment in London; and whether he can say what the approximate gross cost of completing such schemes would be to the Treasury, and the net cost after deducting the estimated saving per annum and the value of the sites vacated?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is doubtful if the scheme of accommodating Government staffs in permanent buildings of an expensive type concentrated in certain selected areas would prove either practicable or economical. In any case, such a proposal would require mature consideration in the light of permanent post-War requirements, which cannot yet be fully ascertained, and it could not be made effective for the immediate relief of unemployment. If it becomes necessary to increase the permanent accommodation of Government headquarters staffs, the sites available for development in Whitehall will be considered in connection with any building scheme proposed. I am unable to say what such a scheme as the hon. and gallant Member has in mind would cost, but it would involve very heavy capital outlay.
Post Office (Stamps Section)
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the vacancies now falling due in the male non-clerical staff of the Post Office Stamps Section are being filled by women instead of men, he can give the rates of pay in each ease; and whether the change is made in the interests of economy, irrespective of the fact that there are such a large number now of unemployed ex-service men?
:The permanent grading and pay of both men and women in the Stamp Section are as yet unsettled. The duties which will be allotted to women in that section have long been regarded as more suitable for women than for men.
Rumania (British Officers' Visit)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is a British military mission now in Rumania; whether Field-Marshal the Earl of Ypres is accompanying it officially; and if any information with regard to its objects can be communicated to the House?
:I have been asked to reply. There is no British military mission in Rumania. A party of officers from the Staff College recently visited many of the European battlefields of the Great War, including some of those in Rumania, but this visit was of a private and instructional nature, the officers proceeding in plain clothes with the permission of the Rumanian Government. It is understood that Field-Marshal the Earl of Ypres has recently been making an unofficial visit to Rumania; nothing is known of his movements.
:Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the very extensive statements which have been made about this mission in the Rumanian papers, as to its having examined the Bessarabian frontier, and expressed certain opinions?
:All our knowledge of the matter is expressed in the answer I have given.
:Are these officers going to visit the great Russian battlefields, especially the scenes of the victories over Koltchak and Denikin?
Unemployment
Catering and Amusement Trades
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the custom of some employers, particularly in the catering and amusement trades, of employing on evening work persons who are fully employed in the day; and whether, in view of the amount of unemployment existing, he will draw the attention of employers to the undesirability of this practice?
:It is, of course, desirable in general that employment should be given to those who are unemployed rather than to those who are already employed, and I think employers realise this. The circumstances of different cases, however, vary so much that I doubt if anything would be gained by issuing a general appeal on the subject.
Domestic Service
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss F. Deakin, 54, Cranford Street, Smethwick, single woman in lodgings, who has been refused unemployment benefit because she declined to train as a domestic servant on condition that when efficient she would emigrate; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?
:This applicant is 20 years of age, has been unemployed for two years, and has received 132 days of benefit between November, 1922, and April, 1923. Further uncovenanted benefit was refused on the recommendation of the Local Employment Committee, because, having regard to her refusal of training for domestic work for which she appeared to be suitable, the Committee considered that she could not be regarded as genuinely seeking whole-time employment. No condition of emigration is attached to the training, and the applicant has admitted that no mention of emigration was made to her.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman lay, for the information of the House, figures showing the total number of women who have been refused uncovenanted benefit because of this condition?
:I think that is rather a large order.
Benefit
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. W. Jones, 37, Gilbert Road, Smethwick, who, although having four and a half years' stamps to his credit, has been refused unemployment benefit; and whether, having regard to the fact that the applicant is married, he will cause inquiries to be made into this case with a view to the payment of benefit?
:I am making inquiries into this case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
Harwich Employment Exchange (Mr. D. Hedley)
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to complaints of unfair treatment of Mr. Donald Hedley by the manager of the Harwich Employment Exchange; whether any inquiry has been made; and, if so, with what result?
:My attention had already been called to this matter by the Harwich and District Trades and Labour Council. As a result of investigation made, I was unable to find any foundation for the suggestion of unfair treatment of Mr. Donald Hedley by the Branch Employment Manager at Harwich.
:If I send the right hon. Gentleman further details, will he make further inquiries?
:Certainly; I shall be glad to look into them.
Musicians (Brighton Exchange)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed musicians in Brighton have been sent by the Exchange officials there to the Coliseum Picture House at Shoreham to apply for employment; that upon application being made the men found that none but ex-service men were wanted; that they must be under 35 years of age; that they must join the Territorial forces, and that the salary would be £2 7s. per week, 7s. of which would be the Territorial pay; and whether, in view of these conditions and of the fact that the minimum rate for musicians is £3 per week, he will instruct the Brighton Exchange that no more men are to be sent to the place in question without full particulars being first supplied to them?
:Two vacancies for musicians, ex-service men, were notified on the 21st April to the Brighton Exchange for a picture house at Shoreham. The rate of wages was not stated, but was to be arranged according to ability and experience. Four Brighton men who wished to consider the vacancies were interviewed at Brighton by a representative of the prospective employers, but I understand none of these four was engaged. The reference to Territorial pay must, I think, be due to a misapprehension, as members of the Territorial Forces are not in receipt of pay except during annual training. I may add that this matter was recently brought up at a meeting of the Brighton Local Employment Committee, when the circumstances were fully explained.
:Do the Employment Exchanges in any way undertake to announce vacancies, where less than the trade union rate is paid, without making a special note of that fact to the applicants?
:I should like to have notice of that question.
:Surely, there is a general rule or instruction, of which the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that where the trade union rate is not paid, special notice must be given to the applicants for the job?
:I should like notice of that question, but the hon. Member knows perfectly well what the general rule is under Section 7 of the Act of 1920, so far as covenanted benefit is concerned, and the principle of that Section is carried out so far as uncovenanted benefit is concerned.
:Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say now that he deplores any attempt to fill vacancies where other than trade union rates are paid?
:Is it correct, as stated in the question, that a condition of joining the Territorial Forces is laid down, and does the right hon. Gentleman approve of that condition?
:I have already stated that there must be a mistake in regard to that, for the reasons I gave.
Newcastle-On-Tyne
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of unemployment caused in Newcastle-on-Tyne by the attitude of the boilermakers, whereby much repair work has been sent from the Tyne to foreign and other ports?
:I am afraid I have no means of estimating the amount of unemployment caused by any single factor, such as the dispute referred to by the hon. Member.
:Does not my right hon. Friend receive reports from the various industrial areas, which would enable him to locate the amount of unemployment in certain groups of trades?
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Barrow from 2,000 to 3,000 men would be able to start work if it were not for the attitude of the boilermakers?
:I do not think the question of Barrow, in which I have, generally speaking, all sympathy, arises out of this particular question, but in regard to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Doyle), it is true that I get returns as to unemployment, but what my hon. Friend asks is something much more than that. He is asking me to measure, in terms of industrial areas, what a particular amount of unemployment works out at.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that shipowners would send their work to Timbuctoo if they could only get it done more cheaply there than by British labour?
:Is it not a fact that, owing to the action of the Government, 1,500,000 unemployed are going about the country because the Government are not opening up trade with Russia?
Herring Fishery (Women Workers)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now prepared to amend the Regulations so as to exclude or exempt from the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts women workers in the herring fishery whose occupation is only seasonal?
:As I promised the House recently, I have had further inquiries made into the position of women fish-workers under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I have no power to except this employment from unemploymen insurance, but, as I have already informed the hon. Member, these women are able to obtain exemption if they are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood upon some other person or upon some non-insurable employment, and I am considering how far it may be possible to simplify the operation of obtaining exemption certificates in these cases.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement in the House on that subject at an early date?
:Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will put that question down after Whitsuntide, and I will give the best answer that I can.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the matter is urgent, seeing that the summer herring fishing begins in a few weeks' time?
:I will give the matter my attention at once.
Wages Regulation
asked the Minister of Labour if he can see his way to relax the regulation providing for 75 and 87½ per cent. of standard wages to be paid to men on unemployment relief schemes, in view of the wishes of so many large municipalities to pay full rates and of the danger to the national minimum standards constantly involved; and if he is aware that on 8th May the Bradford City Council added its plea for this reform to that of other local authorities?
:I regret that I am unable to recommend modification of this regulation which applies only for a probationary period of six months, and does not apply to skilled men employed in their trade. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
:Would it not be well to reconsider that decision in view of the fact that if the right hon. Gentleman allowed the local authorities the right to pay full standard rates it would be in the commercial interests of the country because of the increased purchasing power afforded?
Benefit, Gateshead
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give a Return of the number of persons whose application for unemployment benefit has been refused by the Gateshead rotas, with reasons for refusal, during the first four months of this year; will he supply the names of the Gateshead Employment Committee rotas, with their representative designation, number of meetings held, with dates from 1st January to 30th April, 1923; and the number of names of the members of rotas summoned to each meeting?
:I am having local inquiry made as to the points raised and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
Juvenile Centres
asked the Minister of Labour what were the average total attendances at the juvenile unemployment centres during March; and what are the latest figures of total attendance available?
:The average total attendances at juvenile unemployment centres during March were 7,980 at the 70 centres then open. The attendance during the week ended 2nd May, the latest date available, was 8,610 at 89 centres.
:Is it not the fact that the attendances at these centres have increased and are being increasingly appreciated; and is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman said some time ago that these were almost vital to the child-welfare of the country?
:It is true, and I am glad to say it, that these centres are generally being appreciated by the country. It is not universally true that the attendances are going up. In some areas, I am sorry to say—if it be a matter for sorrow—they are going down. Generally speaking, however, they are appreciated throughout the country.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell the House whether any grant will be continued to these centres after the end of June?
:As I have already informed the House, the centres are coming to an end in July; they were arranged for a definite period that will be drawing to a close in June or July. What is to happen after that has not yet been decided.
:Where the attendance falls through success in placing the youths in employment, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of not discontinuing these centres prematurely?
:Some education authorities have granted money up till October in these centres. Where there is this increase, will the right hon. Gentleman allow them to go on? We have got our grants till October in Plymouth.
:In regard to the first supplementary question, of course, it is very often a matter of argument under what circumstances the attendances are falling. As I said just now, in some cases it is a matter of regret, because the youths have not got employment; where they have got into employment it is a matter of congratulation. But, as I say, the whole matter of what is going to happen has not yet been decided.
asked the Minister of Labour if, having regard to the protests which have been made against the closing down of the juvenile unemployment centres, he will reconsider the decision to withdraw the grant in respect of these centres, and will give the local authorities concerned an opportunity of making representations as to the work done in these centres and the need for their continuation?
:The grants for juvenile unemployment centres were originally made as a temporary measure to cover the period up to 31st May of this year. An extension was subsequently sanctioned to 30th June, or, in the case of centres recently established, to 21st July. I cannot give any undertaking to make any further extension, but I have put certain special inquiries in hand in order that I may have full information before me with regard to the utility of the centres.
:What directions will be given to the local authorities who have secured their local grants covering the period of the next six months? How are they to act on the 30th June?
:The Minister of Labour, in reply to an earlier question, said that he could not now answer that question.
:I beg to give notice that, at the earliest opportunity, I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment.
Afforestation Schemes
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in many areas where unemployment is especially rife it would be possible to carry out considerable afforestation schemes on available and suitable land near by; and whether such schemes are being considered by the Unemployment Grants Committee?
:I have been asked to reply to this question. As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
As a result of a recommendation of the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment. £100,000 was allocated at the end of November for afforestation schemes in relief of unemployment last winter. The Forestry Commissioners sanctioned over 400 grants schemes for afforestation by local authorities and private individuals, and, in addition, relief works have been undertaken in the Crown Woods and in the Commission's forest areas. Under these schemes more than £100,000 will have been expended on wages.
The Commissioners are aware that land suitable for considerable afforestation schemes is available in many areas where rural unemployment is rife and likely to remain so during next planting season, but the acreage which the Commissioners are authorised to acquire and the extent of the area which can be planted each season is limited by the funds at their disposal.
If the Commissioners receive notification in the immediate future that expenditure will be authorised, they can arrange for important extensions of their own planting programme and that of local authorities and private individuals, thereby providing additional employment in many rural areas. They have already made representations on the subject to the appropriate quarter.
Land Reclamation
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the approach of warmer weather, he has considered the possibility of reclamation work, even in the more remote districts, for which men could be drawn from those areas where unemployment is especially severe; and whether, seeing that such work would be more useful and advantageous than the distribution of unemployment pay, he will state what objections there are to the adoption of such a policy?
:I have been asked to reply. The whole question of land reclamation, in its relation to the alleviation of unemployment, has constantly engaged the attention of my Department. Apart, however, from the difficulties of accommodation and transport arising out of the fact that most areas which may be ripe for reclamation are remote from centres of acute unemployment, such work is likely to prove so uneconomic under present conditions that it cannot be recommended for the purpose in view.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are large areas near Barrow which could be reclaimed, and that there is a tremendous amount of unemployment in Barrow? Will he consider this suggestion?
:Can anything be more uneconomic than paying money for nothing?
Water Supply Schemes
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the application of the Unemployment Fund, not exhausted in connection with land drainage schemes, for the carrying out of schemes for supplying water to rural districts where there is a scarcity of water, and that not of a very pure character, and to obtain which the inhabitants are compelled to proceed long distances?
:I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that a portion of the Unemployment Fund to which he refers has already been devoted to the carrying out of water supply schemes in rural districts. Since 1st October, 1922, no fewer than 123 such schemes have beer, approved.
Business Premises (Security of Tenure)
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great hardship and loss suffered by tenants of shops and other business premises through having to remove from their premises after the usual form of notice, he is prepared to introduce legislation providing compensation for unreasonable disturbance on the lines of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, and also security of tenure under conditions which would safeguard the interests of both landlord and tenant?
:The Government cannot give an undertaking at the present time to introduce legislation to the effect suggested.
:Is it not possible for shop tenants in Great Britain to have the same advantages as those in Ireland, and could not the legislation that has been found useful in the case of Irishmen be extended to this country?
:Though legislation may be desirable, it is impossible at the present time to introduce it.
:Is it not possible to provide for this in the Rents Restriction Bill?
:Would it not be better to put aside useless and unnecessary legislation, and to get on with that which is useful and necessary?
Trawling, Scotland (Committee)
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the terms of reference of the Committee on Trawling off the Coast of Scotland; and the names of the members of the Committee?
I have been asked to reply. The terms of reference to the Committee which the Secretary for Scotland is appointing are to inquire and report on the present legislative position as to beam and otter trawling off the coasts of Scotland and the arrangements for policing the Scottish sea fisheries. The names of the members of the Committee are
:Why is there no fisherman representative on the Committee?
:When it was decided to appoint a Committee, as I have said, it was considered impossible to appoint representatives of interests on the Committee itself.
:Is it not very desirable that those who are engaged in this industry should be represented on the Committee, particularly those who at the moment are suffering severely under present conditions?
:The hon. and learned Member will realise that you cannot have one industry represented, without having the interests of all the other industries represented thereupon, and so you get the committee to an unmanageably large size. A committee of three it is hoped will be able to put out a useful Report within a reasonable time.
:Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary for Scotland that an additional two Members—[An HON. MEMBER: "Both English!"]—Not at all—one representative of the trawling industry and the other representative of the line fishermen, should be appointed? I have nothing to say against the three gentlemen appointed, but I desire to make that suggestion.
:I quite agree, but the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the trawling industry, for instance, at Aberdeen, has just come to the conclusion of a disastrous strike due to a dispute in the industry, and it is very difficult to add two members, for you would want another two, and yet another, and the Committee would grow rapidly. It is necessary to limit it, as far as possible, to a small working body.
:In this very important matter to Scotland—and the whole industry—may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not consider the appointment of a person who has a very extensive knowledge of the industry, although not directly concerned in it at the present time? Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that point, instead of the Committee being entirely confined to non-experts on the question?
:As the hon. Gentleman will himself realise, no doubt there would not be satisfaction at the appointment of simply one representative of the industry, and it would, or might, be considered that the representative of the owners should be counterbalanced by a representative of the employés; hence you would rapidly get a Committee representative of interests which it is not desirable should be the case. The views of all parties will be brought before this non-technical Committee.
:I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill
asked the Prime Minister whether he has been asked to receive a deputation which would include leading members of all the Christian churches, of the teaching and medical professions, and of women's organisations, who desire to ask him whether the Government will grant facilities for the early passage of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill as it has passed through Committee; and whether he will agree to receive this deputation?
:I have been asked whether, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I could receive such a deputation. I regret that I have found it impossible to arrange to do so at the present time, and I, therefore, ask that the request should be deferred until after the Whitsun Recess.
Capitalist System (Motion)
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to continue the Debate on the Motion (Capitalist System) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Colne Valley Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Snowden)—[ That, in view of the failure of the capitalist system to adequately utilise and organise natural resources and productive power, or to provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the population, and believing that the cause of this failure lies in the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribu- tion, this House declares that legislative effort should be directed to the gradual supersession of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based on the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution. ]
:I am not in a position at the moment to name a date.
:This Debate is causing considerable interest in the country, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the date of resumption?
:I am afraid I cannot give an indication of the date. No doubt a day will be given.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that some day this Session shall be given?
assented
Prisoners (Egypt)
asked the Prime Minister how many Egyptian political leaders, apart from the deportees, are now in prison without having been tried; if His Majesty's Government will give instructions to the High Commissioner to put a stop to the practice of trying such offenders before the Military Courts and have their cases brought before the Egyptian Courts upon which British Judges are serving and which administer the common law of the land; and if he will take steps to have these cases dealt with at the earliest possible moment by those Courts?
:I have not the material wherewith to supply the hon. Member, at such short notice, with an accurate answer to the first part of his question. As regards the remainder of the question, so long as proceedings under martial law offer some chance of bringing to justice those responsible for the recent series of dastardly attempts on the lives of British subjects in Egypt, His Majesty's Government have no intention of seeking to modify the measures at present adopted to trace these crimes to their source.
:Would it not conduce to the settlement of passions in Egypt at least to give these people a trial? They are imprisoned for months without trial, and the object of this question is to know whether they cannot be brought to trial?
:The hon. Gentleman asks me whether this would not conduce to a settlement; that, obviously, is a matter of opinion.
Tailoring Trade Board (Orkney)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now prepared to make any modification in the operation of the Trade Board as applied to the bespoke tailoring trade in Orkney?
:The question of fixing differential rates for different districts is still before the Retail Bespoke Tailoring Board.
Ex-Service Men
Employment (Building Trade)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is considering any further proposals with the object of finding employment for the large number of able-bodied ex-service men now out of employment; and, in particular, if any means can be devised whereby they can be employed in connection with the houses proposed to be built with the aid of Government subsidies?
:As regards the first part of the question, as my hon. Friend is aware, it is a condition of State financial assistance to relief works that 75 per cent. of the men employed shall be ex-service men. As regards the latter part of the question, I do not think it would be practicable to impose a similar condition in connection with housing schemes, but I may point out that a substantial proportion of ex-service men are in the ordinary course employed on such schemes.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to send a definition of the words "patriotism in peace time" to those employers on the King's Roll?
Mental Cases
asked the Minister of Health if all boards of guardians which look after mentally defective ex-service men in receipt of small military pensions for service prior to the late War take all or any part, if so, how much, of the pensions allotted to these men prior to their internment which are needed to help to keep their very old dependants; whether the Ministry of Health lays down any Regulations on the subject; and whether he is aware that when these men whose pensions are often only Is. a day are thus kept by the guardians, their mothers and their wives, as the case may be, are reduced to complete penury by the practical stoppage of the small allowances on which they had hitherto mainly to live?
:Boards of guardians have a discretion as to the collection of suitable contributions from the relatives of persons relieved by them, and the exercise of this discretion is not subject to any Regulations made by my Department. If, however, the hon. Member will give me the particulars of any case which he may have in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.
Railways (Rate Assessments)
asked the Minister of Health what was the total gross assessable value and the nett rateable value of the railways that were included in the amalgamation scheme in England and Wales, for poor rate purposes, for the year ending 31st March, 1922, and for the year ending 31st March, 1923; and will he state what was the total loss in rate revenue to the local authorities in the year ending 31st March, 1923, due to the assessment of railways to local rates on the cumulo principle?
:I regret that there are no statistics available which would enable me to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very grave dissatisfaction amongst the rating authorities of the country generally owing to the special privileges granted under this system to the railway companies, and in face of the heavy burden on the local rates, will he have this matter reconsidered in view of the fact that it is merely a private arrangement?
:The question put to me related to the providing of the information asked for, which I said I was not able to give.
:Would the right hon. Gentleman like to have the information if I supply it to him?
:Certainly.
Air Pollution (Causeway Green)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the public indignation which has been aroused among the inhabitants of Oldbury owing to the nuisance created by the emission of offensive smells from Messrs. Patrick's works, situated at Causeway Green; that the inhabitants in the immediate vicinity of these works are unable to keep open doors or windows, even for a short time; and that, in consequence of their inability to secure proper ventilation, ill-health is becoming prevalent in the district; and what steps he proposes to take, to deal with the matter?
:I have not previously received any complaints regarding this work, but I have directed a special investigation to be made.
Poor Law Relief (Pension Assessment)
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the South Shields, Jarrow, and District War Pensions Committee protesting against the amount of a man's disability pension being taken into consideration when payment of relief is being made, expressing the opinion that all moneys received in connection with war service should be excluded when the rate of relief is assessed; and whether it is pro posed to issue any instructions to the boards of guardians in the matter?
:I am aware of the resolution referred to, but as there is no legal authority for disregarding such a source of income as a disability pension when considering an application for relief, I have no power to issue any instructions to the contrary effect.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman say why these people's pensions should be taken away, when the pensions of people engaged in Government offices are not interfered with in this way?
:It is the law.
Small Leaseholders (Dilapidations)
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the way in which schedules of dilapidations are systematically being used to force small leaseholders into buying ground rents at enhanced prices and paying fees to solicitors and surveyors; and whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit a freeholder from serving a schedule of dilapidations on any leaseholder who can produce a certificate from the local sanitary authority that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair and decoration?
:My Department have no special information on this matter, which hardly comes within the sphere of the Ministry of Health, and I cannot undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.
Housing
Building Materials (Prices)
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, since the introduction of this Housing Bill, firms in the National Light Castings' Association have issued revised price lists increasing the price of rain-water pipes, gutters, soil pipes, connections, stove pipes, furnace pans, and roof lights by 10 per cent.; and that this increase is imposed despite wage reductions and railway freight reductions; and what he proposes to do to safeguard the public funds from these operations?
:The matter is engaging the attention of the Committee on Prices of Building Materials.
:Has the right hon. Gentleman made any computation of the extent to which the National Light Cast- ings Association and other trusts operating in the building trade have already eaten up the £6 subsidy?
:No, Sir; I have not.
:Will the Government give facilities for the Trusts Bill which is now before the House?
:That is not a question which should be addressed to me.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman in possession of the circular which the National Light Castings Association have sent round to their trade customers increasing their prices?
:Is the Committee going to take any action?
:I have got a copy of that circular, but I do not think it is advisable that I should take action at the same time that I have got a Committee inquiring into the matter.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that since the Government have said that they are going to give this £6 subsidy this circular has been issued announcing an increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of light castings; and does he not know the amount of money spent on light castings for one house? Can the right hon. Gentleman not see that his £6 subsidy is being taken in this way, and is it not within his power to deal with these trusts?
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the maintenance of high prices by building trade combinations, he will introduce legislation having for its purpose the national ownership and control of industries concerned with the production of building materials?
:No, Sir.
National Factories
asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to expedite the building of houses, he will consider the organisation of national housing factories to manufacture standardised requisites for housing schemes?
:No, Sir.
Direct Labour
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the great savings effected by the Derby Town Council and other local bodies through the employment of direct labour in building houses; and if, in view of the necessity of solving the housing problem as economically as possible, he will there fore take steps to promote the further employment of direct labour?
:So far as I am aware, the Derby Town Council have not built any houses by direct labour since the War. They have recently submitted proposals for building 18 houses by direct labour, but in this, as in other cases, the price shows no saving on comparable prices obtained at open tender by other authorities. Under the Housing Bill the financial interest of local authorities should secure that they adopt the most economical method of carrying out schemes.
:Will the Minister of Health take the trouble to get all the figures in relation to what he has done and give us a comparative statement?
:Would the hon. Member kindly speak up?
:Would you kindly shut up?
:I want to intimate to the hon. Member for Richmond that if he continues, I will meet him outside.
Arrested Schemes (Transfer of Sites)
asked the Minister of Health whether the transfer of lands and partly developed sites acquired under the late Government's assisted schemes will be based on the actual cost of acquisition and development or on the present market values of the same?
:The transfer of sites acquired under the late State-assisted housing scheme will take place on the basis of the present market value of the land and of any development works which may have been carried out thereon.
Local Authorities' Schemes
asked the Minister of Health whether, in those localities where there is still an admitted great shortage of houses or where the local authorities' schemes have been suspended owing to the curtailment of the late Government's building programme, he will sanction the resumption of building operations on the part of those local authorities who, from experience already acquired, are satisfied that there is no prospect of private builders immediately starting operations, without requiring the local authorities to delay their schemes several weeks until exhaustive inquiries have been made under paragraph 19 on page 10 of Circular No. 388, issued by his Department on 27th April, 1923?
:I appreciate that in some districts it may not be practicable to secure the immediate erection of houses by private enterprise, and, as stated in the Circular referred to by the hon. Member, I should in such cases be prepared to consider an application from the local authority to erect houses themselves. It is desirable, however, that in such cases the proposals should be limited in the first instance to such number of houses as can be commenced and finished quickly, and that during the construction of these houses the local authority should carefully examine what steps can best be taken to encourage the erection by other agencies of the houses required.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to those local authorities who have unfinished schemes where the roads are already made and the sewers are in? Will he give permission to complete those schemes if they send in their applications at once?
:I will certainly give them special consideration.
:Is there any truth in the statement that applications from local authorities for a large number of houses are only just getting permission to erect one-fourth of the number applied for?
:I am afraid that I did not hear the hon. Member's question.
:Is there any truth in the statement that when local authorities apply for permission to erect houses they are only being given permission to erect 25 per cent. of the total number required and applied for?
:No, Sir.
Hounslow Urban District Council (Woman Clerk)
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of a female clerk named Marshall, now on the established staff of the Health Department of the Hounslow Urban District Council, having been employed there for the last eight years and admittedly competent, trustworthy, and wholly satisfactory, who has recently been given notice by the medical officer of health for Hounslow that her employment will be terminated next year for the reason that she is a woman and thus blocks the way to the possible promotion of a junior male clerk or office boy; whether he will cause inquiries to be made in order to ascertain Whether this action of the medical officer of health is of his own initiative and motion or with the knowledge and official sanction of the Hounslow Urban District Council; and whether, in either event and having regards to the Public Health (Officers) Act, 1921, and the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, he will take steps to prevent such action in future?
:My attention has not previously been drawn to this case. I have no jurisdiction with regard to such an officer, and cannot undertake to act in the manner suggested.
:Is not half the salary of the medical officer paid by the Ministry itself?
:This is a question of a female clerk.
:No, Sir, the action of the medical officer.
Mental Case (Mrs. E. Deacon)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that A. J. Deacon, of 53, Richmond Road, Islington, has been ordered by the guardians to pay 10s. a week for the maintenance of his wife Emily, who is detained against his will in Colney Hatch Asylum, and was in the first instance committed by the infirmary doctor in contravention of Section 22 of the Lunacy Act after two magistrates had given her husband leave to take her home to his own care; and, since inquiry into the circumstances of this case has been promised by the Ministry of Health, will he take steps to see that no arbitrary action of this kind is taken previous to the date of the said inquiry?
:I have no information on the point raised in the first part of the question; but the liability of a husband to contribute towards the cost of maintaining his wife in a public mental hospital is not affected by the fact that he has applied for her discharge. As I promised, in reply to a previous question, I have sent the hon. Member a full statement of the facts of the case, and I see no necessity for further action. There has been no contravention of Section 22 of the Lunacy Act. The Commissioners of the Board of Control will be visiting the hospital shortly, and will pay special attention to the mental condition of this patient.
National Health Insurance
Panel System
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to recent criticisms of the panel system under the National Health Insurance Act; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the working of the Act?
asked the Minister of Health if he will institute an independent inquiry into the working of the panel system under the National Health Insurance Acts, so as to ascertain how best to remedy the defects revealed in 10 years' working of the system?
:I am aware of recent criticisms of the panel system, which, in a service of this magnitude, are, I fear, inevitable. The revision of the terms of service of insurance practitioners, with a view to securing a more efficient medical service under the Insurance Acts, has been fully examined in consultation with the Insurance Consultative Council and the Insurance Acts Committee of the British Medical Association, and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry as the hon. Members suggest.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman considering, in this connection, the very large number of persons who are at present permitted to be on doctors' panel lists, and is he going to make any alteration in regard to that?
:I take it that that question is being considered by the Insurance Consultative Council and the Insurance Acts Committee.
:Would it not be desirable that some independent outside inquiry should be made into a matter of this sort?
:Will representation be given in this inquiry to the medical aid societies, which have been ignored up to the present, and which represent a very large proportion of the insured persons in this country?
:Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the result of this inquiry will be made known?
:I do not quite know to what inquiry the hon. Member refers.
:The Consultative Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred just now.
:I cannot say when any decision will be arrived at. That will probably have to be delayed for some little time.
Approved Societies (Administrative Expenses)
asked the Minister of Health whether the draft order reducing the amount of the administrative expenses of approved societies will be laid before Parliament before the Whitsuntide Recess?
:Notice of intention to make the Regulation referred to by the hon. Member was given in the "London Gazette" of 11th May. The Regulation cannot be laid before Parliament until the statutory period of 40 days from the date of the notice has elapsed, but a copy of the draft Regulation will be placed in the Library as soon as copies are received from the printers.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman, for his part, see that an opportunity is given for adequate Parliamentary discussion of the proposal?
:That, of course, is not a matter with which I can deal.
Small-Pox
asked the Minister of Health if, seeing that the cases and suspected cases of small-pox notified for 1921 were 336 cases, for 1922 were 979 cases, and for the first three months of 1923 520 cases, he can state the causes of the great increase of small-pox this year; if the disease is on the increase or decrease during April; and has he information indicating that the objection of people to being vaccinated is one cause for the increase?
:I am advised that the recent increase of small-pox may be attributed to the widespread neglect of vaccination and re-vaccination, and to the fact that small-pox is a disease of seasonal prevalence, the maximum incidence usually occurring at the end of the first quarter of the year. The number of cases notified in April was 139, as compared with 215 in the previous month.
:Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the spread of small-pox might be accounted for by the lack of housing accommodation?
:No, Sir.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman give to the House the respective numbers of persons who have contracted this disease who were vaccinated and who were not vaccinated?
:If the hon. Member will put down a question in regard to that I will give him the information.
:Did not the right hon. Gentleman, before coming down to reply, ascertain the ratio of vaccinated to un-vaccinated persons?
:Yes, Sir, I did, hut, as it was not asked for in the question, I did not give it in my reply.
Dentists Act (Opticians)
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider an amendment to the Dentists Act which would enable opticians who have hitherto practised also as dentists to be placed on the same footing as chemists with regard to registration?
:So far as I am aware, the particular combination of occupations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is not sufficiently common to justify amending legislation.
Roman Catholic Schools, London
asked the Minister of Health what scales of payment are allowed to be paid by London boards of guardians to Roman Catholic schools where children are sent by the guardians; whether it is a fixed weekly amount; whether guardians are allowed to increase the amount if they think it is too low for the accommodation provided; and whether they are allowed to pay larger amounts to other kinds of schools to which they may send children?
:The maximum rates of payment by boards of guardians to Roman Catholic certified schools are fixed sums varying between 12s. and 14s. per week. Where medical or other special reasons exist, the guardians can send children to uncertified homes, and in these cases there are no fixed rates.
Pembroke Square, Earl'scourt
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is proposed to commence building operations on the open space known as Pembroke Square, Earl's Court; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the loss of this open space to the district?
:I have no authority to intervene, but the matter has been brought to the knowledge of the London County Council.
Oxford University (Powers and Jurisdiction)
78, 79 and 80.
asked the Attorney-General, (1) whether he is aware that any case pending in the High Court of Justice may be removed from the jurisdiction of such Court if one party only is a resident member of Oxford University; whether he will consider the desirability of amending the law in this respect;
(2) whether he is aware that the University of Oxford possesses powers over markets, weights and measures, theatres, and travellers by train, ousting or in competition with authorities set up by this House, and not confined in their operation to Oxford or the members of the University of Oxford; whether he will initiate legislation to revoke such powers;
(3) whether he is aware that persons arrested in Oxford on criminal charges may be removed from the jurisdiction of the city magistrates at any stage of the proceedings if members of the University; and whether he will consider the desirability of amending the law so as to accord equality among citizens?
:With the leave of the House I will answer these questions together. The answer to the first part of each question is in the affirmative. The answer to the last part of each question is in the negative.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to why Oxford should have these privileges which other places have not?
:Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him—
:We cannot have a Debate, on the question.
Legal Procedure (Manchester Ship Canal Case)
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the strictures passed by Lord Justice Scrutton upon our legal procedure which, in the Manchester Ship Canal case, permitted 30 days' continuous hearing in the Court of First Instance and more than a fortnight in the Court of Appeal, at a cost estimated at over £150,000, for the elucidation of what was after all a simple question; and whether steps will be taken in the public interest to curtail what the Lord Justice called expensive and dilatory legal contests?
:It is not possible within the limits of an answer to deal fully with this matter beyond stating that Lord Justice Atkin, who was a member of the Court, disagreed with the judgment referred to, and I see no reason for taking any steps in the matter.
:Would the right hon. Gentleman think it expedient to invite the Lord Justice and one or two of his colleagues to see whether some measures cannot be taken to remove these legal excrescences?
:I am always anxious to receive any suggestion from any member of the Judicial Bench for the improvement of our legal system, and if the Lord Justice has any constructive proposals to make I have no doubt that he will communicate them to me.
Irish Representative Peers
81 and 82.
asked the Attorney-General (1), whether the Law Officers of the Crown nave been consulted as to the course to be pursued on the occasion of a vacancy arising amongst Irish representative peers: whether he can give the considered opinion on which the Crown is acting in the matter;
(2), whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted as to the position of Irish representative Peers elected to the House of Lords before the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, who have become citizens of the Irish Free State under that Act; and, if so, whether he can give the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the retention of the right to sit and vote in the Parliament of the United Kingdom?
:I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him by the Prime Minister on the 11th April last, to which I can only add that His Majesty's Government does not intend to ask Parliament to pass legislation affecting this matter at present.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken legal opinion on this matter?
:Can we be quite sure that the Noble Lords who speak and vote in the House of Lords are safe from all pains and penalties, and that we shall not have to pass an Act of Indemnity for them?
Broadcasting Service (West of England)
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the British Broadcasting Company have decided not to erect a wireless station in Plymouth, he will, in view of the large demand for a broadcasting service in the West Country, represent to this company the desirability of reconsidering their decision or, alternatively, issue a licence to some other body to erect and maintain a station?
:My right hon. Friend will consider, in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Company, whether arrangements can be made for establishing a broadcasting station at or in the neighbourhood of Plymouth.
Coal Industry
Subsidence (Royal Commission)
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to state the names of those who will constitute the Royal Commission which will consider the question of subsidence due to mining operations; and what are the terms of reference to such Commission?
:I hope to be able to announce the constitution of this Commission and their terms of reference when the House re-assembles after Whitsun.
:If I put a question down for a fortnight to-day I may expect an answer?
:Yes.
North Celynem Colliery, Newbridge
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that on 25th January last the ventilation fan was stopped at North Celynem Colliery, Newbridge, Monmouthshire, from 4.30 p.m. to 5.20 p.m.; that a full shift of miners were at work at this mine at the time; that no notice was given to the workmen that the fan was going to be stopped; that gas accumulated in the working face and drove the miners out because of the stoppage of the ventilation arising out of the stoppage of the fan; and will he grant the request of the workmen and order an official inquiry into this serious breach of Section 29 of the Coal Mines Act?
:I am aware of this regrettable occurrence. The matter has already been officially investigated by the Senior Inspector of Mines for the district, and his report is being carefully considered. It was not until the 6th April that the incident was reported to him.
Prohibition Law (United States)
14 and 90.
asked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office have received from the Embassy at Washington any reports as to the operation of the prohibition law in the United States of America and its effects upon the national life and industries; if not, whether he will call for a report on the subject from the British Ambassador; whether he will publish any reports received in the form of a White Paper, or place them in the Library of the House of Commons?
(2) the President of the Board of Trade whether any reports or information have been received by British trade representatives, or consular agents, or officials of the Board of Trade as to the operation of the prohibition law in the United States of America and its effects upon trade and industry; if not, whether he will call for such a report; and whether he will publish any reports received on this subject in the form of a White Paper or place them in the Library of the House of Commons?
:It is very difficult to give a comprehensive estimate of the effects of prohibition after it has been in operation for only a little over three years, nor need I point out to the hon. Member that it would be inadvisable to publish the opinions of a foreign representative on a system which is still the subject of such acute controversy in the United States itself. But within these limitations the Secretary of State will ask His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to prepare a report which can be laid before the House. No reports which have so far been received by His Majesty's Government supply adequately the information for which the hon. Member asks in these questions.
:Is it not the function of our representatives abroad to report on such matters?
:The report we are prepared to ask for will suit the purpose better.
:Will the Government give careful consideration to the increase of drunkenness in the United States?
Deportations to Ireland
Bill of Indemnity
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Indemnity Bill will provide for the repeal of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and the Regulations purporting to be made thereunder, and, if not, will the Title of the Bill permit of its amendment in the sense indicated?
:The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave me notice of the question, and I asked him to postpone it. I make no complaint at all that he has asked it, but I warned him that I should be unable to give him a definite answer. The Government have not yet decided on the exact form of the Bill, but that will not prevent, as I said yesterday, the Bill being in the Vote Office to-morrow.
:Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, once the Bill is printed and given a Title, the question of this important Amendment is decided, therefore is it not, necessary to make his decision and announce it before the Bill is printed?
:No. I quite see the hon. and gallant Gentleman's difficulty, but he will recognise, I am sure, with me that it is an exceedingly difficult and intricate subject requiring a good deal of careful consideration. I can assure him there will be no delay.
:It is not a question of delay. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is now deciding, without consulting the House, whether or not we can move this Amendment, and I am asking what the decision is before the Bill is printed.
:At what hour to-morrow is this Bill to be ready for delivery?
:I hope it will be in the Office after Questions.
:When will it be presented to the House?
:To-morrow.
Deportees (Release)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the persons deported to Ireland recently returned to Brixton Prison because they wished to appear before the Advisory Committee, and whether they are to be released in consequence of the decision of the Appeal Court?
:I have only just received notice of the hon. Gentleman's question. He was kind enough to give me a telegram affecting four men whose names appear in it. My answer is that instructions have been given to the prison authority to release these men.
Co-Operative Societies' Liberation
:I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render illegal the application of funds and levies of co-operative societies to political purposes."
The principle which this Bill seeks to establish is one which has met with almost unanimous approval by a very large majority of co-operative societies I and Members who object to the profits of a trading concern being used for political propaganda. The objection to a co-operative society spending any money in this direction has been abundantly shown by the fact that the proposition has been turned down by a very large number of co-operative societies themselves. I need only refer to Halifax, Leicester, Sheffield and Coventry. Great as is the objection to co-operators contributing funds to political propaganda, the objection becomes much greater when they find that the Co-operative party is, in fact, a tributary of the Labour party, and the irony is brought to a head when co-operators who wish to support either Liberals or Tories in one constituency find that the money which should have gone to them as profits is being used to support a Labour candidate, as in the case of Manchester, where in a neighbouring constituency, money was wasted, inasmuch as he came out a very bad bottom. There is no question whatever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I am going to prove it —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]— that the Co-operative party, so called, which was formed at Swansea in 1917, is in truth and in fact part of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] The Socialist party refused to affiliate officially at their annual conference; nevertheless, they have a common organisation, by which candidates of the different interests are not run in the same election. To quote one of the Co-operative leaders, from their own press of 18th November, 1920:
"The arrangements with the Labour party provide that every co-operative Parliamentary candidate nominated shall receive the moral and active support of all the trades union and labour organisations in the constituency."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It must be said, and said frequently, that the Co-operative party, which is out to look after the interests of what may be called the biggest capitalist enterprise in the country, has been denuded of its political policy, whatever it may have been, and is nothing more nor less than the milch cow of the Labour party. [ Interruption. ] I will give hon. Members an example. I ask the House to listen to the facts in relation to the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which is very near London. In May, 1921, that trading institution decided to have a political purposes fund. At the quarterly meeting they had an attendance of 500, and at the half-yearly meeting they had an attendance of 1,500, out of an entire membership of 92,000. This trading organisation decided to affiliate with the Labour party. [ Interruption. ] They made a standing order, by which every co-operator, whatever his politics, should subscribe 3d. half-yearly to the Co-operative party, one penny of which went to the Socialist party and twopence to the Co-operative candidate. The standing orders go on to say that if any member objected to this levy they should write to the secretary to say so. Hon. Members on this side of the House, who have some knowledge of the working of the trade unions levy, know what that means. It is interesting to know that at its last meeting this trading corporation decided unanimously—there were only 420 present out of a membership of 92,000 —to subscribe £400 to the "Daily Herald." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That decision was received with the singing of the "Red Flag." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is so, and it is to protect co-operators from this sort of thing that I am asking leave to bring in this Bill. I am supported in my own constituency by thousands of co-operators—[ Interruption ]—and I hope— [ Interruption ]—to continue to be so supported. [An HON. MEMBER: "I don't think! "] They are suffering from great injustice. The Co-operative party, before the last General Election, had £14,981 in their political fund. That was spent in paying for the organisation and in supporting Labour and Co-operative candidates. The object of the Co-operative political party is set out by Mr. Alfred Barnes, who is a Member of this House. [ Interruption. ]
:I must ask hon. Members to be quiet, and not to interrupt continuously.
:Is it in order to refer to an hon. Member of this House by name?
:I understood that the hon. and gallant Member was quoting from a document.
:That is so.
:Is there no limit to the extravagance of hon. Gentlemen opposite under the Ten Minutes Rule?
:I cannot attempt to discriminate between the varied extravagances of Members.
:I will conclude by reading a quotation from the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Alfred Barnes), to whom I should have referred in more appropriate terms. I hope his supporters will cheer what I am going to say, as they cheered the mention of his name. In a book called "The Political Aspect of Co-operation," referring to the union between the Socialist party and the Co-operative party, he says:
"Both of them are tributaries of democracy, watering the soil through which they flow, and destined eventually to unite in one great stream of working-class hope, flowing out to the sea of human endeavour."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is in order to protect people who object to that particular form of inundation from having to contribute, because they may be in a minority or they have not the opportunity to vote, that I ask leave to introduce the Bill.
:I rise to oppose the application for leave to introduce the Bill. I agree that it is not quite the best course to oppose the First Reading of Measures, except where they deliberately attempt to take up the time of the House with a Measure of this kind, simply for propaganda. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that the hon. Member opposite has made simply a propagandist speech and has not advanced one iota of exposition of the Bill. We have not had a single reference to any Clause of the Bill, and in view of the lack of any explanation of the powers sought in the Bill, I hope the House will oppose it. It is interesting to hear from hon. Members opposite the continuous statements that they stand for liberation. The co-operators are in Parliament to-day, and in political action to-day, because they seek the only means of getting liberation from the tyranny of vested trade interests in this House. For decade after decade working-class consumers, organising their own trade organisations, have had to submit to injustice after injustice, perpetrated upon them by the trade representatives in this House, and yet those are the pople who come along and talk about liberating co-operators with regard to political action. Let me remind hon. Members of one or two reasons which led to the Swansea Congress of 1917 and the decision of the movement to go in for political action. When food control was placed upon the consumers of this country, who was it who suffered most in distribution? It was the great trading co-operative institutions of working-class consumers. Why? It was because the Government of the day, Liberal and Tory alike, had placed in charge of the distribution vested interests. When the profiteers, who still have representatives in this House, had to be tackled by the Government through the Excess Profits Duty, they had the iniquity to place the Excess Profits Duty upon the discounts returned to working-class consumers upon current prices.
Let me remind the House of something else. On military tribunal after military tribunal private trading organisations, with representatives in this House, got preferential treatment with regard to military service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Apparently, that is denied, but, at a deputation to the late Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the facts were quoted, and he said that such things ought never to have happened. Case after case made it perfectly clear that the only possibility of co-operators getting justice in this country was themselves to get among the enemy in this House, for we know that there is only one way to defeat the enemy and that is to get among them. I am perfectly aware, as the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) reminds me, that we have friends in all parts of the House, but that does not make the fact any less true, that we can never hope to get redress of our grievances unless we get direct representation.
With regard to the principle as to their funds being used for political purposes, may I ask hon. Members opposite if they propose to introduce a similar Bill to prevent the funds of the National Farmers' Union being used for political purposes? May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to prevent the National Federation of Meat Traders from sending a representative to this House? May I ask him whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to prevent any Member on his own side of the House, or on any side of the House, from having a retaining fee from trading interests? He must be talking with his tongue in his cheek. I could give him two examples. An hon. Member who sits for a Scottish Division, speaking on the Railways Bill, in 1921, said:
getting out of his quota, and, if he still further objects, surely, if he is sufficiently keen and his Liberalism or Conservatism is of more value to him than the co-operative movement, he ought to go to the meetings of his society and defeat political representation.
I might also point out that it is not true, as was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it has been defeated in the Sheffield Society. It was defeated for a very short time, but only a few weeks ago the Sheffield Society decided to amend its rules by a two-thirds majority. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many were present?"] Roughly, there were about 900 in the largest hall that you could get in the city. Every member of the society was free to go, and, if he did not, it was his own fault. I suggest that it is evidence, not only of a desire for cheap propaganda in this House, but of the fact that hon. Members on the other side of the House have got the wind up with regard to the growing intelligence, growing knowledge, and increasing evidence of the organising and business capacity of those who up till now have been the bottom dog; and it is because, out of their business experience and organisation, they are showing that they can be successful that hon. Members are afraid that we shall get too strong for some of the vested interests in this House.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render illegal the application of funds and levies of co-operative societies to political purposes."
The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 159.
Division No 151.] AYES. [4.8 p.m. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Buckingham, Sir H. Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Balfour. George (Hampstead) Butcher, Sir John George Curzon, Captain Viscount Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Banner Sir John S. Harmood- Butt, Sir Alfred Dawson, Sir Philip Barnett, Major Richard W. Button, H. S. Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Barnston. Major Harry Cadogan, Major Edward Ednam, Viscount Becker, Harry Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Chapman, Sir S. Falcon, Captain Michael Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Churchman. Sir Arthur Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Berry, Sir George Clarry, Reginald George Fawkes, Major F. H. Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) Clayton, G. C. Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Blades Sir George Rowland Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman Ford, Patrick Johnston Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Cobb, Sir Cyril Forestier-Walker, L. Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Brass, Captain W. Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Frece, Sir Walter de Brittain, Sir Harry Conway, Sir W. Martin Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Cope, Major William Furness, G. J. Ganzoni, Sir John Lort-Williams, J. Roundell, Colonel R. F. Garland, C. S. Lowe, Sir Francis William Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Gates, Percy Lumley, L. R. Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth) Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. M'Connell, Thomas E. Russell, William (Bolton) Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Goff, Sir R. Park McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Gould, James C. Malone, Major B. P. (Tottenham, S.) Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Sandon, Lord Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Molloy, Major L. G. S. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Gretton, Colonel John Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Morden, Col. W. Grant Singleton, J. E. Gwynne, Rupert S. Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by) Murchison, C. K. Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Halstead, Major D. Nesbitt, Robert C. Stanley, Lord Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Steel, Major S. Strang Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Newson, Sir Percy Wilson Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth Harrison, F. C. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Harvey, Major S. E. Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Henn, Sir Sydney H. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Paget, T. G. Tubbs, S. W. Hewett, Sir J. P. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Turton, Edmund Russborough Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank Pease, William Edwin Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Hiley, Sir Ernest Pennefather, De Fonblanque Wallace, Captain E. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Penny, Frederick George Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wells, S. R. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Hood, Sir Joseph Perring, William George White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Hopkins, John W. W. Peto, Basil E. Willey, Arthur Houfton, John Plowright Pielou, D. P. Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Pilditch, Sir Philip Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.) Hudson, Capt. A. Privett, F. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Hume, G. H. Raeburn, Sir William H. Winterton, Earl Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Raine, W. Wise, Frederick Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel Wolmer, Viscount James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Remer, J. R. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Remnant, Sir James Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rentoul, G. S. Yerburgh, R. D. T. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Reynolds, W. G. W. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lorden, John William Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Captain Thorpe and Lieut.-Colonel Nail. Lorimer, H. D. Robertson-Despencer, Major(I sl'gt'nW)
NOES. Adams, D. Gilbert, James Daniel Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Gosling, Harry Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gray, Frank (Oxford) Kirkwood, D. Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Greenall, T. Lamb, J. Q. Ammon, Charles George Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Lansbury, George Attlee, C. R. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lawson, John James Barnes, A. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Leach, W. Batey, Joseph Groves, T. Lee, F. Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Grundy, T. W. Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) Berkeley, Captain Reginald Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Linfield, F. C. Bonwick, A. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Lowth, T. Bowdler, W. A. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lunn, William Briant, Frank Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Broad, F. A. Harbord, Arthur M'Entee, V. L. Brotherton, J. Hardie, George D. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Harris, Percy A. March, S. Buchanan, G. Hartshorn, Vernon Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Buckle, J. Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Burgess, S. Hayday, Arthur Maxton, James Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Middleton, G. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Millar, J. D. Chappie, W. A. Herrlotts, J. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Charleton, H. C. Hill, A. Morel, E. D. Clarke. Sir E. C. Hirst, G. H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Mosley, Oswald Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Hogge, James Myles Muir, John W. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Murnin, H. Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Irving, Dan Nichol, Robert Duffy, T. Gavan Jarrett, G. W. S. O'Connor, Thomas P. Duncan, C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Oliver, George Harold Dunnico, H. John, William (Rhondda, West) Paling, W. Ede, James Chuter Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomat Henry Edmonds, G. Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jones, F. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Ponsonby, Arthur Fairbairn, R. R. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Potts, John S. Foot, Isaac Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Price, E. G. Pringle, W. M. R. Smith, T. (Pontefract) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Richards, R. Snell, Harry Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Snowden, Philip Webb, Sidney Riley, Ben Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. Roberts, C. H. (Derby) Stephen, Campbell Weir, L. M. Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Strauss, Edward Anthony Westwood, J. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Sullivan, J. White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William Whiteley, W. Rose, Frank H. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) Saklatvala, S. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Saiter, Dr. A. Thornton, M. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Scrymgeour, E. Tillett, Benjamin Wintringham, Margaret Sexton, James Tout, W. J. Wright, W. Shinwell, Emanuel Trevelyan, C. P. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wallhead, Richard C. Simpson, J. Hope Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sitch, Charles H. Warne, G. H. Mr. Spoor and Mr. Neil Maclean.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Thorpe, Sir Kingsley Wood, Major Morrison-Bell, Colonel Sir Philip Richardson, Mr. Lorden, and Mr. Gould.
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LIBERATION BILL,
"to render illegal the application of funds and levies of co-operative societies to political purposes," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]
Finance Act (1922) Amendment
:I beg to move,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to grant an inquiry into this matter, and if he decides to persist in that attitude then this Measure is intended to be a direct challenge to that position, and I trust that he will tell us before the Division, if one is taken, that if the Government intend to resist such an inquiry they will not resort to the ignominious expedient of refusing to grant further facilities for this Bill. It is impossible to make in a detailed manner the case which exists. It is far too great and complex for such treatment under the Ten Minutes Rule. One can only advance the main considerations. Under the new reassessment the most extraordinary anomalies have arisen, with many of which I am personally familiar. I know streets in my own Constituency in which of two houses next door to each other, precisely the same, one has to pay under the new assessment almost double what is paid by the next-door neighbour. These people are not trying to escape their proper burden of taxation. They are merely asking that the tax should be equitable and fair to the two houses at the same time. That is the whole contention.
One of the most amazing cases is on Field Road, Wembley, Middlesex. Numbers 90–98 of that road were assessed under the old assessment at £16, and have now been raised by almost 60 per cent. to £24 15s. Yet in the same street we have houses numbers 80–88, which were also previously assessed at £16, and have now been increased not by 60 per cent. but by 75 per cent., the new assessment being £28. These are assessments on people not in a wealthy district. People whose assessment was only £16 a year are not living in very grand mansions. Instances like these show that there is a primâ facie case for inquiry, but there are further anomalies in the assessment of houses which have been assessed for amounts actually greater than the rents obtained for the houses. In those cases the burden falls not on the landlord but on the tenant, because, as hon. Members are aware, the tax is paid by the tenant and deducted from the next quarter's rent which is paid to the landlord. If the assessment is greater than the rent, the tenant has no power to recover his part of the tax, paid in respect of the amount whereby the assessment exceeds the actual rental value. My own political agent is one of the sufferers in this respect, so I know that such cases exist.
Now I come to the most important point of all, the Inhabited House Duty, which will fall not upon the larger class of householders, but upon the great mass of tenants who belong to the poorest classes. As hon. Members are aware, Inhabited House Duty is levied on the occupiers of houses which are of greater value than £20. The result of raising the assessment has been to bring within the purview of this tax a great mass of people who have never been subject to it before and have probably never even heard of its existence, thus levying this vicious form of taxation on a great new class of very poor people. Further, this tax is a graduated tax. Houses assessed under £60 a year only paid 6d. in the £, and after that they paid 9d., and many people who, under the previous assessment, only paid 40 sixpences are now paying 70 ninepences. Here is a tax which falls upon the poorest people in the community, and a very vicious tax it is at any time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made certain concessions, not material concessions, in no way affecting the case for an inquiry. [ Interruption. ] I do not know whether hon. Members think that their conversation is going to drown the protests of their constituents. I can quite understand their anxiety to prevent this matter being discussed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to extend the period for appeal until August next. That does not meet the case. Nearly everyone will appeal. If people do not appeal they will not get justice. If they do the administrative machinery will break down. I hope that they will appeal and force this matter on his attention. Then if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees the values decrease at the end of one year, appeals will be allowed and the whole matter will be reconsidered. The assumption must be that in future the value of all houses probably will decrease, and so the whole community will appeal. If it is not admitted that the value of all housing probably will decrease, then the Government are saying to the people of the country that they have no hope of their own housing scheme.
The object of their own housing scheme is to provide more houses and consequently to decrease the present inflated prices, and they are in this dilemma, that either the whole country will appeal or they are admitting that their own housing scheme is futile. It would be cheaper, easier and fairer to grant an inquiry into the whole basis of this reassessment than to allow the machinery to break down, and for chaos to supervene. We only want a fair and equitable principle introduced. The present principle is a principle of Bedlam devoid of light, construction and thought, and resting on no considered view of the situation. I hope I have made a primâ facie case in this matter. I trust I can rely on the support of those 60 hon. Gentlemen opposite who recently passed a resolution demanding an inquiry. I see that last night their leader rather receded from that position, when confronted with the actual prospect of a vote in the House of Commons. I trust that he was misreported and that it will not be- said of the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) as it was said of Napoleon:
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mosley, Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Ede, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Frank Gray, Mr. J. Hope Simpson, Mrs. Wintringham, Sir Edgar Chatfeild-Clarke, and Mr. Thornton.
Finance Act (1922) Amendment) Bill,
"to amend certain provisions of the Finance Act, 1922," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
Business of the House
:I beg to move,
"That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."
As this Motion is in a novel form, a word of explanation is necessary. The form has been decided upon after consultation, through the usual channels, with all the parties in the House. As that is the case, I hope that the Motion will be passed without a Division.
:I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has altered the form of the Motion, but, as a matter of fact, it does not carry out the duty of the Government. I am quite willing to agree to the Motion and to see whether
the experiment works. It is the duty of the Government always to keep a House on an Adjournment. We ought to revert as soon as possible to the form of Motion that we have known so long, namely, "That this House do now adjourn." That lays the onus of keeping a House upon the Government, and it is a responsibility which they ought to carry. This experiment may prove successful. I will wait and see whether it does or not.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Industrial Assurance Bill [ Lords ] be exempted, at this, day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [ Mr. Baldwin. ]
The House divided; Ayes, 249; Noes, 160.
Division No. 152.] AYES. [4.33 p.m. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Clarry, Reginald George Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Clayton, G. C. Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by) Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman Halstead, Major D. Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. Cobb, Sir Cyril Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Cohen, Major J. Brunei Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Harrison, F. C. Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Conway, Sir W Martin Harvey, Major S. E. Astor, Viscountess Cope, Major William Hawke, John Anthony Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Henn, Sir Sydney H Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hewett, Sir J. P. Banner, Sir John S. Harmood Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Hiley, Sir Ernest Barnett, Major Richard W. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Barnston, Major Harry Curzon, Captain Viscount Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Becker, Harry Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Dawson. Sir Philip Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Doyle, N. Grattan Hood, Sir Joseph Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Hopkins, John W. W. Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Edge, Captain Sir William Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Berry, Sir George Ednam, Viscount Houfton, John Plowright Betterton, Henry B. Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Birchall, Major J. Dearman England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hudson, Capt. A. Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Hume, G. H. Blades, Sir George Rowland Erskine-Boist, Captain C. Hurd, Percy A. Blundell, F. N. Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Falcon, Captain Michael Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Brass, Captain W. Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Brassey, Sir Leonard Fawkes, Major F. H. Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Brittain, Sir Harry Ford, Patrick Johnston Lamb, J. Q. Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Foreman, Sir Henry Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Forestier-Walker, L. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Buckingham, Sir H. Frece, Sir Walter de Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Furness. G. J. Lorden, John William Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Ganzonl, Sir John Lorimer, H. D. Butcher, Sir John George Garland, C. S. Lort-Williams, J. Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Gates, Percy Lowe, Sir Francis William Butt, Sir Alfred Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Button, H. S. Gilbert, James Daniel Lumley, L. R. Cadogan, Major Edward Goff, Sir R. Park M'Connell, Thomas E. Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Gould, James C. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Gray, Harold (Cambridge) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Malone, Major B. P. (Tottenham, S.) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Gretton, Colonel John Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Chapman, Sir S. Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Mercer, Colonel H. Churchman, Sir Arthur Gwynne, Rupert S. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Raeburn, Sir William H. Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth Molloy, Major L. G. S. Raine, W. Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C, Rankin, Captain James Stuart Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Morden, Col. W. Grant Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Remer, J. R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Remnant, Sir James Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Rentoul, G. S. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Murchison, C. K. Reynolds, W. G. W. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Nall, Major Joseph Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Nesbitt, Robert C. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Tubbs, S. W. Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Turton, Edmund Russborough Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Robertson-Despencer, Major(Isl'gt'nW) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Newson, Sir Percy Wilson Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) Wallace, Captain E. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Roundell, Colonel R. F. Wells. S. R. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth) White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Russell, William (Bolton) Willey. Arthur Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Paget, T. G. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Parker, Owen (Kettering) Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Winterton, Earl Pease, William Edwin Sandon, Lord Wise, Frederick Pennefather, De Fonblanque Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Wolmer, Viscount Penny, Frederick George Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Shepperson, E. W. Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. Perring, William George Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward Peto, Basil E. Sparkes, H. W. Yerburgh, R. D. T. Pielou, D. P. Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Pilditch, Sir Philip Stanley, Lord TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Steel, Major S. Strang Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs. Price, E. G. Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) Privett, F. J.
NOES. Adams, D. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Mosley, Oswald Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Muir, John W. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Murnin, H. Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Harbord, Arthur Murray, John (Leeds, West) Attlee, C. R. Hardle, George D. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Barnes, A. Harris, Percy A. Nichol, Robert Batey, Joseph Hartshorn, Vernon O'Connor, Thomas P. Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) O'Grady, Captain James Berkeley, Captain Reginald, Hayday, Arthur Oliver, George Harold Bonwick, A. Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Paling, W. Bowdler, W. A. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Briant, Frank Herriotts, J. Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Broad, F. A. Hill, A. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Brotherton, J. Hirst, G. H. Ponsonby, Arthur Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Potts, John S. Buchanan, G. Hogge, James Myles Pringle, W. M. R. Buckle, J. Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Richards, R. Burgess, S. Irving, Dan Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Riley, Ben Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) John, William (Rhondda, West) Ritson, J. Chappie, W. A. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Roberts, C. H. (Derby) Charleton, H. C. Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Clarke, Sir E. C. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rose, Frank H. Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Sakiatvala, S. Darbishire, C. W. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Salter, Dr. A. Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Scrymgeour, E. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kirkwood, D. Sexton, James Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Lansbury, George Shakespeare, G. H. Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lawson, John James Shinwell, Emanuel Duffy, T. Gavan Leach, W. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Duncan, C. Lee, F. Simpson, J. Hope Dunnico, H. Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) Sitch, Charles H. Ede, James Chuter Linfield, F. C. Smith, T. (Pontefract) Edmonds, G. Lowth, T. Snell, Harry Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Snowden, Philip Fairbairn, R. R. M'Entee, V. L. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Foot, Isaac Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) Gosling, Harry Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Spoor, B. G. Gray, Frank (Oxford) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Stephen, Campbell Greenall, T. March, S. Sullivan, J. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maxton, James Thornton, M. Groves, T. Middleton, G. Tillett, Benjamin Grundy, T. W. Millar, J. D. Tout, W. J. Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Morel, E. D. Trevelyan, C. P. Guthrie, Thomas Maule Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wallhead, Richard C. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Weir, L. M. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Warne, G. H. Westwood, J. Wintringham, Margaret Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) Wright, W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Whiteley, W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Webb, Sidney Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.
COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D [Title amended].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended ( in the Standing Committee ), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
BILLS REPORTED.
West Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Drainage) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed] Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Frimley and Farnborough District Water Company) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Seasalter and Ham) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
General Reversionary and Investment Company Bill [ Lords ],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Caledonian Railway Bill,
Potteries and North Staffordshire Tramways and Light Railways Bill,
Bootle Corporation Bill [ Lords ],
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Smethwick Corporation (Gas) Bill [ Lords ],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the Third time.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Metropolitan Railway (Various Powers) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the election of town councillors in Scotland, and to make provision with regard to the powers of returning officers at elections of parish councillors in Glasgow." [Town Councils (Scotland) Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to facilitate the preparation of agricultural statistics." [Agricultural Returns Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Wakefield with regard to their water undertaking and to provide for the consolidation of rates; and for other purposes." [Wakefield Corporation Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Morley with regard to their water undertaking; to make further provision with regard to the health, improvement, and good government of the borough and the consolidation of rates; and for other purposes." [Morley Corporation Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporated and conferring powers on the South Elmsall and District Gas Company." [South Elmsall and District Gas Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Great Western Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with Amendments, the provisions of the Contract of Co-Partnery Royal Charter, Articles of Agreement, and Acts of the Caledonian Insurance Company; to confer further powers on that company; and for other purposes." [Caledonian Insurance Company Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the West Gloucestershire Water Company to construct new works and to borrow further moneys; for increasing the charges of the company; and for other purposes." [West Gloucestershire Water Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Chelmsford to construct additional waterworks; to confer further powers upon them in regard to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." [Chelmsford Corporation Water Bill [ Lords. ]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to construct new railways and other works and to acquire lands; to extend the time limited by certain Acts for the completion of works and for the compulsory purchase of lands; and for other purposes." [London and North Eastern Railway Bill [ Lords. ]
And also a Bill, intituled, "to transfer to the Corporations of Oldham and Rochdale as part of their water undertakings certain waterworks, rights, and powers of the Rochdale Canal Company; to empower the said Corporation to construct new waterworks; and for other purposes." [Oldham and Rochdale Corporations Water Bill [ Lords. ]
Wakefield Corporation Bill [ Lords ],
Morley Corporation Bill [ Lords ],
South Elmsall and District Gas Bill [ Lords ],
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [ Lords ],
Caledonian Insurance Company Bill [ Lords ],
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [ Lords ],
Chelmsford Corporation Bill [ Lords ],
London and North Eastern Railway Bill [ Lords ],
Oldham and Rochdale Corporations Water Bill [ Lords ],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL [ Lords ],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL [ Lords ],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
STANDING ORDERS,
Leave given to the Select Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up and read as follows:
"That, in the case of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, Petition for Bill, they had agreed to a Special Report, which they had directed him to make to the House.
The head office of this company and part of the railway are in Northern Ireland, while the greater part of the company's undertaking is situate in Southern Ireland.
The objects of the Bill are to apply certain provisions of the Companies Clauses Act, to obtain additional powers of borrowing in respect of existing and authorised capital, to repeal the power to borrow of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Act, 1918, and to apply to the powers of borrowing sought by the Bill some of the provisions of that Act.
The Bill has been referred to the Examiners, who have reported as follows:
' They feel doubts as to the due construction of the Standing Orders in their application to the Petition for the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill, inasmuch as the Bill applies to the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, and they are unable to find any instructions in the Standing Orders directing them to deal with such a case.
They further report that the Standing Orders, if they should apply, are not complied with, inasmuch as notices of the intended application to Parliament were not published in the London Gazette until the 27th April, 1923, nor in the Londonderry Sentinel and Donegal Vindicator, newspapers published in the counties of Londonderry and Donegal, respectively, until the 21st and 28th April, 1923.
Printed copies of the Bill were not deposited in the Private Bill Office until 26th April, 1923, or at the Treasury and other Public Departments until the 26th April, 1923.
J. F. SYMONS-JEUNE.
EDWARD GULLY.'
The Committee entertain grave doubt as to whether it is competent for the promoters, a company domiciled in Northern Ireland, to apply for a Private Bill in this House if the subject matter of the Private Bill relates to Ireland, and have decided to make this Special Report, and to ask for directions from the House."
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 77.]
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee B
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill [ Lords ]): Mr. Samuel Roberts.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Orders of the Day
Industrial Assurance BILL [Lords]
As amended ( in the Standing Committee ), considered.
NEW CLAUSE.—( Disclosure of remuneration to directors, etc. )
The published accounts required by this Act shall disclose by means of a note or otherwise the sum or sums in aggregate receivable by the board of directors and managing director(s) by way of fee, salary, commission, allowance, or other forms of remuneration in connection with the conduct of the business of a society or company to which the provisions of this Act apply, so far as such fee, salary, commission, allowance, or other forms of remuneration are in addition to any sum or sums receivable by way of pension in respect of past services rendered by the recipients as officers or servants of the society or company.—[ Mr. Trevelyan Thomson. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
:I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether this new Clause is not outside the scope of the Bill. If you look at the Bill, you will see that it is confined strictly to industrial assurance, but the Amendment seeks to obtain a disclosure of the remuneration of the directors of assurance companies. I submit that, inasmuch as only part of their remuneration will come from industrial assurance, which is the subject of the Bill, the Amendment is merely an attempt to effect a much wider power, and that it is wholly outside the scope of the Bill.
:On that point of Order. May I call attention to Clause 16, which deals with the accounts of assurance companies, of which accounts the directors' fees are to be a part. There is also the fact that when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading and an hon. Member for Sheffield was speaking on this point, it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) that he intended to introduce this new Clause in Committee, which in fact he did. The Clause was debated, and it was upon the representations made by the hon. Member for Farnham that the hon. Member for Sheffield ceased to continue his speech upon that particular question.
:Before you give a ruling, Sir, may I ask if your attention has been called to the fact that this question absorbed some time of the Parmoor Commission—one of the results of which is the introduction of this Bill—and that it forms part of the recommendations of that Commission?
:The Parmoor Commission dealt with the matter, but made no recommendation. Clause 16 does say that accounts have to be furnished by the companies, but there is nothing in the Clause which authorises the inclusion in those accounts of any matter other than industrial assurance. For that reason I hold that this new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill.
:I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). This Clause says that the published accounts required by this Act shall disclose such and such information. That seems to me to put the Amendment in order. I am not concerned with what the Parmoor Commission said, nor with what was said on the Second Reading of the Bill.
:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is perhaps a little bit significant that it looks as if it were desired, in certain quarters, that this matter should not be raised and that a discussion should not take place. I cannot claim the parentage of this Clause, whether it be good or bad, but I may quote the authority of two of my hon. Friends on the opposite side of the House, the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) and the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise), who are admittedly experts on financial questions. They are hon. Members whose authority on a question of this sort, and whose experience stand much higher with the House than my own. Therefore, I am following very safe and sound opinions on financial grounds in asking the House to accept this new Clause. As hon. Members have already said, this question was dealt with 'by the Parmoor Committee. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said there was no definite recommendation. That is perfectly true, but the House will agree that it was largely owing to a certain amount of disquiet which arose in the minds of the members of the Parmoor Committee and of the public generally, as to the large amount of money which was used in the dividends to the shareholders and directors, and the comparatively small proportion that went to the policy holders, and to the remarks of that Committee that this Clause was put forward. I will just refresh the minds of the House with the reference of the Parmoor Committee to this particular question. In paragraph 20, the Committee say:
What is the reason for secrecy? If this money is legitimately earned, as no doubt it is, there is no reason why it should not be disclosed. The Solicitor-General, in rejecting this Clause in Committee, suggested that it might be unfair or misleading. Why? Surely, it rests entirely with the particular firms as to the way in which they make these returns, and it is open to them to state the reasons why these sums are paid. It is very desirable, to remove the apprehension, which, rightly or wrongly, exists, that such a Clause should be put in for the protection and guidance of the public. I hope the hon. Member for Farnham, who moved this Clause, and then did not follow the matter up by voting for it in the Division, will support it. Speaking on the Second Heading of this Bill in the House, he used words much more able than I can use in its support. In case he has forgotten the power and force of those words, may I refresh his memory with the advice that he then gave? The hon. Member said:
:May I ask the hon. Gentleman who said that?
:I am reading from the hon. Member's own speech, which was most forcible and convincing, on the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. He said that, in company with the hon. Member for Ilford, he had already put down an Amendment which he hoped would be supported in Committee. The hon. Member went on to say:
"We have thought fit to put in this further protection for working people. The balance sheet should, under Clause 14, show how much is paid in the way of direction and management remuneration, fees, and commissions for carrying on the company."
Then, in the end, he says, and this is significant:
"I hope hon. Members on the Labour benches will help us in seeing that these disbursements are made disclosable under Clause 14."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1923; cols. 196 and 197, Vol. 162.]
I hope the hon. Member for Farnham will help us in seeing that this Clause, which he originally fathered, is carried on the Third Reading.
:I beg to second the Motion.
One of the important objects of the Clause now before the House is to secure that information shall be given to those people who are most concerned—the policy-holders and shareholders. Let it be made quite clear that the object of this Clause is not in any way to interfere with or to control the fees which are paid to the directors for their services rendered. All that it is sought to do—and this is a matter upon which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) was most eloquent— is to ensure that whatever fees are, in fact, paid may be disclosed, so that shareholders and policy-holders may have an opportunity of knowing what part, in fact, of the profits go as remuneration for those conducting the business. The remuneration of £62,000, which has been referred to, may, in the circumstances, have been reasonable remuneration for services rendered. It is for the policy-holders and shareholders to say "Yea" or "Nay" to that, and the first step towards that is to enable them to know the fees paid, by a disclosure in the balance-sheet, as in regard to other payments shown by the balance-sheet.
:This Clause was thoroughly discussed in the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman who moved it has not referred, except in a passing way, to the arguments which I think satisfied the Committee and led them to reject the proposal by a very substantial majority. The hon. Member's proposal is that the somewhat high remuneration which, in one case, the Parmoor Committee found had been paid to directors or managing directors should not be paid in the case of other companies or societies. That object is a laudable one, and nobody desires that the directors should receive an undue proportion of the benefits and the money which, of course, ought to go direct to the policy-holders according to the premiums which they pay. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, however, is most impracticable, and I think it would be undesirable even if it were practicable. In the first place, this Bill is based on the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee. We are constantly begged, on this side of the House, to give effect to the Report of a Committee that has been appointed to consider a question. In this case, the Parmoor Committee made no recommendation, and as this Bill is framed on the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee, broadly speaking, with one or two exceptions, apparently it would not be logical to put in a somewhat drastic provision of this sort unless the House were really convinced that it would be necessary.
As hon. Members are aware, the business of these industrial assurance companies is conducted by people who have a great many other associations with the business. An actuary, engaged in the business of the company, an inspector, or some other official of the company, is put on the board of directors, but he continues to perform his duties, either as an actuary, an inspector, or in some other capacity. If this Clause were carried, it would be necessary to put into the accounts the whole of the remuneration which he received, although quite possibly only one-tenth, one-twentieth, or even one-fiftieth of his remuneration is properly attributable to the position he occupies as director, and the whole of the rest of it is attributable to the duties he performs as inspector, actuary, or in some other position. The Clause is objectionable for another reason, namely, that a director takes part in directing the business of these concerns, which include very often fire insurance, employer's liability and what is called ordinary insurance. If the services of the paid directors, who carry on very large businesses of this sort, were entirely to be attributable to their abilities in conducting the industrial assurance part of their operations it would be most unfair.
There is one last objection, which I hope hon. Members will think worthy of consideration, namely, that this Clause provides that it is the directors and managing directors who are to disclose these facts. It would not be at all difficult, if this Clause were put in, to call a director something else, or to appoint dummy directors, and to appoint persons whose salaries would be disclosed in accordance with the Clause, and yet that the fat salaries, to which objection is quite properly made, might be paid to officials whose salaries would not have to be disclosed. There is a very drastic provision to regulate the ratio of expenses of the companies. It provides that the Commissioners shall have power to see that there are proper reserves for valuation. I think the House will be wiser to see what effect these new and very drastic proposals have on the operations of these companies and societies. It may be that, in due time, if a great improvement be not made in one or two exceptional cases, it may be necessary perhaps to consider whether something should be done. I am bound, however, to advise the House, with the best advice I can give it, this Clause would be perfectly inoperative,
and that it would not be fruitful to do what the hon. Member proposes. Nor do I think would it be fair to the companies, because, as I pointed out in the Committee, information of this sort would be used to the prejudice of the societies who had an ordinary business and an industrial business, and quite wrongly. I hope, after the full discussion which took place in Committee, that the hon. Members who have put this Clause forward—with a very laudable object—will allow it to be withdrawn.
Question put, "That the Clause be, read a Second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 225.
Division No. 153.] AYES. [5.0 p.m. Adams, D. Hardie, George D. Potts, John S. Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Harris, Percy A. Price, E. G. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hartshorn, Vernon Pringle, W. M. R. Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hastings, Patrick Richards, R. Ammon, Charles George Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Hayday, Arthur Riley, Ben Attlee, C. R. Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Ritson, J. Barnes, A. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Roberts, C. H. (Derby) Batey, Joseph Herriotts, J. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hill, A. Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) Berkeley, Captain Reginald Hirst, G. H. Rose, Frank H. Bonwick, A. Hogge, James Myles Saklatvala, S. Briant, Frank Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Salter, Dr. A. Broad, F. A. Irving, Dan Scrymgeour, E. Brotherton, J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sexton, James Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Shakespeare, G. H. Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Shinwell, Emanuel Burgess, S. Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Simpson, J. Hope Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, T. (Pontefract) Chappie, W. A. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Snell, Harry Charleton, H. C. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Philip Clarke, Sir E. C. Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Collie, Sir John Kirkwood, D. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lansbury, George Spoor, B. G. Darbishire, C. W. Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell Davies, David (Montgomery) Leach, W. Strauss, Edward Anthony Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh) Lee, F. Sullivan, J. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Linfield, F. C. Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Lowth, T. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Duffy, T. Gavan Lunn, William Thornton, M. Duncan, C. MacDonaid, J. R. (Aberavon) Tillett, Benjamin Dunnico, H. M'Entee, V. L. Tout, W. J. Ede, James Chuter Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Trevelyan, C. P. Edmonds, G. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Wallhead, Richard C. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Entwistle, Major C. F. March, S. Warne, G. H. Fairbairn, R. R. Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Middleton, G. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Foot, Isaac Millar, J. D. Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. Gilbert, James Daniel Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Weir, L. M. Gosling, Harry Morel, E. D. Westwood, J. Gray, Frank (Oxford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) Greenall, T. Muir, John W. Whiteley, W. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Murnin, H. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murray, John (Leeds, West) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Wintringham, Margaret Grigg, Sir Edward Nichol, Robert Wise, Frederick Groves, T. O'Grady, Captain James Wright, W. Grundy, T. W. Oliver, George Harold Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Paling, W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Guthrie, Thomas Maule Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Mr. T. Thomson and Sir Arthur Marshall. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Phillipps, Vivian Harbord, Arthur Ponsonby, Arthur
NOES. Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Frece, Sir Walter de Oman, Sir Charles William C. Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Paget, T. G. Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Furness, G. J. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Ganzoni, Sir John Pease, William Edwin Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Gates, Percy Pennefather, De Fonblanque Astor, Viscountess Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Penny, Frederick George Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Goff, Sir R. Park Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gould, James C. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Perring, William George Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Peto, Basil E. Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Gretton, Colonel John Pielou, D. P. Barnett, Major Richard W. Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Pilditch, Sir Philip Barnston, Major Harry Gwynne, Rupert S. Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Becker, Harry Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Privett, F. J. Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C H. (Devizes) Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I, W.D'by) Raeburn, Sir William H. Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Halstead, Major D. Raine, W. Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Rankin, Captain James Stuart Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel Berry, Sir George Harrison, F. C. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Betterton, Henry B. Harvey, Major S. E. Remer, J. R. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hawke, John Anthony Remnant, Sir James Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Reynolds, W. G. W. Blades, Sir George Rowland Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. Blundell, F. N. Hewett, Sir J. P. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Hiley, Sir Ernest Robertson-Despencer, Major(Isl'gt'nW) Brass, Captain W. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford) Brassey, Sir Leonard Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Roundell, Colonel R. F. Brittain, Sir Harry Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth) Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Hood, Sir Joseph Russell, William (Bolton) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Hopkins, John W. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Buckingham, Sir H. Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Houfton, John Plowright Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Sandon, Lord Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Hudson, Capt. A. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Butcher, Sir John George Hume, G. H. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Shepperson, E. W. Butt, Sir Alfred Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Skelton, A. N. Button, H. S. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Cadogan, Major Edward Jarrett, G. W. S. Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Sparkes, H. W. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stanley, Lord Chapman, Sir S. Lamb, J. Q. Steel, Major S. Strang Clarry, Reginald George Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) Clayton, G. C. Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Cobb, Sir Cyril Lorden, John William Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lorimer, H. D. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Lowe, Sir Francis William Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H Conway, Sir W. Martin Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Cope, Major William Lumley, L. R. Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) M'Connell, Thomas E. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Malone, Major B. P. (Tottenham, S.) Tubbs, S. W. Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page Margesson, H. D. R. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Mercer, Colonel H. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Wells, S. R. Curzon, Captain Viscount Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Molloy, Major L. G. S. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. C. T. Willey, Arthur Doyle, N. Grattan Morden, Col. W. Grant Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Ednam, Viscount Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Winterton, Earl Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Murchison, C. K. Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) Erskine-Boist, Captain C. Nall, Major Joseph Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Nesbitt, Robert C. Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Yerburgh, R. D. T. Fawkes, Major F. H. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter) Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Newson, Sir Percy Wilson TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Ford, Patrick Johnston Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs. Foreman, Sir Henry Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Forestier-Walker, L. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:—
NEW CLAUSE.—( Fair Wages Clause. )
Every whole-time servant of an industrial assurance company shall be paid the minimum wage paid by good employers in the district for the same or similar work.
:I cannot call this Amendment because it is not in the correct Parliamentary form.
:I would like very much if this Amendment could be put before the House in some form, because it is very important that it should be put into the Bill. It affects several subsequent Amendments, particularly in view of the question that comes later, the limitation of expenses. There is a fear among the agents that that will come out of their wages, and I think it is necessary to protect them.
:The hon. and gallant Member cannot argue on the merits of the question. The Amendment is quite hopeless as it stands, and before it could be discussed, the hon. and gallant Member will require to make it watertight, or something like watertight, as a Clause.
:May I be allowed to ask a question? In view of the fact that, since the introduction of the original Insurance Act, the men who are employed by these insurance companies have become organised, surely the matter of the Fair Wages Clause affects them. I would ask if you could not agree to the discussion of this question of the conditions attached to the men's employment?
:I must have a Clause before me which comes somewhere near a Clause of an Act of Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member will move the next Amendment.
NEW CLAUSE.—( Limitation on expenses of management of industrial assurance business, etc. )
(1) The expenditure of a collecting society or industrial assurance company in respect of the expenses of management of its industrial assurance business, including commission or other payments to or on behalf of the employees of the society or company, and, in the case of a company, of payments made to shareholders and charged to its industrial assurance fund, for the financial year of the society or company ending in nineteen hundred and twenty-three and every subsequent year, shall not exceed an amount equal to the sum of—
Provided that, if the valuation is made at other than yearly intervals, the part of the surplus applied as authorised by this Section towards such expenditure as aforesaid, with an appropriate addition for interest, shall be apportioned in equal annual parts over the period between the date of the last valuation and the date of the valuation next ensuing.
(2) If in any year such exenditure exceeds such amount as aforesaid, the members of the committee of management of the society or of the board of directors of the company shall be jointly and severally liable at the suit of the Inspector-General to pay to the society or company the amount of excess.
(3) If in any three consecutive years such expenditure exceeds such amount as afore said, the Inspector-General may in the case of a collecting society award that the society be dissolved and its affairs wound up, and in the case of an industrial insurance company may present a petition to the Court for the winding up of the company, without prejudice, however, to any liability of any member of the committee of management or board of directors under the last foregoing Sub-section.—[ Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
While I move this Amendment I must say that I will not support the next Clause unless the Government are prepared to put some properly-worded and watertight Fair Wages Clause into the Bill. This Clause is the original Clause of the first Government Bill, and it was put in following the recommendations of the Committee which the Solicitor-General said just now the Bill was drawn up to implement and give effect to. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 13 of the Report which follows on several paragraphs that describe the very extensive system of commission and other very questionable features of industrial insurance, they will find these words: If we refer to Appendix B it will be seen that certain companies have paid very heavy dividends to shareholders. Particularly I would draw attention to the Prudential Company, which has paid dividends to shareholders between 1912 and 1917 of £2,687,000. Its expenses are 44·5 per cent. and there has been some other heavy payments of dividend which are given in other parts of the Appendix. There is no doubt that the people who put in their original few thousands of capital—I think it was about £6,000—at the original foundation of the Prudential have received very high profits for their money. On Table 1 of Appendix A we are given some of these dividends. In the case of the Prudential, from 1909 onwards they are 55 per cent., 56½ per cent., 59½ per cent., 59 per cent., 60 per cent., which was the highest, and an abnormally low dividend was the 40 per cent. of the years 1916, 1917 and 1918. There is also a reference to the dividends paid by other companies. The Pearl paid 54 per cent. in 1909. In 1915, which was a bad year, they paid only 10 per cent., but in four years in succession, from 1910 to 1913, they had 50 per cent. In these circumstances, I think there ought to be some limit to the dividends or expenses. I must say that unless some special protection is given to the agents they fear it will not be dividends that will be cut down or the salaries of directors or the heads of these companies, but that the agents will be made to suffer. The companies will not cut down their benefits, because they would lose in competition with other companies. I think there is a good deal to be said for these fears. The Report, in paragraph 23, draws attention to a very important point, namely, that it is not quite sure that a great deal of the expenditure of running ordinary insurance, such as fire insurance and the ordinary life insurance taken out by members of the middle classes, is not put on to industrial insurance. It says here: original Bill contained the Clause which now appears upon the Paper in my name, and it would be very interesting to know why it was dropped and who was consulted in reference to it? As I said, without some safeguard for the agents, it is very difficult to press this matter, but it should be brought to the notice of the House, and we should have a reply from the hon. and learned Gentleman to the question I have asked.
:I beg to second the Motion. In order to get the Solicitor-General's reply with the least possible delay, I do so only formally.
:My hon. Friends have asked why this Clause of the original Bill was withdrawn. In the first place, it was withdrawn at the request, so far as the industry itself is concerned, not only of the organisation of societies and companies, but of the various unions of agents and workers in the business. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the proposed New Clause thinks he is doing the workers and agents any benefit, I can assure him they are strongly opposed to it.
:I am trying to help the policy-holders.
:I only made that observation because, as I understood, the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that in some way or other he was doing the agents a good turn. From the public point of view, which is the main point of view to be considered, the reason why the Clause was withdrawn was because the recommendations of the Onslow Committee had been carried out in a different form and, as I think, a better form. If hon. Members will look at Clause 18 of the Bill they will see there that very stringent Regulations are made as to the valuations of these societies; as to what sums should be put to reserve, and, particularly, as to what sums should be put down for expenses. I may say also in connection with these valuations, that an Insurance Commissioner is, for the first time, appointed by the Bill, and given very large powers, including powers to investigate the affairs of these societies, the method of their valuations and matters of that kind. That, I think, is the answer, from the public point of view, to the question as to why the Clause in the first Bill was withdrawn.
The best remedy in relation to the expenses of these institutions is, of course, the fact that there are a very large number of them engaged in the business and competing in the same field, not consisting alone of limited liability companies. Clause 18 deals with all insurance institutions and, if it is a question of aiming at dividends, the best answer is that a fair proportion of these are mutual societies not concerned with dividends at all. The hon. Member who so ably advocates the cause of these societies in this House is not concerned, except to a very limited extent, with the question of dividends, and the best way of reducing expenses is by the competition of these societies who have not to make this provision and who would not, I hope, make their expenses unduly heavy and out of relation to the premiums. There is a great deal of misconception as to the heavy expenses of these institutions. Hon. Members will see that this kind of insurance entails the services of a large corps to make weekly calls, and one can see how these expenses reach such magnitude. As long as the habits of the industrial classes in this country—and I confess I do not complain of them myself —require weekly calls, so long will these expenses remain at a high figure. It is just the same in connection with the sale of a newspaper, the distribution of milk and matters of that kind. So long as we want them at our door every week or every day so long will high expenses continue.
For my part I am glad to know that in connection with all these institutions there is a considerable increase in the ordinary branch of their business, and an increased number of people are getting their insurance, not by means of weekly premiums, but by monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or yearly premiums, and by that means they are reducing the cost of insurance. To-day it can be said that at any rate one third of the ordinary insurance business of this country is being transacted by these industrial assurance companies. I hope hon. Members will not press the proposed New Clause. I quite recognise that anyone reading the Report of the Onslow Committee would naturally move it, but as no one in the industry desires it, as the question has been dealt with in a better and more stringent way in the Bill, and as the natural effect of competition is the best method of limiting expenses, I hope it will not be pressed.
:The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the proposed New Clause quite rightly said that it is almost word for word, if not quite word for word, with a Clause appearing in the original Bill which we know as the Onslow Bill. It was Clause 4 of that Bill. The proposal of the Parmoor Committee was to abolish altogether fees for new business, and also to institute a minimum weekly wage for agents. It was attempted to put that proposal into some water-tight form and insert it in the Onslow Bill, and as far as it was possible to do so and make it workable, Clause 4 of the Onslow Bill was drawn up for that purpose. The Bill was introduced at the end of a Session with no intention or hope of passing it, but with the object of discussion. I am asked now how it came about that this particular Clause was abandoned. It was abandoned becuse it was thought that the proposal to prevent management expenses from exceeding, say, 40 per cent. of the premiums paid weekly, would tend to make that 40 per cent. a minimum below which management expenses would not be likely to fall. Hon. Members I am sure are perfectly familiar with the effect of provisions of that sort in Bills. When you are trying to get a figure as low as possible the tendency is to create a standard figure. As a matter of fact, the ratio of expenses, especially since the publicity given to the subject by the Parmoor Committee, has tended to fall.
In an answer given by my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on 17th April to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) it was stated that in the year ending December, 1921, the maximum percentage of the annual premiums received in respect of industrial assurance applied in management expenses by any one company was 60·5 and the minimum 36·9. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that that shows a minimum below that which is proposed in the new Clause. I do not suppose there is any objection to mentioning the fact that in one company, the Prudential—and I get this information from a source well known to hon. Members —the expenses have been reduced to 32 per cent., and this considerable reduction of the ratio of management expenses was undoubtedly in consequence partly of the adoption of the proposal contained in the Parmoor Committee's Report, paragraph 15, which was a proposal that the block system should be introduced and overlapping between the operations of commission agents prevented and partly in consequence of the publicity given to the matter. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, the proposed new Clause is open to considerable objection unless there is some provision by which the burden of the restrictions is not made to fall upon the agents. The agents quite naturally fear that if there were undue restrictions the effect would fall upon them and not upon the shareholders. As a matter of fact the Bill as now presented has been drawn up with a different proposal in it, an alternative system, and that system includes a provision that fully paid policies shall be given by the companies in place of lapsed policies, which has not been done in the past. That in itself imposes a considerable strain upon the companies concerned and that provision, coupled with the provision that valuations shall be made and that if the Commissioner does not think that proper reserves are made in a company's accounts, there shall be power to see that proper reserves are made, will have the effect of compelling these concerns to observe a proper ratio of management expenses. They will not be able to afford the money which one or two companies or more in the past have spent on management expenses.
This scheme is an alternative to the proposal in the New Clause, and the two will not go together. We have deliberately adopted the other method. The Committee upstairs adopted the other method, and although it would be impossible for me to say that this proposed New Clause is out of Order, yet I can say that, if it were introduced into the Bill, it would make the Bill absolutely unworkable and not worth proceeding with. The Bill would require to be cut to pieces in order that the rejected method might be re-inserted, instead of the elaborate and, I hope, effective provisions which I have mentioned, dealing with reserves and with the issue of fully-paid policies to persons who have not been able or willing to continue paying premiums. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has mentioned one of the objections to the proposed New Clause as it stands, and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) for formally seconding the Motion in order to get on with the Bill as soon as possible. I venture to hope both hon. Members will see that this proposed New Clause does not mix with the conditions which are embodied in the Bill, and I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
:In view of what has been said by the Solicitor-General, and the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw the proposed New Clause.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW CLAUSE.—( Return showing lapsed policies. )
Every society or company shall render a full return half-yearly of the policies lapsed and the amount of premiums paid on such policies together with such other particulars as the Commissioner shall require.—[ Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There has been a great deal of attention drawn by the Parmoor Committee and otherwise to the tremendous amount of lapsing in industrial assurance, not so much on the part of the friendly societies as on the part of the companies, and the object of this Clause is that, if the Commissioner feels that there has been a very heavy series of lapses in one district, for example, he can inquire into the circumstances. It is not proposed that he should inquire into every case, or even into a large proportion of the cases, but it will give some basis for him to turn his attention in certain directions. I would draw attention to the amount of lapses that took place in 1913, according to the return, and it will be seen that in that year the Refuge Assurance Company lapsed no less than 373,000 policies, the Prudential 222,000, the Pearl 485,000, the London Mutual 257,000, and the Liverpool Victoria, which is a friendly society, 286,000. Some of the figures were exceeded, I think, in other years, although probably 1913 was the heaviest, taking it on the whole.
I do not want to quote a great many cases, but I have a great many cases where, I think, these policies have been lapsed on insufficient grounds, and the people have been swindled. There have been some of the agents, a small minority, I admit, who have been either lax in filling in the assurance applications, or in a few cases again, but still of great importance, to poor people, they have been fraudulent. Furthermore, there has been, I am afraid, too much pressure—and the Parmoor Committee draws attention to this—on people to insure beyond their means, and then bad times have come, and the policies have been lapsed and the premiums lost, and there has been no surrender value. In other cases, such as the case of children, for example, who are insured by their parents at birth, after a child leaves home the insurance policy has gone on for years and years, and then it has lapsed, for reasons that we can easily understand. Altogether there have been, without a doubt, too many very sad and hard cases of poor people struggling to keep up these premiums for many years, and then losing the whole lot, often through a technicality, or in some cases, I fear, through deliberate fraud.
:Why does the hon. and gallant Member say that the assured has lost all? Let us be accurate. It may be that the policy has been lapsed, but from the time the first premium was paid until the policy lapsed the assured was covered against death. We must not overlook the fact that a certain amount of benefit did accrue during that period.
:I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and I do not want to exaggerate at all. I wish to state the case fairly, and I quite admit that the people were insured during that time, but the tremendous amount of business done in these new policies, which then are lapsed, was commented on by the Committee, after very full examination, and commented upon unfavourably. Therefore, I think it is necessary that such a return should be in the hands of the Commissioner to prevent possible abuses in the future. It may be said that this will be a tremendous expense and so on, but I do not think that is a valid argument. I do not think the expense need be very great, because in any case there must be some record kept of these cases in the offices, and it does not need very much organisation to make half-yearly returns of such simple particulars as the Commissioner may require. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept the Clause, against which, I venture to say, no very valid arguments can be advanced.
:I beg to second the Motion.
I do so quite formally, but I desire to take the opportunity of making a reply to the interjection of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). I hope the House will not be misled by that interjection, which was, I think, quite irrelevant. To say, because a policy has been in existence and has subsequently lapsed, that during the existence of that policy the holder has had some benefit and therefore ought not to complain because his policy has lapsed without any return, is, I venture to say, quite irrelevant. That is an argument in favour of all policies having no surrender value. What we do say is this, that if a policy lapses, whatever may be the reason, whether it be through oversight or through the poverty of the holder, which applies in a large number of cases, there should be some surrender value; and again the interjection of the hon. Member was irrelevant, because we are not seeking to have anything of the kind, but only to have publicity, so that the matter may be brought to the minds of the people of this country.
:I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not mean to say that an insured person had not lost some benefit if he surrendered his policy for nothing. What I was dealing with was the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that the assured had lost everything. He should remember that while the policy was in being the assured had some benefit, and although he may have lost it all, at any rate his own life was insured for that period.
:I am sorry to appear to be unsympathetic towards the proposals of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is not because I feel that he desires to wreck the Bill in any way, for I am sure his pro- posals are intended to promote what we all want, namely, to see that the policy-holders get as good value for their money as is possible in the circumstances, but this proposal, I am afraid, is one that I cannot accept. In the first place, the hon. and gallant Gentleman probably overlooked the fact that the term "lapsed policies" really has no meaning. We know, generally speaking, what we mean by a lapsed policy. It means a policy which a person has allowed to fall because he has not, for one reason or another, been able to continue the payment of premiums, but, strictly speaking, a lapsed policy covers just as much the case of a policy that somebody is able to continue, but prefers not to continue—because his position in life does not require him any longer to insure, or because he thinks he can get a better policy somewhere else— as one which he would like to continue, but is prevented from continuing because he is out of employment.
There is another objection to this Clause, and that is that it provides that a return shall be made with such particulars as the Commissioner shall require, but it does not provide what shall happen to these returns. It is no good overloading this Bill with a number of provisions which will require the Commissioner to do all sorts of things and to see all sorts of documents. His duties are important enough, Heaven only knows, under this Bill without him having to consider returns of this very voluminous nature. When the hon. and gallant Member says that it is desirable to prevent companies from encouraging people to take out policies beyond their means, he has probably overlooked Clause 24, where there are very novel proposals providing that fully paid up policies are to be delivered by companies to persons whose policies have lapsed, if those persons apply within a year after the premiums have ceased to be paid. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that nobody can say whether a policy has lapsed in that sense until the year has expired during which the person can apply for a fully paid up policy. If there were no provision for fully paid up policies, it might be very reasonable to have some machinery, which would have to go a great deal further than this Clause goes, providing that some information should be given, but I think, in view of Clause 24, that this pro- vision is probably unnecessary, and I do not think it would effect the object desired without very much more elaborate machinery than the hon. and gallant Gentleman has proposed.
:I do not know whether or not the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), in moving this Clause, had in view the exposure of the insurance companies, but I think that something ought to be done in order that the public may know how some of the insurance companies are dealing with their members. I had a case sent to me this week, and I think that if we give publicity to this kind of cases, it will do a great amount of good in the way of protecting the public. Here is a case of a young fellow who took out an endowment insurance. He was to pay a premium of £39 15s. per annum for 10 years, and was to receive £140 at the expiration of the 10 years. He was paying it into the City and Life Assurance Company, and they transferred their business over to the London General Assurance Company, and they are now proposing that he should alter his premium, and also the number of years for which he has to contribute from 15 to 20 years. He took the policy out when he was earning very good wages two years ago, but he is now down on 1914 wages, and he has paid this money, and they have transferred it over; he has no option, but he is bound to accept the conditions laid down in the transfer of the business from the City company to the London General Assurance Company. He is going to lapse.
:Has the original company come to grief?
:This young fellow came to me to see if I could not do something in the matter. This policy is going to lapse, and I think that if this Clause were accepted, the Commissioner would be able to let the public know why these policies are lapsing, because here le a case —I say it quite openly, so far as I am concerned—of fraud. I think this Clause ought to be accepted, so that the Commissioner would be able to let the public know, and to protect them and caution them not to be trapped in the way that this young fellow has been trapped by this City company.
:I should like to deal briefly with the particular case to which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) has referred. It is impossible to answer that case unless one looks into the facts and knows the circumstances, but I happen to have some knowledge of the particular transactions, of a general nature, referred to by the hon. Member. Unfortunately, the City Life Assurance Company—not the City and Life Assurance Company, as the hon. Member called it—is a Company which, without putting it too high, is in serious financial embarrassment.
:That is putting it too low, not too high.
:On a point of Order. Is it in order, in discussing the Industrial Assurance Bill, to go into particulars which have nothing whatever to do with industrial assurance, and to waste time with the offence and defence of these two hon. Members?
:I think we had better stick to the Bill.
:On the point of Order. The case quoted by the hon. Gentleman was not a case which, in any event, would have come under the provisions of this or any other Industrial Assurance Bill.
:I just wanted to say this: Seeing that reference has been permitted by my hon. Friend, it seems right that some statement should be made in reply on the Floor of the House. As a matter of fact, it is quite germane to this Clause, both with regard to the companies, and the case referred to by my hon. Friend. The friend who is seeking his advice might be well advised to accept the transfer and go to the London General Company, because I am afraid if he continues with his policy in the other company referred to he will get much less than he is getting now. Again, the Clause which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has put down would be of no earthly assistance to the unfortunate friend of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
:I was just pointing out that this was a lapsed policy, and according to the Amendment it could be brought to the attention of the Commissioner.
:Certainly my hon. Friend has, perhaps, a more optimistic view of this proposed Clause than the hon. Members who are supporting it. All this Clause would do would be to ask all the companies and institutions to send in lists of lapsed policies to the Inspector General or, whatever the official might be called under this Clause, the Insurance Commissioner. What he has to do with these lists, how he is to serve the people who are mentioned on those lists, is not revealed. Of course, it would be impossible for any Government official to go through the names of the thousands of policy-holders that are specified separately. I venture to say that the course which has been taken in this Bill, in Clause 24, is a far better course to take. Instead of sending lists of lapsed policies to a Government official, advantage should be taken, and very considerable advantage might be taken, of the Clause which gives the policy-holders, those who may have lapsed within the terms set out in the Clause, a return in certain events of the premiums they have paid. This is practical help to the people who have suffered or are suffering from trouble of this kind. I think my hon. Friend opposite will agree that there is a great deal of exaggeration on this question of lapsed policies. My hon. Friend is quite wrong, if he will bear with me in saying so, but there is, in these lapsed policies, policy-holders of only a few weeks. We know how the thing happens. They do not continue their payments, and these figures are included in the lists. Obviously it is not for the benefit of any institution in this kind of insurance business to treat improperly or harshly their policy-holders. If they do, and the company gets a bad name, it is the worst possible thing that could happen to it. Really, the proper answer to the proposal of my hon. Friend is that, under Clause 24, there is secured a very valuable concession to policy-holders, and I hope, after the explanation of the Solicitor-General—we know hon. Members opposite are anxious for the poor people of the country—that they will not press the Clause further.
:I do not want to press this matter, though I would do so, were there any chance of carrying the Clause.
Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
CLAUSE 2.—( Industrial Assurance Commissioner. )
(1) The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shall be the authority charged with such powers and duties in relation to industrial assurance as are conferred and imposed upon him by this Act, and in that capacity and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 and 1908, in relation to collecting societies he shall as from the passing of this Act be known as and styled the Industrial Assurance Commissioner, and is in this Act referred to as the Commissioner, and anything which under the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 and 1908, is authorised or required to be done by, to or before the central office or the registrar or an assistant registrar shall, where the society is a collecting society, be done by, to or before the Commissioner.
:I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert a new Sub-section— this Commission, and the mass of people who may be aggrieved will have no knowledge of the functions of the Commissioner.
In Hull, as is well known by those who have followed this matter, we have one or two active gentlemen who take up this business, and it is a fact that they have again and again managed to get justice for aggrieved policy-holders, and that is proved by the fact that, where benefits have been refused under the plea of illegality, or some flaw, by having legal help they have managed to get payment of money due. That is all right in part. This has been going on for years. It had nothing to do with me, because I was otherwise engaged trying to represent the city, or part of it, in Parliament. This has been going on for years and in other cities there must be similar occurrences, and really people in dire poverty cannot afford the legal assistance needed. Very often they are ignorant, poor, and frightened rather, and they have no natural protector. Unless they have brought before them on the policy that they have a right to appeal to the Commissioners when they feel they are suffering injustice the existence of this Commission will be unknown to the great majority. The case of the poor woman who is, as she thinks, defrauded out of perhaps a few pounds due to her under an insurance policy is one which should be very proper for the Commissioner to occupy himself with. Anything we can do we ought to do. I suggest that the brief address on the policy, "Insurance Commissioner, Whitehall," is quite sufficient —for once officials of the sort dig themselves in they do not move in a hurry. That is the only objection I have heard to this proposed Amendment, and I hope it will be accepted.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that this is an Amendment which is not likely to effect any good. He suggests that it will be sufficient to say, "Commissioner, Whitehall," but why put in the name? However, that is a small point, and the great objection to the Amendment is that many of the policies upon which it is intended to put this will be in existence in 30 or 40 years hence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to put on the back of the policy or somewhere a brief summary of the powers vested in the Commissioner by this Act. It is quite conceivable that this Act may be supplemented later by an Act which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may draw up when he is on this Bench. Then it would be useless to insert in a policy a number of powers contained in an Act of Parliament repealed several years before. How impracticable this proposal is or may be in a year or two is evident. As a matter of fact it would take more skill than I possess, or perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to put into comprehensible language, understood by the simple layman, the 42 Clauses of this complicated Measure.
:I am disappointed on this occasion by the Solicitor-General. I should have thought he would have considered this Amendment. It really does not make much demand upon the resources of the Government. I have not in any way endeavoured to prolong discussion on the other two Clauses or Amendments, but I think there is a substantial point involved in this. A large part of the object of this Bill is to protect the millions of poor people who take out industrial insurance policies. It is surely asking very little to provide that on these policies the statutory provisions for their protection, and only the statutory provisions
:It would not help!
:The hon. Member for Fareham does not think it would help. I suggest that the provisions in this Bill which are intended to protect could be summarised in simple language, and that those concerned could be informed that there was an official whose duty it was, in the main, to support their interests. We have had all sorts of Measures put forward. I am wasting my mornings at present on a Bill for marking eggs and Brussels sprouts. There is no evidence at all of fraud in these things; but we know that many people have been injured in connection with these industrial concerns. There has been prolonged inquiry into the working of industrial assurance by a Committee presided over by Lord Par-moor. This has reported on the abuse which existed, and the Bill is necessary for the purpose of protecting the policy-holders. We simply suggest that the concrete provisions of the Bill, which have been devised for the protection of these people, should be brought to their notice in simple language. That can be done. The Solicitor-General has put forward no reason for refusing this Amendment and, in the circumstances, I think we should ask the House to agree to our proposal.
6.0 P.M.
:The real reply to this Amendment is contained in Clause 31 of the Bill. There the best method has been adopted of giving proper notice to the policy-holders of the material parts of this Bill. The Amendment on the Paper asks the Legislature and, in fact, the Government, to do an impossible thing. I do not think any hon. Member of this House would for a moment contend that he could summarise the provisions of this Measure in an intelligible form.
:The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. If he will read my Amendment he will see that I am simply asking for a brief summary of the powers vested in the Commissioner by this Bill.
:In Clause 31 it is provided that on every policy there shall be set out the particular Sections of the Friendly Societies Acts, which are embodied there, and there is that particular Section dealing with disputes as to the liability of policy-holders. My hon. Friend has said that if there is any dispute about their policies they do not know that they can go to the Commissioner. My answer is that under this Bill they get all that is required; under Clause 21 it is provided that one of the Sections, which must appear on every policy, is the Disputes Clause, and if you turn to this Clause you will see it is stated in the event of a dispute arising between a policy-holder and any one of these insurance institutions, the matter must go to the Insurance Commissioner. That is printed on every policy issued by the insurance institutions, and, therefore, every policy-holder will see far better what he has to do under that provision if he is in any doubt than under this Amendment.
:If the hon. Gentleman will read the provision dealing with disputes, he will find that the policy-holders are referred to the County Court.
:If the hon. Member will look on the face of any industrial insurance policy he will see there the Section dealing with disputes. It appears there because the Friendly Societies Acts provide that it must be there, and it says what has to take place in connection with a dispute between the policy-holder and the insurance institutions. Under this Bill the matter has been taken further, because under Clause 32 it says:
"Provided that any such dispute may be referred to the Commissioner."—
Then the Clause sets out the exact machinery. That Clause will have to appear on the face of every policy, and therefore you do put people in the way of getting their disputes settled far better in that way than by endeavouring to carry out the suggestion contained in this Amendment.
:Will the hon. Member read the words in Clause 32, Sub-section (1), paragraph ( c ), dealing with this point?
:Yes, I will read them. The words referred to are:
"That member or person may, notwithstanding any provisions of the rules of the society or company to the contrary, apply to the County Court, or to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."
The remainder of the Clause says that in the case of disputes concerning a small amount it must be referred to the Insurance Commissioner. The provision to which I have referred appears on every policy and it instructs the policy-holder in case of a dispute to go to the Insurance Commissioner. I think that is a very satisfactory notice of any difficulty in connection with a policy, and it is a far better way of dealing with this matter. I do not know that any difficulty has arisen in regard to this point. I have had some acquaintance with this question from a professional point of view, and I have not experienced people failing to obtain their remedy. I admit that on occasions I have had some little benefit from the fact that there has been dispute. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite said that as far as Hull was concerned they got their just dues.
:. Not all of them.
:At any rate, in connection with the return of premiums.
:No.
:The real answer to this proposal is that on the face of every policy due notice is given, and the policy-holder will know that he can go either to the County Court or to the Insurance Commission, and that is a satisfactory way of dealing with the question that has been raised.
:What the hon. Member who has just sat down has said shows how ineffective the present protection is, and surely it shows the need for something in the shape of more simple language than references to Acts of Parliament. We are dealing with the poorest of the poor, and if they fear anything at all it is being drawn into a Court of Law or consulting a member of the legal profession. They desire to keep out of the hands of the law, and therefore, I submit that there is substance in this Amendment, which contains a plain statement that they can appeal to the Commissioner, and they would do that more readily than if they had the perils of the County Court put up before them. The hon. Member suggested that this question of lapsed policies had been very much exaggerated, but the Parmoor Committee found, after careful investigation, that there was a very serious loss to the public. In their Report that Committee stated that the public lost heavily by lapses. That is the finding of the Parmoor Report. This is a question which affects the poorest of the poor, and therefore, we should, as trustee for them, do all that is in our power to make it clear that they can have redress without going either to the County Court or even consulting a solicitor. The Solicitor-General did not say that there was no need for this Amendment, and I think he will be quite ready to admit that there is a great need to protect these people, and if these words are not altogether watertight, he might suggest such words as would make them watertight, and thus give some protection to those who most need it.
:I think this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. What has been said by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has amply covered the ground. There is an official appointed under the Bill who will have power to deal with all such cases.
:Then why object to this Amendment?
:Because what is proposed is already provided for in the Bill. Up to the time of the introduction of this Bill there was no official with power to deal with these points, but when this Bill is made effective that state of things will be remedied.
:I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CLAUSE 4.—( Assurances on children's lives. )
(1) The provisions of Sections sixty-two and sixty-four to sixty-seven of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, relating to payments on the death of children shall extend to industrial assurance companies as if those provisions were herein re-enacted, and in terms made applicable to industrial assurance companies.
:I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
"Provided that the taking out of duplicate policies with a total benefit exceeding the allowances under the principal Act shall be prohibited."
It will be noticed that it is only permitted to insure the lives of children for a certain amount, but I think that is insufficient, and there is on the Paper another Amendment on this point which the undertakers have quite justly pressed for. There is an Amendment in my name to increase the total amount, but at the present moment, unless we have some such wording as I am proposing in the Bill, it will foe possible to evade, it. These words will prevent that, and I think will, at the same time, carry out the intentions of the Government. I am informed that what happens is that people are induced to take out several of these policies, and when the time comes to pay up, the Act is trotted out, and they are told they can only have a certain amount. The words I suggest are quit simple and are necessary, and I hope the Government will accept them.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:The intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite plain to me. The Acts provide that insurances upon the life of a child shall not exceed a certain sum, but that sum may be all on one policy or there may be two policies or more, and the insurance may be effected with one society, or two societies, or three societies. I do not understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by duplicate policies. If he means that two policies shall not be permitted, at the present time the assured, or the person, taking out the policy, can in such a case only recover under one of the policies. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman probably means that there shall not be more than one policy on a child's life. If he does not mean that, I am not sure that I appreciate his meaning.
:May I explain? What I mean is that under the Friendly Societies Act it is not permissible to insure a child under three years of age for more than £6, and what happens is that two policies are taken out for a total sum exceeding £6, and the matter is got over in that way. It is only when the money comes to be paid that the person finds that he has no legal policy and no redress, and loses his premium. That is what I want to prevent.
:If anyone takes out a policy or policies for more than the amount which is permitted, it is an illegal act, and the certificate of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who will be the Commissioner, is required before the amount can be paid at all on the death. In that case the person who takes out the policy loses the benefit of the premium beyond the premium on the policy which is permitted. The prohibition of duplicate policies would not prevent that, and who is to know whether a duplicate policy has been taken out on a child's life? It may be taken out with a society in Scotland or in London, and no one can tell whether a duplicate policy has been taken out. It is only when the child dies and the certificate of the Registrar is required that the threads can be gathered together. One cannot prevent the taking out of policies for a greater sum than that permitted by existing legislation, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, therefore, appears to me to be impossible of application.
:Is not the point in connection with this Amendment that it throws the onus upon the company, whereas at the present time the onus rests upon these poor people, who do not understand, while it is to the interest of the insurance companies and societies, who do understand, that these duplicate policies should be created?
:I do not understand how the throwing of the onus upon the company really, if I may be allowed to say so, throws any light upon the question. The company cannot make an exhaustive inquiry into every single case as to whether other policies exist up to the maximum allowable benefit. It can only issue a policy in return for the premium paid, and, if persons take out more policies than they are permitted to do, they will forfeit the premiums. This proposal would be quite ineffective and impracticable.
:I should not like the hon. and gallant Member to think that I was in any way casting any ridicule upon his proposal, which is quite a natural one, but the real answer to his complaint is Clause 4 of this Bill, which prohibits the very thing which he is suggesting should be prohibited. Clause 4 does not use the word "duplicate," which is certainly open to misconception but it re-enacts Section 67 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, relating to payments on the death of children. That Section says that not more than certain specified sums shall be paid, and in fact this prohibition in regard to the payment of more than certain sums on the death of children is very strictly enforced and strictly observed.
:Yes, but the point is that there is nothing to prevent people from taking out the policies and paying the premiums, and we all know that they do not get paid. That is our complaint.
:The hon. and gallant Member has no right to make that statement, because, if two or three policies are taken out, we will say in error, by people who are not aware of the law and who try to insure the lives of children up to even £50 or £100, in such cases payment is made in conformity with Section 64 of the Friendly Societes Act, 1896, and in the case of the other policies the premiums are returned. That has been clearly laid down in cases before the Courts, because it has been held that when the company returns the premiums in those cases it shall not in that way exceed the amount paid in respect of the provisions of Section 64 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896. I may also say, for the information of hon. Members opposite, that a very practical method has been adopted for dealing with these cases, because the Registrar of Deaths, both here and in Scotland, and I think also in Ireland, whenever a request is made to him for more than one death certificate, immediately causes inquiries to be made. The death certificate is retained by the insurance company on the payment of the money, and if people insure in one or more institutions, and endeavour to make money out of the death of their children, directly they apply for more than one death certificate he is put upon inquiry, the insurance institution is notified, and proper steps are taken to comply with this Section.
I know of no cases where this particular Section has been abused. My hon. Friends opposite, who are also connected with large institutions, can confirm or deny that, but I believe that if this Section were not strictly enforced by the insurance institutions themselves it would lead to a great amount of wrongdoing, and I may say that this was the subject of an inquiry many years ago by a Committee over which the late Lord Alverstone presided. It has always been very strictly enforced by the institutions themselves, and in this Bill it is re-enacted in Clause 4. There is not only a prohibition on the insurance institutions, but there is also a prohibition upon the people who do it themselves. We must not assume that the working-classes of this country do not know full well the amount for which they can insure their children It is a matter of common knowledge. If you went down a street in any town or city in this country and knocked at the door of any working-class house there, they would be able to tell you pretty accurately the amount for which they are permitted to insure their children. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members may deny it, but I appeal to those who have practical knowledge of this matter. Whatever abuses there may be are amply dealt with in Clause 4 of the Bill, and in a better way than would be possible by my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.
:I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
:The next two Amendments deal with very much the same point—not the same point which we have just decided, but the same new point. The figures have the same effect. It seems to me, however, that the second of the two Amendments is the more complete, and I propose to call that Amendment.
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "companies" ["applicable to industrial assurance companies"], to insert the words
"except that there shall be substituted for the words 'of six pounds for children under five years of age and ten pounds for children under ten years of age' the following: 'Six pounds for children under three years of age, ten pounds for children up to six years of age, and fifteen pounds for children up to ten years of age.' "
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:There is a technical difficulty about this proposal, but before I explain it to the House, I should like to say a word upon the merits. This is an Amendment which the undertakers have proposed. It was put forward in the Committee, and the hon. Member, in whose name it stood, promised to furnish me with some information, showing that the proposal was a proper one. I have had some information from another source, which satisfies me, so far as it goes, that the cost of burial has risen, like everything else, in the last few years, but, at the same time, I venture to suggest to the House that that is not an adequate reason for increasing the amount which can be placed by insurance on a child's life. It has been represented that it is for the purpose of preventing people, whose children may have died, from having to resort to moneylenders in order to pay the expenses of burial, or to relieve them from the unhappy position of not being able to give their children the burial that parents would desire their children to have. That, of course, arouses one's sympathy, but, at the same time, there are reasons, which hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate, for not increasing beyond the maximum now laid down the amount for which a child's life can be insured.
There is a technical difficulty, however, which really makes it impossible, because, in Section 62 of the Friendly Societies Act, there is a provision which applies to friendly societies and trade unions, and places upon them the existing limits laid down in the Industrial Insurance Acts and in the Collecting Societies Act. Section 62 of the Friendly Societies Act is applied also, by Section 2 of the Trade Union Amendment Act, to trade unions. Hon. Members will realise that it would be quite impracticable to allow the amount on a child's life to be raised in respect of the societies and companies governed by this Bill, and not to raise the amount in connection with, friendly societies and trade unions. It is quite outside the scope of this Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act or the Trade Union Amendment Act, and, inasmuch as it is impossible to do that, hon. Members will realise that it really is impossible to put such a provision into this Bill. That fact relieves us from the necessity for making the very difficult decision which we might have to make as to whether it is desirable to increase the amount of insurance upon a child's life, and, as the proposal is open to criticism on its merits and is also difficult from a practical point of view, I hope the House will consider it unnecessary further to consider it.
:I am really surprised at the Solicitor-General's attitude. I thought he indicated at an interview with a deputation that he was going to reconsider his decision on the Report stage.
:The hon. Member is referring to a conversation I had at their request with some representatives of the Undertakers' Association. Conversations would be impossible if it was to be suggested that a proposal thrown out in the course of a conversation is to be placed upon me as a pledge. I hope the hon. Member will not suggest that I gave any sort of pledge. I discussed it frankly with the gentlemen who came to see me at their request.
:I have a communication from a gentleman who writes, "Since the Committee stage of the Bill I have had an interview with the Solicitor-General who suggested that he might meet our case for an increase as follows." The hon. and learned Gentleman must have been singularly unfortunate in conveying his meaning. The case he has put before us is that if these figures are inserted in the Bill the societies and companies to which it refers will be put in a preferential position as compared with friendly societies and trade unions. Therefore, he says, it cannot be done. Apparently the thing cannot be done at all, because if we were dealing with a Bill affecting trade unions and friendly societies he would say it did not deal with collecting societies and industrial societies and it would be giving trade unions and friendly societies a preferential position. So that we have reached a position in which it will be impossible altogether for the future to amend this law, no matter how desirable it may be to do so. Let us deal with the companies and the collecting societies under this Bill; and if the trade unions and friendly societies desire a similar extension in their case, there will be no difficulty in getting provision for their benefit by a very short Bill which will pass without any difficulty.
:I am rather amazed at the position taken up by the Solicitor-General in regard to these Amendments. I think it must be agreed that the Committee showed a spirit of conciliation and a degree of agreement entitling them to some consideration of these Amendments. It seems to me that on this question he has shown us very scant courtesy. He has really made no case. When I joined a friendly society about 30 years ago the sum was £6, and costs have more than doubled since then. There is a strong feeling amongst working people, even the poorest, that they ought to be in a position to give a decent burial to their children when death occurs. Hon. Members who represent working class districts know that the sum they are insuring children for is far too low. Even allowing for the simplest funerals, I think it might be usefully increased. Very few of the friendly societies would raise any objection to it. I am sure the Solicitor-General ought to give further consideration to this very important question.
:I regret that I was not in my place when the Amendment was called. May I state the reason why I put it on the Paper? There has been a 100 per cent. increase in the London Cemetery charges compared with 1914. May I give some actual figures? In one case, for children under one year in 1914 it was 6s., and to-day it is 12s. For children under three it was 7s. and is now 14s., under ten it was 8s. 6d. and is now 17s. At Manor Park and Wood Grange cemeteries in 1914 under one year the charge was 9s. and is now one guinea, for children under three it was 12s. 6d. and is now £1 7s. 6d., and under ten it was 15s. and is now £1 15s. At East London the increases are from 9s. to £l Is., from 9s. to £1 7s. 6d., from 15s. to £1 15s., and so on for all the London cemeteries of which I have the figures. In addition the hire of carriages has increased from 18s. 6d. to £1 7s. 6. for a single horse carriage. Coffin furniture is 125 per cent. above pre-War prices, and other goods required for funerals are 75 per cent. above pre-War prices, and wages are much higher than formerly owing to the fact that before the War there was not a trade union regulating wages in the funeral trade, and men who were employed as coffin makers and funeral coachmen received on an average 25s. to 30s. per week. In 1918 a trade union was formed, and wages have increased considerably in consequence. The plain facts show that the figures proposed in the Amendment are very reasonable.
:I support the Amendment because two or three cases in my district have recently been brought under my notice. We have to remember the great difficulty working-class people are in owing to their very small wages and the fact that many of them are in casual employment. A man came to me in great distress only last week, his child of six having died, and the funeral expenses, with one carriage, were £14. He was having a great deal of difficulty in getting assistance to make up that sum. His only alternative was to go to the guardians, and when you go to the guardians they take charge of the funeral and do not provide coffins that the parents would like. All these difficulties arise owing to the very heavy expense. The men who have to work in these places I suppose require extra wages, which naturally increases the fees. I ask the House, because this Bill is one for industrial insurance and funeral benefits, not to try to complicate this matter with the friendly societies and trade unions which have funeral benefits, as very few of them have. It is mostly in the friendly societies. Is there anything to prevent a note being made that friendly societies may increase their funeral benefits? I think it would be beneficial even to the ordinary friendly societies if it was done in that way. We are dealing with industrial insurance where people pay their premiums weekly or monthly, and they ought to be allowed to provide for a little extra in this way because it is impossible for them to meet the expense when they lose their children. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment.
:The Solicitor-General was somewhat impressed in the Committee with the necessity of making some change in the direction indicated by the Amendment, and I think we can say he encouraged the belief that if the evidence was satisfactory he would make such a modification in the law. He has told us he was impressed, and no one will doubt, having regard to the increase in the cost of material and the reduction of wages and earning capacity of the workers, the necesity of securing an improvement as the Amendment suggests. I should deprecate the acceptance of the Amendment if it left trade unions and friendly and collecting societies in Some inferior position as compared with the great companies, but that in itself does not appear to me to be an entirely justifiable reason for refusing to accept the principle of the Amendment. Would it not be possible to introduce words by which the privilege extended by this Bill might equally be extended to the Acts he has quoted? I think we are entitled, having regard to the belief he has encouraged that some change would take place, to ask him to give some further consideration to this?.
:I am sorry the hon. Member has suggested that I am guilty of want of courtesy to the House. That is the last thing in the world I should desire. It is said I encouraged the hope in the Committee that I would accept this. May I read what I said about it?
"I will consider the point again because I do not want to be deaf to anything I am asked to do by this Committee. At the same time I do not want hon. Members to be misled by my promise to look into it to feel that there is very much hope that I shall be able to accept the Amendment."
I think I have strictly fulfilled my promise by looking into it. I quite recognise that a case has been made out on the line that expenses are higher. I should not have the least object in resisting the proposal if I thought it really in the interests of the people concerned. I am only anxious to do what is best for everyone, both parents, societies and companies. I recognise that hon. Members opposite know possibly more than I do about the conditions in which some of these people live. One hon. Member said that if I represented a working-class constituency I should know more about the facts. I represent 40,000 people, a great many of whom live in slums, so that I do know something. In response to the suggestion made, and upon the strict understanding that hon. Members opposite will not oppose any Measure which may be necessary to extend this proposal to friendly societies and trade unions—it cannot be done in this Session, but it may have to he done in another Session by a short non-contentious Bill—and to show how anxious I am to accept the assistance of hon. Members in making the Bill as good as it can be, I will accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 7.—( Deposits by collecting societies. )
(1) Every collecting society shall be under the like obligation to deposit and keep deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds as an industrial assurance company, and Section two of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as applied by this Act to industrial assurance companies, shall apply accordingly, subject in its application to collecting societies to the following modifications:
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "society" ["every collecting society shall"], to insert the words "formed after the passing of this Act."
:Do I understand that we have passed over the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Emlyn-Jones)?
:I am moving the Amendment which stands in the names of the hon. Member for North Dorset, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray), and myself. I omitted to mention that fact.
:It is only a question of precedence of names, and as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Emlyn-Jones) is not in his place, I called upon the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
:I will move the Amendment if the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray) will second it. This Amendment is an attempt to save the small societies from being crushed out. Under the provisions of the Bill a sum of £20,000 is to be deposited. That amount to the great companies is nothing; it is a mere bagatelle, but to the smaller companies, which are quite solvent and well-conducted, and have received praise from the Parmoor Commission, it is out of the question. It is laid down that there may be five years grace, and if they get that, it is further laid down that a further five years' breathing space may be allowed; but these smaller societies, organised by people for mutual benefit, will always have this sword hanging over their heads, and I think it would be extremely unjust. This Amendment must be taken along with the further Amendment which stands in the names of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), the hon. Member for Oxford, and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), and myself— in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "the sum of twenty thousand pounds," and to insert instead thereof, the words
" a sum equal to twenty-five per cent. of collectable premium income over an aver- age of the last three years and to be revised at the end of every subsequent three years, and in the case of new companies registered after the passing of this Act the sum of twenty thousand pounds."
We propose also that new companies should come under this £20,000 arrangement.
:Which Amendment is the hon. and gallant Gentleman discussing? Some of us have Amendments, and we do not care for this jumping over of Amendments.
:The Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member is discussing is, in Sub-section (1), after the word "society," to insert the words "formed after the passing of this Act," and that must be read with the following Amendment on the Paper to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Western Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston)—Subsection 1 ( c ), after the word "Act" ["shall be made before the commencement of this Act"], to insert the words
" provided that in the case of any such society with an industrial assurance fund not exceeding fifty thousand pounds a sum equal to thirty per cent. of such fund shall be a sufficient deposit under this Section "—
deals with more or less the same subject, and I think we might discuss them all together.
:I should like to know whether the smaller friendly societies were consulted on this point. I hold in my hand details which have perhaps been sent to other hon. Members, of the Stirlingshire Friendly Assurance Society, established in 1861. The contributions for 1922 were £310,000, and the income from interest £394. The funds well-invested at the end of 1922 were £6,618, being over nine years' gross income. It is very clearly laid down that that is a very good position. This company, and many others like it, so they claim, will be killed by this £20,000 deposit, and they say that a huge monopoly will be created. That is a very justifiable claim. It is not just that these smaller friendly societies should be driven out of the market in this way, and all their employés thrown out of employment at a time when unemployment amongst that class of worker is very rife. The £20,000 deposit for companies with a capital of £21,000,000 is absurd. It is no safeguard at all to the policy-holders, and is simply laughable. These great companies started with very small capital; I believe the Prudential started with a capital of about £6,000. They started with a bootlace, to use a slang expression. In 1870, the total combined funds of five very great companies, the Pearl, the Refuge, the Britannic, the British Legal, and the London and Manchester did not amount to £5,000, and they have become great corporations. Therefore, the amount of actual capital is not a criterion of the honesty of the founders of the company, or of the way it is going to be managed in the future. The proposal which we make may not be a perfect arrangement, but it is much better than the proposal in the Bill. I have a letter from the honorary secretary of the Association of Friendly Collecting Societies, in which he complains that he was not consulted.
:What is the name?
:Mr. Charles Payne. I will read the letter. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]
:I only wanted to know the name.
:He complains that he was not consulted. If this Bill had been brought in in the ordinary way, without these tremendous consultations behind the scenes, and if we were not continually told that this is a great Measure, and as we know that the great companies have been consulted, and that the great companies have their voluble defenders in this House, it is right to mention this complaint on the part of smaller companies. The principle for which we are standing is very vital, and I hope we shall have support in all quarters of the House. It would be far better to make the amount of the deposit a sum comparable to the extent of the collectable premium income of each society than to have this fixed sum of £20,000, and I hope that the Solicitor-General, who has not accepted one Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, the last one ! "]— will try to meet us on this point.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
The Clause with which the Amendment deals is a retrospective provision. It proposes, in effect, to say to societies which have for a number of years been conducting successfully a perfectly legitimate business, and who embarked upon that business on the basis of, and in accordance with, the state of law at the time of embarkation, that they must find a sum of £20,000. Not only does that mean that a certain number of these societies, who have conducted to the benefit of all concerned a legitimate business, will have to go out of business, but it also means that a number of other companies, more important in the finances which they control, will reap material benefit as a result of the loss sustained by the weaker companies.
It is perfectly true that by an Amendment introduced and accepted in Committee, the Commissioner has power, for periods of five years at a time, to postpone the provision of which we complain, and it is also true—subject to a point which I hope to raise on a later Amendment—that an aggrieved company may go to the Courts for relief if they are not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner. What we say is that when retrospective legislation, which at all times is bad, is embarked upon, with such disastrous results to certain companies, and for the benefit of large companies, it should only be resorted to if at all, as the very last resort. The only argument that has been put forward, either in this House or in Committee, in favour of this Clause applying to companies or societies in existence at the present time, is that under the Insurance Act of 1870 existing companies were exempt, as we desire to exempt them at the present time, from the provisions of that Act, and that the result was that a number of derelict companies, which had not been functioning up to 1870, became marketable assets in the hands of fraudulent persons, because the provisions did not apply to these particular companies, and they had the resultant benefit. People who had not previously been connected with the business or company came in and took over the companies in order to trade in a way which they would not have been permitted to do if they had been new companies. There are two replies to that. One is, that it so happens that the frauds that were committed and the losses that were sustained by people under the Act of 1870 were, in the main, in respect of those companies which had been formed under the Act of 1870 and had complied with the provisions of that Act which required a deposit of £20,000, exactly as is provided in this Clause.
7.0 P.M.
The companies were, I think, the National, Standard, Popular Life, British National, Premium, the New Era, and the Universal, every one a company formed after the Act of 1870, and which complied with the condition of finding and depositing £20,000. The second answer is that under the Assurance Act of 1909 the existing companies are expressly exempted—notwithstanding if it was the experience learned as a result of the Act of 1870—I think under Clause 31, and that Act only applies to companies coming into being after the passing of that Act. If there is need to protect the public from companies that have been trading in a legitimate way then it can be, and should be, done in a way which will not penalise and drive those companies out of existence by imposing what amounts to a penalty of £20,000. There can be, as in other cases, provision introduced to safeguard the public.
:I do not think anyone who has carefully studied Clause 7 will say that as it left the Committee the interests of the small society have been in any way neglected. If hon. Members will look at it and what the provisions contained in it are they will see that in the first place a deposit of £20,000 has to be made in respect of new companies. As regards the present societies or companies, a very elastic provision is made enabling the Insurance Commissioner to look into the facts of the case and to ascertain what amount, if any, the society shall put down as a deposit. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which, by the way, was fully discussed in the Committee, would be most detrimental to many small societies. A very large number would not be in a position to make the payment to which the hon. Gentleman refers—a sum equal to 25 per cent. of the collectable income over an average of the last three years. There are, it is true, very large numbers of small societies well-managed that ought to be encouraged to go on with their work, but some could not even at this moment comply with the conditions which the hon. Gentleman suggests. This matter was most carefully considered in Committee, and the judgment, I think, of almost every Member was that it was far better to let an experienced official like the Insurance Commissioner look into the facts of each society, see what their financial position is, and himself determine what deposit, if any, should be made. There was this further protection given to small societies, that if the Insurance Commission imposed an unreasonable requirement on these poor societies they shall have the right to go to the Court and appeal against the decision. I say unhesitatingly that that is a far better Clause and gives greater protection and more elasticity to the small society than would be done by seeking to impose on them the rigid amount proposed by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is an excellent provision that this £20,000 deposit shall be made, and I hope that no one will support the suggestion that these deposits are unnecessary. If hon. Members would read the last four or five annual reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, they would see how one or two men with the assistance of nominees form a small society, put not a penny into it, collect premiums from large numbers of working classes of this country, go on for a year or 18 months, disappear, and the people who have paid these premiums are unable to find them, with the result that the whole of the money paid is lost.
:The Amendment does not affect those people at all.
:It affects them very considerably, because these gentlemen can now go to the Chief Commissioner of Friendly Societies, take out a certificate of registration of one of these small societies, not put a penny down, and by spending a small sum in printing and deceitful advertisements collect money from poor people. After this Bill has been passed, those gentlemen will no longer be able to do that. Before they can go on with their insurance business they will have to put down £20,000. That will be, at any rate, some protection, I do not say a whole or adequate protection, but it will be some protection to the poor people who may be imposed upon.
:I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow him to misrepresent my Amendment in this way. This Amendment does not affect companies to be formed in the future. I quite agree with the £20,000 to prevent people of that description swindling the public.
:It will be within the recollection of the House that I made no such statement. What I complained about was that it would apply to existing societies and impose the rigid amount of 25 per cent. which to-day in many cases they would be unable to find, and would have to cease business unless they did find it. Therefore, I recommend to the House the decision of the Committee, not fixing a rigid sum but leaving it to the discretion of the Commissioner to make it such sum, if any, as he thinks fit. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) quoted the circular which he, together with many others, had received from Mr. Payne, of Cardiff. I will only trouble the House to this extent, with a question which I put in the House and the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a few days ago. I asked
"Whether he is aware that the returns of the Registrar of Friendly Societies shows that the Secretary of the Provident Cooperative Collecting Society is Mr. C. L. Payne, of Cardiff, and that the annual return of this society for the year 1921 shows that the contributions received were £10,000"—
I am giving round figures—
"and the management expenses were £8,500, representing over 78 per cent. of the contribution ; what is the total amount received in contributions as shown by the returns rendered since this society was registered; and what amount has been paid in respect of management expenses in the same period?"
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied:
"The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative "—
namely, that the total contributions received from the working classes of this country by this particular society were £10,000, while no less than £8,500 was dispersed in management expenses. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury continued:
"The Provident Co-operative Collecting Society was registered on the 22nd March, 1918, and the annual returns from 1918 to 1921 show that the total amount of contribu- tions received was £27,000 and that the amount expended in management was £22,000, a percentage of 80·2."
I say to Members of this House unhesitatingly that if we can compel societies like that to make proper contributions to the stability of their funds, we shall be doing the right thing, and that at the same time by giving a discretion to the Insurance Commissioner we shall not be injuring the small societies in any way.
:I think it will be sufficient for the House to see how reasonable the Bill is in its present form if I say that I had the unwonted satisfaction of hearing the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) appeal to the Committee, after I had suggested my Amendment, which is now incorporated in the Bill, to accept the Amendment and others standing on the Paper in the Committee. When the hon. Member for Penistone thinks a Government proposal satisfactory, that ought to satisfy hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hoped it would, but I was too hopeful. The proposal is to exempt societies in existence at the present time. The great objection to that is that these societies will, by this means, have' a valuable goodwill of which they will dispose, and you will have in existence a state of things perpetuated which it is the object of this Bill to bring to an end once and for all. There is the amplest power on the part of the Commissioner to relieve the societies, as long as they are solvent and honest, from the necessity of making this deposit. The Com missioner is directed, in consequence of an Amendment I introduced, to do it if the society is honest, to give them a period of exemption for five years indefinitely. It is no longer that he may, but he must do it, and if he does not there is an appeal to the High Court. We inserted that Amendment. If this Amendment were put in we should have all these insolvent concerns that are preying on these poor people allowed to continue indefinitely. I am sure the House, no more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), does not desire that, and, as the Committee unanimously and without a single objection resisted this Amendment, I hope the House will think it ought not to be accepted.
:I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, though, perhaps, I may say that this one man's letter is not my whole case, and I do not think it affects it in the slightest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
:There is another Amendment on this question, taking a rather different point. Does the hon. Member for Western Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) wish to move it?
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c ), after the word "Act" ["shall be made before the commencement of this Act"], to insert the words
It is true, as he said, that not only in the future may there be bogus offices, but that there are insolvent offices now, and it is necessary for the Commissioner to have some means of getting immediately at those bodies which are preying upon the public, particularly on the working classes. But when you come to a flat rate proposal to make every office pay £20,000 it is obvious that such a proposal is no guarantee, so far as the large offices are concerned. Offices with many millions of pounds do not feel a guarantee of £20,000. But when you apply the same requirements to offices with assurance funds, say of £6,000, you are crushing out the minow and allowing the whale to escape. There are many offices that have 30s. of assets to every £ of liabilities, but their insurance funds are small, and not only can they not find £20,000 to deposit but they will never find that amount. Some of them have been in existence for many years and are older than I am myself. The Solicitor-General admits the point, but says that he has a way out of the difficulty by giving the Industrial Insurance Com missioner power to say every five years, "I shall not collect the £20,000 from this, that and the other office." I submit that that is a power which the House of Commons ought not to place in the hands of any one individual. The Solicitor-General admits that it is dangerous to put in the hands of one permanent official the power to say which small office he will knock out of business, and he provides an appeal to the Law Courts for any small office that feels itself aggrieved at being compelled to deposit £20,000. I submit that that appeal would itself compel small offices to spend probaby thousands of pounds in law charges—
:If they won their case they would get their costs.
:As I understand, they would get what are called judicial costs, but there is a number of other costs outside those. I do not want to see these people put to that expenditure simply because the Solicitor-General attempts, and rightly attempts, to get at bogus, insolvent offices. My Amendment proposes a certain method of getting at insolvent offices, because they have all to put down 30 per cent. of their industrial assurance fund, and not a flat rate level of £20,000 which operates unfairly against small offices.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:The hon. Member is fully entitled to claim that he took a great interest in this Bill in Committee made many valuable suggestions, and brought many facts to the attention of hon. Members there, and I welcome nespectfully the opportunity which he has given the House to consider this very important proposal. Undoubtedly this Bill as framed did contain possibilities of hardship on small societies which everybody desires to avoid. But the small societies can be divided into two classes, the honest, solvent societies and the dishonest. I hope that the second class is smaller than the first. The desire is to guard against the second class of small societies, and it is therefore proposed that they shall be under the obligation to make the deposit which is proposed in the Bill. But it is said that, if you make that provision, you will hit the honest and small society which has be-en in existence for 50 or 70 years, and which has assets to the extent of 25s. for every £ of liabilities, but has not got £20,000 or even £1,000 to pay the deposit. With the assent of the body who represented the small societies, an assent, I think, indicated before the proposal was put into the Bill, a proposal was made by myself to the Committee that the Commissioner should have the power, from five years to five years, indefinitely, to exempt these honest and solvent societies from the operation of this Clause. In order to make plain—I am afraid that I have already said this on another Clause—that the Commissioner is not to have complete power and is not to do what the hon. Gentleman suggested he might do, I suggested the alteration of the word "may" into "shall," so that the words now read:
"But if in any particular case the Commissioner considers that further time should be allowed to the society for making the deposit he shall, if satisfied as to the financial position of the society at the time of the passing of this Act, postpone the time for making the deposit."
This Bill as drawn said he "may." That did leave a discretionary power in the hands of the Commissioner which he might use to the prejudice of small societies. We altered that "may" to "shall." We gave an appeal to the High Court, so that in the case of any small society the period should be extended. Not a single one of those small societies, which the hon. Member rightly claims to protect, will in future under this Clause suffer the least risk of being compelled to make this deposit. The hon. Member says that we should not do this, but that we should make all these societies deposit only a proportion of their insurance fund. It is no security to anybody to make a society with only ten shillings worth of assets to meet liabilities of £1, deposit a proportion of the ten shillings.
:You get them in other ways.
:Then what is the object of depositing only a graduated sum? Our proposal is to exempt them from depositing anything as long as they are solvent. The suggestion under the Clause does not apply to solvent societies with solvent insurance funds. There are some of these societies with £10 worth of cash, and £1,000 of paper assets such as good will, or rubbish of that sort, and this proposal will not secure the object, which is to allow the solvent, honest small society to continue, and at the same time to give the Commissioner power to bring these small insolvent dishonest societies to an end. In view of the fact that the Association of Friendly Societies have met the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and indicated their full assent to the proposal of the Government I hope that the House will think that the Amendment which we have introduced into the Bill will be sufficient.
:The Solicitor-General speaks of an appeal to the court. Would it not be possible for an appellant to have the same right under Clause 7 as the right hon. Gentleman in his own Amendment introduced in Clause 45? In the case of Clause 45 there is an appeal without the necessity of obtaining the leave of the court.
:I am sure that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Johnston) will appreciate the courteous way in which the Solicitor-General has dealt with the request put forward on behalf of small friendly societies. But the reply made does not meet the point. I appreciate the fact that the Government have been sympathetic and are providing in their Amendment from time to time for relief, but I would suggest in regard to the development of these societies that it is very inconvenient for those responsible for their management to have a sword of Damocles always hanging over their heads. They may be called on at any time by one Government official to deposit £20,000. There is nothing at all, so far as I can see, in this Clause as amended by the Solicitor-General that would alter that position. That must have an increasingly bad effect on those who are responsible for the investment of the funds of the society. They would have to leave a certain margin available for deposit with a Government Department as proof of their bona fides and solvent position. But to give them a reasonable chance of development they ought to be able to know what their liability for the year is, and to make a definite percentage of such liability the deposit, so that at any rate the surplus funds may be in their own democratic management to invest in the most profitable way.
:The learned Solicitor-General has met the point to a certain extent, but the words in the Bill do not meet the argument which he has put forward. If we intended to carry out what the Solicitor-General has said surely the Clause should read that the Commissioner, if satisfied as to the financial position of the society, shall postpone for the time being the deposit. Either here or in another place the Clause should be redrafted so as to do exactly what the Solicitor-General has suggested. The paragraph would then read:
"In the case of a society registered and carrying on industrial assurance business at the passing of this Act, the deposit shall be made before the commencement of this Act; but the Commissioner, if satisfied as to the financial position of the Society at the time of the passing of this Act, shall postpone for the time being the deposit."
That would be straightforward and would carry out what the Solicitor-General means, and would not leave any doubt in the Commissioner's mind as to whether, after further time was allowed, the society might become solvent or otherwise.
:I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am afraid that the suggestion that a change should be made in another place is no good, as this Bill has come from another place. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said as to the words in this paragraph is correct. The words appear to be a little redundant. It may be because an Amendment was introduced in Committee. The words might be altered to something like the following:
"but in any particular case the Commissioner shall if satisfied."—
Then if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would move to leave out the word "if" ["but if in any particular case"], and then we omit the words "considers that further time should be allowed a society to make the deposit, he," I think we might meet the point.
:If the Amendment be withdrawn, that can be done.
:I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c ), to leave out the word "if" ["Act; but if in any particular case "].
:I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c ), to leave out the words "considers that further time should be allowed to the society for making the deposit, he."
:I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
:The next Amendment I select is on Clause 17 in the name of the Solicitor-General.
CLAUSE 17.—( Inspection. )
(3) The Commissioner may, if he considers it just, direct that all or any of the expenses of and incidental or preliminary to an inspection under this Section shall be defrayed out of the funds of the society or company, or by the officers or former officers, or members or former members of the committee of management or board of directors of the society or company, or any of them in such proportions as the Commissioner directs and sums directed by him to be so paid shall be recoverable by him summarily as a civil debt.
:I beg to move, un Sub-section (3), after the word "debt," to insert the words
"Provided that any society or company or person directed to pay any part of such expenses may, with the leave of the Court, appeal against the direction to the High Court, or in the case of a society or company registered in Scotland, to the Court of Session."
I move this Amendment in order to meet hon. Members, and also because it is a proper Amendment to introduce into the Bill. The Commissioner is given a somewhat far-reaching power in Sub-section (3) of this Clause. He has power to order the officers or former officers or members of the Committee of Management to pay certain costs. That is rather a drastic power. The Amendment will enable any person who is directed to pay such costs to appeal against that decision "with the leave of the Court." I put in the words with the leave of the Court "in order to prevent dilatory actions on the part of persons who might wish to make themselves obnoxious and to run up expenses.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 18.—( Provisons as to Valuations. )
(1) In the case of a collecting society or industrial assurance company, the following provisions shall have effect with regard to every valuation made as at the thirty- first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, or any later date:
(2)Notwithstanding anything in Section twenty-eight of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, or Section five of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, the first valuation under this Act shall in the case of any collecting society and industrial assurance company
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c ), to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
Many of these societies have a delegate system, and reports and valuations have to be presented to the delegates. That means that some time must be available in which to submit these valuations to the Department, in case there should be some alteration insisted upon at a delegate meeting. I understand that the Amendment would be acceptable to the societies.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:This proposal was not before the Committee and was put on the Paper only yesterday, so that I have not had a full opportunity of considering it. I recollect, however, companies are required, under the 1909 Act, to make up their accounts within six months. The 12 months provided in this Clause is an extension of that period. I do not in the least want to quarrel over three months, but I think that 12 months is as far as it is desirable to go. It is most desirable that the production of proper accounts should not be delayed and that the Commissioner should have the valuation as soon as is reasonably possible. It ought to be possible, even for small societies, to get their accounts audited within 12 months. As a matter of fact, three very representative collecting society men have agreed that 12 months is a reasonable period.
Amendment negatived.
:I now beg to move, after Sub-section (2), to insert a new Subjection— mission, than some people desired. The Report gave us some very lurid details as to the way in which the profits were first obtained in industrial assurance and as to how they were afterwards divided. The Amendment seeks to establish some statutory control over the way in which the profits are divided. I do not wish to speak at the length at which I spoke in Committee, but I want to remind the Solicitor-General and hon. Members again that in the past the profits paid to shareholders, to proprietors of assurance companies, have largely come from the industrial branch. I think that even the hon. Member for West Woolwich will admit that fact. The Parmoor Commission reported that out of £600,000 which was allocated in share interest by the Prudential Assurance Company no less than £480,000 was taken from the industrial branch, as against £400,000 given to the policy-holders. It is true, of course, that one of the main principles of the Bill is to provide segregation of accounts in future, as between industrial branches and other branches. But the facts reveal that this House, and more especially the party with which I am associated, ought to stand for the interests of the policy-holder.
That evidence, having regard to the Bill on another matter which was introduced earlier in the day, should convince hon. Members opposite that if they want to deserve the name of liberators, which they include in the title of that Bill, they must go into the Lobby with us on this question of dividing the profits for policy-holders. I cannot forget that the profits are divided to proprietors on share capital which does not exist. The Prudential Company, for example, has never had paid up in cash more than £10,000 upon which to trade, but it pays share interest upon a nominal paid-up capital of £1,000,000, and the £999,000 balance has been provided by the poor policy-holders who have been systematically fleeced in days gone by. You have also the example quoted by an hon. Member earlier in the Debate—the case of a company where seven or eight directors are holding the largest block of shares, and, after having taken a very substantial profit in interest on those shares, voted to themselves, or had voted to them, salaries averaging about £10,000 per annum, out of the industrial life assurance fund of that particular company.
We were saying this afternoon that, so far as co-operation was concerned, we were not ashamed of the social and economic gospel that is part of our trading organisation, which is that we stand for the consumer, and that we stand for him with regard to the commodity of insurance as much as for any other article which we purvey to our members, and to the public. What is the principle adopted in our cooperative system? It is, first of all, that the capital employed shall only have limited wages or rewards paid upon it. I should be quite prepared to withdraw this Amendment, if I could get an assurance from the representatives of the companies in this House that they would immediately adopt a similar provision. One of the companies of which I have been speaking within the last few minutes, declared a dividend of 55½ per cent., free of tax. on their capital, which was equal to something over 80 per cent. at the present time. That was at a time when industrial policies were lapsing, during a period of great depression and suffering, and unemployment among the working classes. We cannot begin our progress towards a better distribution of profits with a better example than that of industrial life insurance, in which we have a commodity, a safeguard, which is necessary for every working-class home, in this or in any other country, in order to provide against all the evils attendant on the death of the breadwinner, or of other members of the family. Here we ask, especially, those hon. Members opposite who posed as liberators of the co-operators and trade unionists earlier in the day, to go with us. Here they have an opportunity to lay it down that at least 50 per cent. of any ascertained surplus at any given valuation should go to the policy-holders who are so much in need.
:Why stop at 50 per cent.?
:Will the hon. Member move to make it 75 per cent.
:I shall be very pleased if the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) will move an Amendment to my Amendment to make it 90 per cent. We want to make this surplus bear some ratio to a better provision being made for the employés in industry. We do not want to take such a proportion out of the surplus that the companies will not be able to make proper provision for those employés. I am persuaded, when hon. Members opposite sit down and think of their desire to be liberators of the co-operators and trade unionists, when they think calmly, carefully, and with judicial mind of the reasonableness of this Amendment, that they will follow up their great professions of yesterday and to-day by going into the Division Lobby with us.
:I should like to point out that the chief liberator is not present.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
In Committee upstairs we had the whole of this matter thoroughly debated. Both sides were stated very fully. I have just been referring to the Report of the Debate in Committee, and I find that the chief arguments against the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) were a series of humorous, chaffing statements made by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). What is the case against it? Six hundred thousand pounds per annum handed out to a few Prudential shareholders! We ask that £300,000 of that shall go to the policy-holders. What Ion earth objection can there be to that, unless it is that we are asking too little? It is the same with a dozen other great profiteering and exploiting companies. If you carry this Amendment, you hand over millions of pounds to poor people—their own money. The hon. Member for West Woolwich laughs. No doubt, that is going to be his argument to-night—chaff. The co-operative insurance society, which was his deadly butt upstairs, limits its profits to 5 per cent., and hands the rest back to the policy-holders.
A friendly society with which I have been connected on the board of management for 10 years, the City of Glasgow Friendly Society, hands out at its valuation, in one form or another, all the profits it has made. When it comes to a miners' lock-out, it sends word to the miners' organisation that no policy shall lapse during the time of the colliers' distress. Other friendly societies do the same thing, or distribute their profits in other ways. The policy-holders get their share, but here the companies sit tight with fabulous profits. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that the Prudential had 80 per cent., but it is 1,300 per cent. per annum on their original capital invested. All we plead for in this Amendment is that one-half, 50 per cent., of these great sums of money, which are annually taken by a few exploiting shareholders, who do nothing for it; and who contribute nothing whatever to the success of the organisation, shall be handed back to the poor policy-holders who create the surplus. I hope the hon. Member for Hillsborough will press the Amendment to a Division, and that we shall be accompanied into the Lobby by those hon. Members of Standing Committee A, who were not disposed to vote against us upstairs, on the ground that possibly the Government had not yet had time to consider the matter fully, but who were sympathetic with our proposals. I trust those hon. Members will accompany us into the Division Lobby, and that we shall show to the people of this country that we are prepared to take some little step forward towards stopping the extraordinary plunder and robbery of the poor that is going on under the guise of industrial assurance.
:The hon. Member who seconded this Amendment said we had a very full discussion in the Committee upstairs. So we did, and the Amendment was not accepted by the Committee. I do not at all complain of its being proposed again, because, in view of the large distributions in one or two cases which have taken place in the past, it is not unnatural that some people should think that the persons who receive these profits have had too much. In that generous instinct to distribute other people's money we all share, and the only question is whether it can be done with security to the policy-holder and whether this is a proposition which can be made workable. I will not in any way intervene in the taunts which have been thrown at the liberators—I did not quite follow them—with regard to the Bill introduced this afternoon. Perhaps I may command the sympathy of hon. Members opposite by saying I voted against it, but that is a little remote from this question.
The proposal is to distribute half the surplus profits for the benefit of the policy-holders. That is a very laudable object, but, in the first place, who are the policy- holders? How are you going to distribute those profits among the persons who hold fully-paid policies in circumstances which exist when they cannot pay the premiums? There is a provision in the Bill that persons who cannot pay their premiums may, under certain conditions, get a fully-paid policy to represent the full value of the premiums they have paid. Are they to be entitled to some of these profits?
:Is not something of the same kind being done already by companies which distribute some of the profits to industrial policy-holders?
:I do not know. I asked the question in order that I might point to this criticism, which is the obvious one, that, although the proposal contains the germ of what many of us might be inclined to think is a good idea—I do not go further than that—the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. Alexander) has not gone further and put into his Amendment the machinery by which this good idea could attain a practical shape. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am entitled to say this, because I made exactly the same comment in Committee. It is no good hon. Members coming to this House, especially on a Bill of this sort, with a kind of idea fermenting in their minds, and putting it into language which I think you, Mr. Speaker, called a copy book maxim, and expecting it to work. If hon. Members wished this to work they ought to have devised, with the assistance of skilled persons, some much more elaborate code by which these profits could be distributed among certain classes of persons.
If this Amendment were put in, it would not be at all difficult for companies who were minded to evade what was intended, to work things for their own benefit. For instance, the Amendment says that the surplus profits are to be applied to the benefit of the industrial assurance policy-holders. It leaves the directors of the company to say which particular policy-holders shall have the benefit, and to introduce into every policy a carefully devised clause will ensure that certain policy-holders shall get the plums and the greater share of the profits. Indeed, it leaves every possible loophole open to people who, ex hypothesi, are grasping, to retain for themselves what the hon. Member wants to distribute amongst, I think he called it, the deserving and the poor. This Amendment really will not do. If it goes into the Bill, it does not contain nearly enough to carry out the object of the hon. Member.
:Will you extend it?
:The hon. Member asks if I will extend it. Nearly three weeks or a month ago I made precisely the same criticism, and called on the hon. Member to devise a proper course. He has not even approached me, from that time to this, to ask me for my assistance—whether it would have been given, I will not say. At any rate, I gave him fair warning, and I told him that if he wanted a proposal of this sort put into the Bill, he really must draw it up in a workable form. But it appears to-day in the same naked condition in which it appeared in the Committee upstairs.
:But still virtuous.
8.0 P.M.
:The hon. Member really must allow me to say this. He is associated with a very progressive concern, I understand, in the co-operative movement. Hon. Members opposite are associated with progressive concerns. How can they improve the position of those societies, and the lot of the policy-holders in their societies, by inserting a clause in all their policies that the policy-holders shall have, not 50 per cent., but 100 per cent. of the profits of those societies and companies? If they hold out all the advantages which would accrue to policy-holders under this proposal, I do not suppose that they would stand a chance in the competitive field in which all these societies and companies work. Let a society offer to the world and advertise the fact that they give the policy-holders everything, bonus, profit, every mortal thing that can be got out of the business, and I suppose that then that society will get all the business and everybody will insure with them. That is a much more workable proposal than this one before the House, and even if the House is asked to divide, I shall ask the House to reject the Amendment.
:The right hon. Gentleman has not combated the principle underlying this Amendment. He has suggested that it may not be a perfectly watertight proposal, but I would suggest to the House that they should ask him to reconstruct the Clause. I further suggest that, as the Parmoor Committee did disclose that there were these huge profits taken from the public which were going into the pockets of the few and not of the many, and seeing the Government have attempted to put into the Bill various other recommendations of the Parmoor Committee, the House has a right to suggest that there should be inserted in this Bill recommendations in a watertight Clause which would give the same protection to the public as those other recommendations proposed.
:This proposal is not recommended by the Parmoor Committee. The hon. Member knows that.
:That is perfectly true, but it was the disclosures of the Committee that led to the suggestion that a proposal should be inserted somewhat on these lines. I submit that the disclosures of that Committee were such that they warranted some sort of provision like
this being put in, so that the public should be protected against the large contributions taken from them in the past. The Solicitor-General suggested it was easy to distribute other people's money, but surely this money is money contributed by the policy-holders, and this House, as a trustee and custodian on behalf of those who are not always able to help themselves should, I think, see that they are protected. I think we have a right to ask the Government, unless they are satisfied that the principle is not sound—and I do not understand that the Solicitor-General said it was unsound; he said, rather, that it was attractive—the House is entitled to ask him to devise means whereby this Amendment may be made watertight and whereby these large companies with large financial interests should not be able to over-ride what is the intentions of this Clause.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 239.
Division No. 154.] AYES. [8.5 p.m. Adams, D. Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Muir, John W. Adamson, Rt. Hon William Hayday, Arthur Murnin, H. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Murray, John (Leeds, West) Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Attlee, C. R. Herriotts, J. Nichol, Robert Batey, Joseph Hill, A. O'Grady, Captain James Bonwick, A. Hinds, John Oliver, George Harold Bowdler, W. A. Hirst, G. H. Paling, W. Broad, F. A. Hogge, James Myles Parkinson John Allen (Wigan) Brotherton, J. Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Irving, Dan Phillipps, Vivian Buchanan, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Potts John S. Burgess, S. John, William (Rhondda, West) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring) Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Ritson, J. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Jones J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Roberts, C. H. (Derby) Charleton, H. C. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Robertson J (Lanark, Bothwell) Clarke, Sir E. C. Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Robinson, W. C. (York Elland) Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities! Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartiepools) Salter, Dr. A. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Scrymgeour, E Davison J. E. (Smethwick) Kirkwood, D. Sexton, James Duffy, T. Gavan Lansbury George Shinwell, Emanuel Duncan, C. Lawson, John James Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Dunnico, H. Leach W. Sitch, Charles H Ede, James Chuter Lee, F. Smith, T. (Pontefract) Edmonds G Lees Smith H. B. (Keighley) Snell, Harry Edwards C (Monmouth Bedwellty) Linfield F. C. Snowden, Philip Gosling, Harry Lowth, T. Spencer, George A (Broxtowe) Gray, Frank (Oxford) Lunn, William Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S) Greenall, T. MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Spoor, B. G. Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne) M'Entee, V. L. Stephen, Campbell Grenfell, D R (Glamorgan) McLaren Andrew Sullivan, J. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough West) Groves, T. March S. Thornton, M. Grundy, T. W. Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Tout W. J. Guest, J. (York, W. R. Hemsworth) Martin F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Trevelyan, C. P. Hall, F (York, W. R. Normanton) Maxton, James Wallhead Richard C. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Middleton, G. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Hamilton, Sir R (Orkney & Shetland) Millar, J. D. Warne G. H. Harbord, Arthur Morel, E. D. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Hardie, George D Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N) Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col D (Rhondda] Hartshorn, Vernon Mosley, Oswald Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. Westwood, J. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Whiteley, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) Wright, W. Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan) Jones.
NOES. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Foreman, Sir Henry Nesbitt, Robert C. Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Forestier-Walker, L. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Newson, Sir Percy Wilson Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Fraser, Major Sir Keith Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Frece, Sir Walter de Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Astor, Viscountess Furness, G. J. Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Galbraith, J. F. W. Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Garland, C. S. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Banks, Mitchell Gates, Percy Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Paget, T. G. Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Gilbert, James Daniel Parker, Owen (Kettering) Barnett, Major Richard W. Goff, Sir R. Park Pease, William Edwin Barnston, Major Harry Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Pennefather, De Fonblanque Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Greaves-Lord, Walter Penny, Frederick George Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Grigg, Sir Edward Perring, William George Berry, Sir George Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.) Peto, Basil E. Betterton, Henry B. Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Price, E. G. Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Privett, F. J. Blades, Sir George Rowland Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W (LIv'p'l. W. D'by) Raeburn, Sir William H. Blundell, F. N. Halstead, Major D. Raine, W. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Rankin, Captain James Stuart Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Pee Brass, Captain W. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Rees, Sir Beddoe Brassey, Sir Leonard Harrison, F. C. Remer, J. R. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hawke, John Anthony Remnant, Sir James Brittain, Sir Harry Henn, Sir Sydney H. Reynolds, W. G. W. Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Hewett, Sir J. P. Robertson- Despencer, Major(lsl'gt'nW) Buckingham, Sir H. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hiley, Sir Ernest Rothschild, Lionel de Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Roundell, Colonel R. F. Butcher, Sir John George Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Butt, Sir Alfred Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth) Button, H. S. Hopkins, John W. W. Russell, William (Bolton) Cadogan, Major Edward Houfton, John Plowright Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Cassels, J. D. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gon. Sir Ayimer Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sandon, Lord Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Chapman, Sir S. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Shakespeare, G. H. Churchman, Sir Arthur Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Shepperson, E. W. Clayton, G. C. Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Skelton, A. N. Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree) Cobb, Sir Cyril Lamb, J. Q. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Sparkes, H. W. Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Conway. Sir W. Martin Lorden, John William Stanley, Lord Cope, Major William Lorimer, H. D. Steel, Major S. Strang Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Lort-Williams, J. Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lumley, L. R. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) M'Connell, Thomas E. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. Curzon, Captain Viscount McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Malone, Major B. P. (Tottenham, S.) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Dawson, Sir Philip Margesson, H. D. R. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Doyle, N. Grattan Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Du Pre. Colonel William Baring Mercer, Colonel H. Thorpe, Captain John Henry Edge, Captain Sir William Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Edmondson, Major A. J. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Tubbs, S. W. Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Molloy, Major L. G. S. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Wallace, Captain E. Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Falcon, Captain Michael Morden, Col. W. Grant Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray Morris, Harold Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Fawkes, Major F. H. Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Wells, S. R. Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Fildes, Henry Murchison, C. K. Willey, Arthur Ford, Patrick Johnston Nail, Major Joseph Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Wood, Sir H. K (Woolwich, West) Winterton, Earl Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Wise, Frederick Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs. Wolmer, Viscount Yerburgh, R. D. T. Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) Young, Rt. Hon E. H. (Norwich)
CLAUSE 24.—( Provision as to forfeited policies. )
(5) This Section shall not apply in the case of a forfeiture occurring before the expiration of five years after the passing of this Act.
:I beg to move, in Subsection (5) to leave out the word "five,'' and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
I know that the Parmoor Committee's Report suggested that five years would be a reasonable time to allow the companies to get their books in order and to arrange their conditions actuarially, so that it would give them an opportunity to make a fresh start under the new conditions that would then prevail. The reason I move this Amendment is because the Parmoor Committee sat a considerable time ago, nearly three years, and if it were necessary three years ago to give five years' notice to the companies it must be obvious that, as three years of that period have passed, an additional three years ought to be quite sufficient for them. That is why I am suggesting three years in this Amendment. I have heard it argued that the fact that the Parmoor Committee made five years a reasonable time, and the fact of nothing having been done since the sitting of the Committee, does not necessarily alter the time that is needed by the companies to get their books in order, and that five years is as necessary now as when the Committee made their recommendations.
It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order Number 4.
Pre-War Pensioners
:I beg to move
"That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, are inadequate to meet the needs of pre-War pensioners, and further legislation should he passed to augment the increases allowed by that Act and to amend other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character which have disqualified many deserving pensioners from receiving benefit under the Act."
In moving the Resolution which stands in my name, I do not think it is necessary that I should go into very much detail regarding the different classes of pre-War pensioners, as I am sure hon. Members are fully aware of the claims which are being put forward on their behalf and of the objections to the existing Regulations for the increase of pensions under the Act of 1920. When that Measure was before the House, the decision of the Government met with practically unanimous approval from all sections of the House. I believe there was only one exception. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—I am sorry he is not in his place to confirm in my statement, because however much we may disagree with him, we know he is not lacking in courage—opposed the increase on grounds of economy. The right hon. Gentleman's protest completely lost its force however, because he had been one of those who sanctioned not only extravagant but senseless expenditure in other directions, quite regardless of the interest of the taxpayers of this country. While the decision of the Government met with such hearty approval, there was undoubtedly also a general expression of dissatisfaction from all quarters of the House and from outside the House at the niggardly provision made for the pre-War pensioners and some of the vexatious conditions which were laid down. Any hon. Member who cares to refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussions will find that what I am now saying is absolutely correct. While the Act met with approval, I think the following views expressed by Sir Charles E. Fryer may be taken as indicating a very general opinion with regard to the Measure. He said:
"It might more appropriately have been called an Act for the increase of ' uncertain ' pensions, since the provisoes and limitations covering the grant of any increase are so numerous and complicated that it is practically, if not absolutely, impossible to say what pensions will really be entitled to increase under its provision. Nevertheless it makes some provision for some addition to some pensions in some cases, and so far as it effects that object it will receive unanimous support. Probably no Act of Parliament has ever been greeted with a stronger chorus of combined welcome and criticism, issuing from the same throats in one and the same breath; criticism because it gives too little, but welcome because it gives at all; criticism because it gives as an act of grace instead of a recognition as a right, but welcome because, even in so giving, it tacitly admits the right; criticism because it gives late, but welcome that the delay may not be prolonged."
I think that is a good indication of the spirit in which that Measure was met. This disappointment was all the more marked, because the pre-War pensioners had to wait a considerable time before their claim was recognised. While others had salaries and wages increased, the pre-War pensioners struggled along until 1920, and the astonishing thing to me is that in a House where there was such unanimous approval, and in a House where, coming into contact with every Member privately, the pre-War pensioners find their claims recognised—the astonishing thing, as I say, is that now in 1923, even with the existing Government in power, with the majority which it possesses, the claims of the pre-War pensioners have not been met up to the present time. I do not enter into the argument as to the pensioners' right to the increase whether it is much or little. That has already been decided, and the pensions have been regarded and dealt with as deferred pay. I have no doubt that other hon. Members in the course of the Debate, will put before the House the claims of particular classes of pensioners covered by this Resolution. I intend to deal in a general way with the position of the pre-War pensioners, leaving it to others to bring forward cases or classes of cases of extreme hardship. At the same time, let me say I have gone very carefully into all the complaints that have reached me from associations and individuals, and the defects of the 1920 Act and the hardships from which pre-War pensioners are suffering, may be summed up under a few heads applicable to all classes. I am aware that naval and military pensioners are dealt with under a different system from that which obtains under the 1920 Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
:May I ask the hon. Gentleman why that is so, if it be so? So far as I know, it is not the case.
:I understand, at any rate, that there are other classes of pensioners dealt with outside the 1920 Act. I think that will be admitted. The first objection I wish to raise is against the condition that the pensioner must reside in the British. Isles. A few weeks ago, eloquent appeals were being made from the other side of the House to my hon. Friends on these benches that they should widen their horizon with regard to the British Empire. At that time, the plea was being made that our young men should leave their native land and go to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere, but they were still to regard themselves as being, practically, within the confines of the British Isles. I am not going to stop to discuss the wisdom or unwisdom of that position, but, surely, if hon. Members can argue that it is a good thing to extend the young man's horizon and to look further afield, surely, on the other side, it seems a bit ridiculous that you want the old pensioner to be confined inside these islands. Supposing some of the young men have heard the appeal and gone to Australia or New Zealand, and the old man is left at home. He is a pensioner, the children have all left him, and he wants to join the son in Australia or New Zealand.
:That has happened in several cases.
:That makes my case all the stronger. Here is the old man, and the Act of 1920 says to him, "You cannot go to Australia or New Zealand or anywhere else and reap the reward of your service," but the very same Government, and the very same House, induced that son to go to a place where the aged parent was never likely to rejoin him. If there be one thing that this House ought to safeguard very jealously—because, in my opinion, there is no more beautiful feeling—it is that feeling which binds the son and the daughter, when they leave the home nest, to the old man or the old woman, and if there be any opportunity, it should be given to the son or daughter to smooth the pillow of the dying parent when that time comes. I remember that when the 1920 Bill was before the House, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans)—I am sorry he is not in his place, because I have waited for three years to put this point to him, and I thought the time would come—said, when it was pointed out that it was penalising thrift, "This is not penalising thrift, because the days of thrift of these old people are over." Can hon. Members imagine anything more ridiculous than such an extraordinary statement being put forward to deny these old people what they are entitled to under the increase in the cost of living?
If anyone earns a pension by service, the individual should get that pension, irrespective of that individual's financial condition. You will find workmen who have a balance of money in the bank, and I hope hon. Members will excuse the vulgarism when I say that sometimes such a balance ought to have been in the children's stomachs, but if you save money, it has nothing whatever to do with your right to a pension. These people have earned their pension, and there is nothing that I know more cutting to the feelings of an old man or woman than an official prying into their financial conditions. Just at that time of life when every one of us should deal gently with them and should deal kindly with them, and when a grateful nation should be coming along and giving them recognition for their services, they have an official coming and prying into what they have been able to save and, if they have saved, they are denied that right to a pension under the 1920 Act. That ought to be swept away, and the pensions conceded as a right. Then there are inequalities. I do not intend to take up any time in dealing with these inequalities, nor do I intend to work on the feelings of hon. Members, if I were capable of doing so, but my last objection is that the increased pension, under any circumstances, is not sufficient to give these aged pensioners the standard of comfort to which they are entitled under the conditions in which they are living at the present time.
I am sure that hon. Members, like myself, must have received many letters. I have here one of many that I have received since I was so fortunate as to be in a position to move this Motion. It is in regard to a pensioner, 74 years of age, bedridden, unable to go out of doors for the last three years; another, 73 years of age, wife suffering from rheumatics, and both need nursing and help; a third has been an inmate of the infirmary and not even able to keep a home together, owing to the smallness of the pension; and a fourth tells about having to mortgage the little home in order to provide the wherewithal to live. I am told, and I believe, that there is sympathy in every part of this House for the pre-war pensioner, but the pre-war pensioner cannot use the sympathy as a means of exchange to provide him with comforts. Sympathy is of use to the pre-war pensioner only when it materialises and finds expression in a much larger pension than he has at the present time. Let us try to appreciate the feelings of these old pensioners in cases such as I have described. They have lingered just a little longer on the threshold of eternity than their fellows. An increased pension cannot buy back their youth, cannot give the light of youth to their eye, cannot bring back the lost cunning to their right hand, nor give elasticity to their step, but it will save their pride, it will save their independence, and not have them harried, as is too often the case with the aged poor, to the grave, when their way ought to be smoothed and made more comfortable for them than it is at the present time. An increased pension—and I am hopeful that they will not have to wait much longer—would bring us a little nearer the ideal set up by one of our most humane poets for our aged people, when he said that they may be able to
:I beg to second the Motion.
I do so with a good deal of pleasure, and the more so because I think I am right in saying that this has fairly general sympathy throughout the whole House, regardless of any division of political opinion. The Resolution says that the Pensions Increase Act of 1920 is inadequate to meet the need of the pre-war pensioners, and it calls for further legislation to augment that increase. I have no doubt hon. Members have, like myself, received many letters from persons who are suffering because of the insufficiency of the pensions they have re- ceived on retirement, and therefore I think it may be taken for granted that one has no need to attempt to harry feelings or to play on emotions by reading any such letters, although I have some here. I want just to deal with the actual facts of the case and to try, briefly and, I hope, concisely, to put the case that can be made out for the pre-war pensioners. The Act it is suggested should be amended in order to give greater benefits was passed in August, 1920, and has respect to those persons who receive pensions under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 and 1912, the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, and the enactments relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
The position that arises, so far as civil servants are concerned, is that in March, 1920, all civil servants were granted a bonus in order to keep their pay approximately to pre-War purchasing power. The Act has a different effect upon pensioners' pay by its incidence of graduation. For pensioners who retired between March, 1920, and 21st February, 1922, 75 per cent. of bonus at the date of retirement counts for pension. Seventy-five per cent. is taken because the pension does not fluctuate with the cost of living, and the Government wished to safeguard itself in this respect. For pensioners retiring on or after 21st February, 1922, whole war bonus counts for pension purposes, but fluctuates with the cost of living and with the amount received at the date of retirement as the maximum. For pensioners retiring before 1st March, 1920, the terms are considerably worse, and these are chiefly concerned in this matter. Those retiring before the War, or before the war bonus of March, 1915, have not received a penny additional except they have total means, including pension, of less than £150 as single men, or £200 as married men. They are also subject to other objectionable restrictions and impositions. Those retiring between March, 1915, and March, 1920, have all received some inadequate proportion of the war bonuses and the result is a great variation in pension. That summarises, I think accurately, the actual position created amongst the differ- ent grades of pensioners who have retired. The necessity for reform is shown by the fact that many pensioners are in a precarious financial position. The thing is particularly hard in regard to those who are over 70 years of age, as probably they are not in a position to take effective action.
I recall the fact that I attended a meeting at the old County Hall near the Admiralty Arch some little time ago, together with the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Gosling), and there were present a considerable number of aged school teachers. I think hon. Members will appreciate their condition of life now and the position in which they find themselves in view of the standard of life that they had to keep up when they were teaching the present generation—the struggle they had to keep up a decent appearance. The result was that we discovered there was a tremendous amount of suffering and many hard cases amongst these aged people who had done their very best in their day and generation to teach the generation which is now carrying on the work of the world. I think hon. Members of this House, regardless of political opinions, will desire to see justice done to these people in their declining days. Therefore nobody. I presume, is likely to urge that they have any deeper sympathy, or a greater desire to see justice done, than any other section of the House, and to see that all pensions are adjusted to meet the increased cost of living. I think we can make a fair claim apart from sympathy, for a recent legal decision, which the hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury will bear very much in mind, given on appeal in the House of Lords, decided that bonus is part of civil pay. That goes a considerable way to establish fair claim for these people. The other aspect of the clear right to an increase is that pensions now are, admittedly, deferred pay. A considerable agitation was carried on for a number of years before we got to that, but the Pension Act, 1912, I think, admitted the principle. It is only fair, therefore, to maintain that the people have the right to have this deferred pay in view of the cost of living allowance of those who are drawing pay in the Service at the moment.
Then we ask that the limitations in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, should be abolished. One of these, as my hon. Friend has already intimated, is that the pensioner must reside in the British Islands. As some hon. Members know, I spent a considerable number of years, in fact most of my life, in the Civil Service. I know there are many civil servants who, at the end of their service and after they have retired, have received invitations from their families who have gone out and settled in Canada, or other parts of the British Empire, to go out there and finish their remaining days with the family. Surely there is something absurd in saying that we are going in cases of this sort to limit a man's freedom? Do we not, every one of us, want to break down any feeling there may be of a difference between the homeland and any part of the Empire, so that wherever we happen to be in the Empire we should be able to call it home, whether Canada or any other part. I have the case of an old man who came to see me a day or two ago. He has a daughter married and settled in Canada, and his son-in-law and daughter are willing that the old man, who is left quite alone, shall go and finish the remainder of his days with them. Having a certain amount of natural pride, he does not want to go out and be wholly dependent upon his son-in-law and daughter, though he is anxious to be with them to have the comfort of the home, and their companionship, and to end his days with his own kith and kin. I think on this ground alone that it is reasonable to ask that this Clause shall be rescinded. It says, too —I am referring to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920—that the pensioner must have attained the age of 60 years,…and that the pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, in eluding his pension, are less than £150 a year if unmarried, or £200 a year if married.
Surely it is no business of ours, or of this House, if during their years of service as teachers or in the Civil Service that out of their income those concerned have laid aside a certain part to make provision for themselves in their old days! Ought we not rather to encourage than to attempt to penalise them for it? I suppose everyone who had any contact with the Civil Service knows that some of the large insurance companies do enjoy certain special facilities for collecting the premiums from civil servants who pay into these companies with a view to their post-service days, so that with their pensions and this income there may not be too big a gap between their income after and their income before they retired. I submit that we will be conserving the wealth of the nation, particularly now, by doing all we can to encourage this sort of thing rather than to do anything to penalise it or to change the time when they are likely to take their pension. No one has a right to take that away from them because they have other means. Section 3 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, provides that:
In this connection, it is worth while to note that when this Act was brought into being it was estimated that it would cost about £1,650,000 or £2,000,000, but it has actually cost only £820,000. If that be so the other thing we have to remember is that this must be a progressively declining charge, because these old people are at the evening of their days. I have every confidence that what we suggest is going to carry with it the good wishes of hon. Members in every part of the House, and I am sure that we all wish to have some regard for those who have served us so faithfully and well, and without try-seing to get any kudos, I think we should all do our best to see that these faithful servants have some pleasant hours during the closing days of their lives.
:I am sure that every hon. Member present who heard the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution will agree wholeheartedly with everything they said, and I wish to congratulate them on the way they said it, because they have disarmed anything in the shape of criticism of this Motion by the clear and plain way in which they have given their reasons in support of it. Perhaps I should be studying the convenience of the House if I said no more than "ditto" to all that has been said, but I hope the House will forgive me if I accept one of the suggestions of the Mover that there may be other sections of pensioners who can be referred to in connection with this Motion. The Section which I should like, with the permission of the House, to say a few words about is that dealing with the police forces of this country. Reference has been made to other branches of the Civil Service, and to the inadequacy of the provisions made by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920.
When we were asking for increased pensions for the police, a good many hon. Members of this House were unaware of the fact that some of the, pensions of those who had loyally served the State in this capacity were no higher than 9s., 10s., and 11s. per week. It was never the intention of this country that men who had performed their duty loyally and faithfully to the State should be left with pensions which are totally insufficient to keep their homes together and supply them with the bare necessaries of life. Although we admit that there has been some amelioration given to them by this Act, still it is far short of meeting the necessities of the case.
Reference has been made to limiting the recipients of increased pensions to those residing in the British Isles. I know the case of an old police pensioner who was advised by his doctor to leave this country and go to Australia and live with his son, who had established a home out there. Before going, this man wanted to make certain that he would not be inflicting any hardship upon that home by calling upon them to provide for him, and he wanted to make certain about the continuance of his pension. He was told that if he left this country his pension would cease unless he was only paying a temporary visit to the Colonies, and that he must come back within six months. I do not think it was ever the intention of this House or this country that these men should be handicapped in this way by stopping their pensions, which are, after all, only deferred pay. Another limitation which ought to be done away with is the limitation of the age to 60. There are many men to-day who are incapable of doing a day's work—as the result, in a great many cases, of injuries received while serving in the force—and who are not 60 years of age, who have not sufficient pension to keep themselves and their families alive, and who are yet precluded from getting any advance under the 1920 Act. I am quite sure that that was never the intention of this House or of this country. To talk about the Treasury stopping the necessary expenditure on these things is wrong, because I maintain that, where money is required for a good object, it cannot be called waste or extravagance, and must be found. This House will see to it that the money is found, and I hope that that excuse will not be brought forward again.
In connection with this limitation of age, I should like the House to consider for a moment another provision in this Act, which emphasises the hardship on a decent, respectable lot of old women who ought to have been included in the pensions scheme. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Act, it is specially stated that a widow must be in receipt of a pension payable in respect of the services of her deceased husband and have attained the age of 40 years, but how many are not in receipt of pensions due to their husbands' work? We have the very strong case before us of the pre-September, 1918, constables' pensions. About that month, as the House will recollect, there was a strike in the Police Force, and one of the conditions on which the men went back to work was that their widows should become entitled to a pension of £30 a year for the rest of their lives. Why is the distinction drawn between the 1st September, 1918, and those who were serving before that time? Surely the men, driven and exasperated to such an extent that they struck work on the 1st September in order to bring their grievances before the public, are not going to be rewarded at the expense of those who never did strike, who were loyal, and who would sooner have done anything than strike, as, indeed, would every man in the Force. They only struck because they had no other way of bringing before the public the exasperating conditions under which they were working. Why was the distinction made? No answer has ever been given to that question when it has been asked in this House, beyond the answer, "We cannot afford to do it." If this country has got to a state when it says it cannot afford to pay its debts of honour, God help it!
9.0 P.M.
The sooner the present conditions are altered, and these poor old pre-September, 1918, police pensioners' widows are brought in with the rest, and are given this small pension for life, the better it will be for the honour of this country and this House. The seconder of the Motion went into figures. We have often been asked if we could give figures. In dealing with this case a couple of years ago, I went carefully into the possible number of these old pre-September, 1918, widows. My figures differed very materially from those of the Government, and it was only natural that that should be the case, because the Government were against giving it at that time. They exaggerated it, too, but, although at first they gave £600,000 as the cost, they very soon reduced it to £300,000. I believe that even my figure was exaggerated when I said that I did not believe there were 5,000 of these poor old women, and at £30 per annum it is easy to arrive at the estimate of cost that I made. A good many of these poor old women, however, have died. A number of them have been driven to the workhouse today, and this complaint is one which must be remedied with the least possible delay. If I may say so, I believe that the police agree with me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), who knows more about the police than anyone in this House, will agree with me also, that the police to-day believe that they have in our present Home Secretary one whose great qualifications are sympathy and common sense. I mention these old women because I was a member of the Police Committee some years ago, when we called special attention to these old pensioners. We were unable to deal with them, because the Home Secretary of that day ruled that dealing with pensions was not a part of that Committee's reference. I am sorry he did so, because I believe that we were quite capable, and I know that we were quite willing and ready, to tackle the whole question, and if we had tackled it then on the same lines on which we tackled the rest of the questions relating to the pay and conditions of the police, I believe that a very great deal of the irritation at present existing in the force would have been done away with. A great number of cases of extraordinary hardship could be produced which, if they had been treated with common sense, would have saved these people from being put into the position of having to ask for this increase in their pensions.
A great many of the men of the police were compulsorily retained in the service in 1915 after they had earned their pension. They were due to retire, but they were kept on till the end of the War, and then turned adrift, although they had gone through all the hardships, and many of them had suffered from the strain of the air raids and other war circumstances to such an extent that they broke down. I believe common justice demands that these men should be treated as those in the Admiralty were treated, that is to say, that they should be given poet-War pensions. All these men are properly entitled to receive the new rate of pay which was recommended and approved by the Police Committee. They were kept on after their time. They are not like the men who before the War had retired and got their pensions but rejoined and then received both their pensions, and full pay. The men who were compelled to remain under the Emergency Act only received their ordinary pay without pensions, and the least that could be-done for them is to treat them as men deserve to be treated who fought through the War.
There are others who were retired on the 1st April, 1919 They were told that their service ended on the 31st March. I think the Government, for its own sake, should be very careful in dealing with that date, because there is a general impression about that the Government knew that the new scale of pay was coming in on the 1st April, and that a good many of these retirements were forced upon the men on the 31st March in order that the Government might gain some pecuniary advantage by their retiring then. As a Member of the Committee which recommended the date, I can tell the House that is not the case. The Government did not know, the Committee did not know, and what the Committee recommended in the July following, was that the new scale of pay should come in at the. commencement of the new financial year. I believe the present Home Secretary will look at this from a proper and common-sense point of view. I will give two cases.
At Cardiff there were two inspectors with over 30 years' service who had done splendid work. They were retired on 31st March, before this new scale was known to anyone. The police authorities were so impressed with the hardship on two very deserving men that they decided to reinstate them for the purpose of giving them the benefit of the new scale. They passed it unanimously. They wrote to the Home Office for sanction for their action and the Home Office refused. At Cambridge there were six men. It seems a shame when the House wants to do what is fair and just to these men that they should have these little complaints put on one side everlastingly, causing irritation and annoyance amongst the men, whereas it would cost the country but a very little, and even if it cost a great deal it has got to be done if it is the right thing to he done and the country is able to do it. Six Cambridge men were ordered to parade and hand in their clothes on 1st April. It is attempted to be argued that they were not on duty. One answer given by the late Under-Secretary for the Home Office was that duty depends on what police duties they are carrying out. It is almost comic that a great Department of State should attempt to get out of its duty by such sophistry. These men were on duty. They were dismissed at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of 1st April. Good men and long service men as they were, they should have been treated with a little more fairness and generosity. It is a real pleasure to take part in a Debate like this in which the Mover and Seconder have disclaimed any intention of making any party capital out of it. They have appealed to us, and we shall join with them in pressing on the Government that some amelioration should be given to these men, and some necessary Amendments made to cover deserving cases.
:I, too, listened with considerable interest to the speeches made by the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion. I was Chairman of the Committee which was a great deal responsible for the placing upon the Statute Book of the Pensions (Increase) Act, and I have naturally taken considerable interest in watching the way it has been worked and how it has benefited and how it has not benefited the pre-War pensioners. Not long ago I took a deputation to the Treasury to point out to the then Financial Secretary the weaknesses of the Act, which have been very forcibly placed before the House by the Proposer and Seconder. The Financial Secretary of that day could not see his way to assist us at all. Not long ago I headed another deputation, this time of Members of the House of Commons, and we went to see the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were both sympathetic and promised consideration to what we said. After that, I was going to take a deputation to the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but meanwhile the Government announced that it was their intention to do something for the pre-War pensioners, especially with regard to increasing the scales. I think the House, having heard the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder, will agree that the statement, although most encouraging, and one for which on behalf of the pre-War pensioners we are "deeply grateful, does not go far enough.
I speak for all classes of pre-War pensioners—naval, military, Civil Service, teachers, police, and Royal Irish Constabulary. I am empowered to speak for all of them as I represent the views of the Joint Committee of Pre-War State Pensioners, and that Committee represents all those sections. This Committee desire to see Section 2 of the Pensions Increase Act wiped off the Statute Book, they also desire to see the word "may" turned into "shall." When the Bill was going through the House a great deal was made of the word "may," and my hon. Friend who spoke last was very emphatic in regard to the necessity of replacing it with "shall," but we were told by the then Solicitor-General that it was not necessary as the word "may" had the same effect as the word "shall." However, we have seen since then that the local authorities—not only those to which the Seconder referred, but others as well —have not carried out the spirit of the Act, and therefore I join with him in suggesting to the Financial Secretary that in the new Bill the word "may" be altered into "shall." I do not propose to say much about the pensioner who lives outside the British Isles except that it is ridiculous to suggest that a man who lives in another part of the Empire should not receive his pension. Nor do I think it would cost much to the State if he did receive it. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 says that the pensioner must have attained the age of 60 years or have left on account of mental or physical infirmity. The age limit is a very unfortunate provision. There is no reason why this limit should be put in. When the Bill was going through Parliament, various suggestions were made, and it was found convenient to put in the age of 60. With regard especially to police, a great number of pre-War pensioners are below the age of 60, some of whom are unable to work, others who would work cannot work or are not allowed to work because, if they work, the conditions of the War Pensions (Increase) Act would come in and stop them getting their increase of pension. The age of 60 ought to be left out. There is no need for having that age. Sub-section (3) states:
I have had an actuarial calculation made of what it would cost to the State, and I find that on the basis that it would make available 16,500 persons, the whole cost to the State, supposing that there was a 30 per cent. rise, would be only £500,000. If the rise was 15 per cent., it would only cost £250,000. That is not a very great amount, and it would be a decreasing amount. These old pensioners drop off year after year. A great number of them dropped off even, while the Bill was going through Parliament. Since that date, three years ago, about 50 per cent. of the pensioners of that period have gone to their long home. Therefore this is only a charge which will remain for a few years. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that if he could possibly see his way to do it he would be doing a very great service to this large class of most deserving people.
I want to make it clear to the House what the pre-War pensioners are up against in regard to the question of means. If we take the declaration that the pensioner has to make, we shall find that he has to give the yearly value of gifts and of voluntary assistance, whether in money or in kind. That in itself is a mistaken provision, nor does it work out at all satisfactorily. I think I am right in saying that in one case where this form had to be filled up, the official who-made the inquiry asked the pensioner to
The question of means is always a very difficult matter. Some people regard means in one light and some people regard means in another light, but surely the man or woman who has by thrift and energy saved a little money, which brings in a little interest, or which they have invested in a small house, should not be deprived of pension, and it is not the intention of the House that that sort of thing should continue. I have had brought before my notice a great number of very hard cases. I do not want to weary the House by reciting them, but there are certain points which perhaps the House would like to consider. There is the question of the man who has had a present given to him, or of the woman who receives a present. There is also the case of a man who, having worked very hard for the sake of his fellow men, and receives a little testimonial in the form of a small gift of money. All these things have to be included in the declaration, and it is very unfortunate that it should be so. I have a letter from a pre-War pensioner, who says that he is entitled to an increased pension of 4d. a day; that in order to complete the form of application he has to give the name and address of his employer. He goes on to say: Civil Service pensions such as are put into this Act. Additions on additional pensions were always given on the same principle as the original pension. For instance, take the case of pensions given on salary plus bonus. There was no deduction made for that, the principle in force to-day with regard to the pensions of civil servants ought to be applied to the pre-War pensioners. There should be no reduction from anyone who is entitled to the pre-War pension. His pension is given him because he has done his work; as someone said to-night, it is deferred pay. The only reason for increasing a man's pension is owing to the increased cost of living. If then you increase it for that reason, whatever sum is given under that heading should be given entirely, there should be no deductions. These are unfair and unjust.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that all these points be very carefully considered by the Committee of the Cabinet which is now engaged in considering this question. I hope that when he replies he will be able to tell us that not only the scales of pensions, which we all know are to be increased, are under consideration, but also the points which have been brought before him to-night, more especially the elimination of those objectionable Sections in the Act which limit the pre-War pensioner to 60 years of age, and which place the pre-War pensioner under such conditions with regard to the receipt of his pension that in at least 50 per cent. of the cases he gets nothing at all. I hope these restrictions will be done away with. I feel certain the Government are in earnest in this matter or they would never have made the statement they made the other day, but I would impress upon the Financial Secretary that if the Government are in earnest they must go into every single matter which has been brought before them to-night. They may not agree with me that the limit of £150 or £200 should be increased, but I am certain they will agree that it is perfectly ridiculous to say that a widower with a child is to be considered as a married man while a widower without a child is to be considered as unmarried. Naturally, an old man of 70 or 80 must pay someone to look after him, and it does not make much difference whether he has a child or not. He must have someone, he must pay for somebody, and in that case I think the Financial Secretary will agree it is a matter which should receive his attention.
:I should like, in the first instance, to associate myself with those who congratulated the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. They not only stated the case with admirable clarity, but set an example of brevity which succeeding speakers might well follow.
:I did not take long! [HON. MEMBERS: "Three-quarters-of-an-hour! "]
:I would express some regret that we have not on the Treasury Bench any representative of the Scottish Office. On several occasions we have had to lament the absence of the Lord Advocate from that bench, but there is not the excuse now there was a month ago. We have a Solicitor-General who should be anxious to be here if he only knew we desired his presence, and I am sorry that the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Health was not told that we were going to bring up some matters affecting Scotland. If we have not a little more attention from the Treasury Bench in that respect the Scottish Members will require to assert themselves a little more than they have been doing. The Mover of the Motion very wisely confined himself to the general question, and said it would be for others to deal with particular aspects of it with which they might be more familiar. I wish to make a few remarks with regard to these pre-War pensioners, as represented by members of the teaching profession. It is well known that for many many years, one might say for generations back, the remuneration of the teaching profession has been of the most meagre description. That has been recognised time and again. It is quite true that from 1919 onwards there has been a fair measure of improvement in that respect, but, unfortunately, that came too late for many of the older teachers, men and women who have spent over 40 years in the service of their country and then find themselves, in the evening of their days, on the verge of poverty. I do not intend to enter into the question as it affects England, but I have in my hand a statement sent out by the Retired Teachers Association which shows that many men and women, after long and honourable service, must be living on the verge of poverty, and some of them over the edge of it. Many of them, I understand, are dependent on relatives for such comforts as they enjoy.
With regard to Scotland, the position is a little different. From 1912 onwards we had a scheme separate from the English scheme, and in 1919 Scotland did —I am going to say this, although it may reflect somewhat on England—when it changed its superannuation scheme, as it did twice in the last 20 years, take some care for those who had given a long service beforehand. I very much regret that in the English Act of 1918 nothing was done for those who retired before that date. We did something in Scotland, but we did not do enough; and what was done, it is important to note, was done, not at the expense of the Treasury, but with purely Scottish money. I am not quite sure but that in improving to some extent the lot of the older teachers Scotland did not deprive itself of some money it should now receive from the Treasury. That is why I wish a representative of the Scottish Office to be here. By giving some small additional allowances to retired Scottish teachers, the result followed that many of them were put above the limits that hold in this Bill, so that the corresponding teacher in England is receiving the grant from the Treasury under this Bill, while no money is coming to Scotland in respect of that grant. The relative proportions of 11 to 80 which hold between the two countries in financial matters ought to be observed in this respect too. My object in rising is just to emphasise what has been said time and again, namely, that if anything is to be done for these pre-War pensioners, it must be done now or it need never be done at all. They are only a very small and fast-diminishing band, and it is for the Government to hasten on the Report of this Commission and let something be done before it is too late. Many of these pensioners have been living on meagre sums for five, 10, and 15 years. Some of them are over 80 years of age. Nearly all of them, at any rate, in the teaching profession, are over 65. Therefore I would press on the Government to do something and to do that something now.
:We are engaged on a subject which has evoked great interest and wide sympathy, not merely among Members of this House but among all those of the large public outside who know anything of the facts of the case. I desire to associate myself most cordially with what has fallen from previous speakers in urging the Government to give fuller consideration, and a better mead of justice, to these men who have served the State in the various professions in which they have been engaged. I rise to call special attention to a class of men who have no direct representation in this House, namely, the old pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but I am glad to think that though they have no direct representation they have many friends. Their case is in some respect one of peculiar hardship. Like many old pensioners they are in receipt of extremely meagre pensions, but there are certain aspects of their case which are not present in the case of other pensioners.
Do not let us forget that these men served their country in times not merely of difficulty but of great peril to themselves. During those periods of danger they displayed a conspicuous loyalty and courage for which every man with a heart in his body gives them all honour and credit. The result is that by reason of this loyalty of their services they are, owing to the unfortunate conditions now prevailing in Ireland, debarred form getting any employment there. I do not wish to recall those unhappy memories which have cast a, blot upon the history of Ireland during the last few years, but do not forget that during the years 1919 to 1922 something like 30 of these old pensioners were murdered in Ireland because they were supposed to have some special connection of loyalty towards the British Crown, and if that happened then we who know Ireland—and many Members in all parts of the House know something of what prevailed in Ireland—know that the more faithfuly these men served, the less their chance of employment in Ireland. Therefore I do think that they have a. special, paramount claim upon the people of this country.
I will not go into detailed figures beyond this. The average amount of a pension of a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired before April, 1919, since when the pensions have been increased, is £64 10s. per annum, and in the case of a sergeant it is £73 10s. That is not much to live on, and these men cannot live on it, I will not say in comfort, but even in decency, and when we reflect that the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired after 1919 are getting something like three times the amount of the pension given to the men who retired before that time, the case deserves our attention and a remedy. There are two points to which I wish to refer with regard to the special case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in addition to those points which affect them in common with other pensioners. One is as to the age limit of 60. Many of these old pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary have retired between the ages of 44 and 48. Owing to the exigencies of the service they completed their 25 years, and they had to retire in the full capacity of service, but not one of these men is allowed under the existing Act to get an increase of pension, however small the pension, until he attains the age of 60, and if the Government find themselves unable to abolish entirely this age limit of 60, the least they can do would be to give power to the pension authorities, in proper cases, to remove the age limit of 60 and to grant pensions before that age limit is reached.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) pointed out some of the absurdities by which the question of means is incumbered. I suggest one other point. Cases have been brought to my knowledge in which the provision of the Act, interpreting means so as to include the means of both husband and wife, is very hard. Take the case of a man who is either separated from his wife, or for some reason is not living with her, or for some other reason gets no benefit from his wife's income. A certain number of these cases has been brought before me. My hon. Friend will surely agree that it is unreasonable that such a man should not get a new increase of pension, when his own income is below the limit, merely because he has a wife with some income out of which he does not get any benefit. Therefore, I suggest that the administration in reference to this matter should be amended. I hope that the Government will take this into their most serious consideration. The country expects them to do it, and the House expects them. Of course it will involve some expenditure, but if the Government err at all in this matter let them err on the side of generosity and on the side of justice. If they err in that way they will not receive, either from this House or from the public outside, anything but gratitude and commendation.
:I desire, in supporting this Motion, not so much to say anything that will convert Members of this House to the point of view expressed in the Resolution, because I am convinced that the House as a whole will support this Motion to the very limit; but what we are desirous of doing is to convert the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Treasury, and also to convey from this House to the Special Committee of the Cabinet that, we understand, is to consider the new legislation for dealing with this subject, certain points of view that we hold as the result of the administration, or in many cases the mal-administration, of the War Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. I and my colleagues desire no party capital out of this question. There has been ample evidence, at least during my short time in the House, that on both sides of the House there is unity with regard to the need for justice to old servants of the State. I shall do nothing to disturb that very delightful state of feeling, which I hope will continue to be exhibited on all such questions as this. I want to approach the question, not so much from the act of grace point of view as from the act of right point of view. I shall not speak merely with the view of persuading the House that the question of the police pensioners is more urgent than that of other pensioners. I am just as much concerned with the welfare of the old Navy and Army pensioner, with the old teacher, with the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as I am with the members of the police forces of England and Scotland and Wales. But I believe that in making out a case, as I can, on behalf of the police service generally, it will help with the question of other Government Departments, so that we shall come to look upon their cases also as an act of right and not as an act of grace.
In the police service the question of pensions was settled many years ago, was consolidated in an Act of Parliament in 1890, and was reconsolidated in an Act of Parliament in 1920. The principle of the pension many years ago should be identical with the principle that we observe to-day. In those old days there was no question of a sliding scale and of the cost of living going up week by week by leaps and bounds. Things were fairly steady in 1890, and the standard of pay for Government employés was fixed without regard to any particular kind of bonus. Therefore, when pension schedules were drawn up they were drawn up with due regard to the amount of pay, all-in, which was necessary to maintain in a standard of decency the employé of the State at that time. The old Acts of Parliament that dealt with the question of pensions said that after so many years' service an employé should be entitled to receive a pension—for example, I will take the case of the police officer, who had to do 26 years' service—which was to be two-thirds of the pay that he had been receiving at the date of his retirement. In other words the interpretation of that was that the amount of pay that was necessary for an officer in full employment should be divided into thirds and two thirds he was to receive as pension.
If we are to apply that principle to-day, we shall find that an old pensioner who receives 20s. as two-thirds of his standard pay in the old days, is not receiving two-thirds of the standard of life to-day if that pension remains as it was in the old days Therefore, when considering the need of an increase in pensions, we have to go even further than the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. I would like to see all pensioners, no matter how old—in fact the older they are the more necessity there is for the application of the principle which I enunciate—as they go on from year to year to the end of their lives having their pensions adjusted at different periods. That may seem rather a "tall order," but I think it is a very reasonable one. The Government servant of to-day is carrying out duties similar to the duties carried out by the Government servant of yesterday. If the cost of living should by some miracle come down in the years to come, the pensioner who succeeds to his pension to-day will benefit materially by every reduction in the cost of living, whereas the old-time pensioner, who has lived to an age when the cost of living has1 gone up very high, will be penalised every time he draws his pension by the reduction in the value of that pension.
There is the question of pensions as deferred pay. When you compute the value of a Government employés pay, there is always a sum allowed for pension benefits. When you calculate the value of a policeman's pay to-day, you take into consideration the value of the pension that he will receive at the end of his service. His pay is regulated with that in mind. In other words, the pension is deferred pay, and is often deferred only until he can take it, having regard to the fact that if he has to subscribe, as he does by reductions from his pay, to a superannuation fund, he is precluded from husbanding all the other resources he might have had, and, by the nature of his calling, he is prevented from allowing his wife to engage in any business, trade or other occupation, which, in turn, militates against her making necessary provision for herself in old age in the event of her husband predeceasing her. We have something like 25,000 police pensioners in this country. It is rather startling to know that one third of the 25,000 receive less than 20s. per week and that nearly one-half of the 25,000 receive less than 30s. per week. When the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, was passed there was hope among the pensioners that it would be administered by the various local authorities in a way to give a measure of equity and justice to the people concerned. How does it work in practice?
The first Section of the Act provides that these pensions may be paid—that the Treasury may, after consultation with the appropriate Government Departments, order and authorise the putting into operation of provisions of the Act. But in the Schedule we find that each increase that is allowed is controlled by the word "may." I do not think that we can emphasise the point too much, because local authorities have utilised this "may" to the point of keeping back from their old servants that which is, we consider, their right. In one particular area —and not a small area at that—not one of the pensioners under the local authority was receiving any relief, until a few weeks ago, under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. When they did get relief, it was, unfortunately, something on a parochial scale, although the percentages laid down are 50 per cent. under one heading, 40 per cent. under another, and 30 per cent. under another. As it is all subject to "may," the pensioners, in some cases, considered themselves very lucky indeed to have got one-half the percentage allowed by the Schedule if the local authority happened to be generous.
We are anxious, therefore, in regard to those cases, that the new legislation which we are to have shall overcome these difficulties, and shall not leave it to the discretion of the local authority to apply what the House itself intends that these old pensioners should have. We are entitled, also, to say to the local authorities that they shall do these things, because this House, by its Votes, contributes a very large proportion of the money that will be found to assist the old pensioners. So far as the police service is concerned, one-half of the amount necessary for the maintenance of pensioners is voted by this House. The other portion comes, sometimes, from people who do not carry out the laws of the land as they ought, and certain fines and penalties are apportioned to the superannuation or the police fund, out of which these amounts are paid. Therefore, there is really no need for local authorities to be so niggardly in applying this legislation.
I want to make one remark with regard to the question of the widows. The hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) referred in very telling terms to the treatment of the widows of police pensioners, the widows of the men who had become pensioners prior to September, 1918. I was one of the individuals somewhat closely allied to the movement who was very anxious that these old widows should receive full benefit from the widows' pensions. In 1918, after the police strike of that time, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) informed the police service, through their various authorities and by police order that the widows' pensions would be made applicable to all policemen and to their widows, if they should leave such, and that the pension would be a non-contributory one. The argument used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn was the very argument that we used, who, perhaps, had been guilty of certain derelictions of duty by daring to take certain direct action, which was afterwards admitted in both Houses of Parliament to be an action that was rendered imperative owing to the terrible state of affairs that existed in the police service at the time. When we came to inquire how these widows' pensions were applied, we found it was the young widows only who got the pensions. In other words, it was merely something to placate the turbulent spirits in the police service, of which I happened to be one, whereas we, on our side, were anxious that it should not be the younger widows who received the first consideration. We should like to have seen, as our evidence afterwards to the Desborough Committee proved, the old widows of 70 and 80—some of those old widows who had struggled on after they had lost their pensioner husbands—receive the pension. At the present moment there are only 945 widows who are receiving this small pension, and who have become entitled to it since 1918.
10.0 P.M.
In the last Parliament a measure of support was given to this by the House. I believe an Amendment was accepted to a Bill, which afterwards became law, with the support of the Government Benches. When that Bill went to the House of Lords, the Amendment was deleted, why we did not understand. When the Bill came back here, it became an Act of Parliament without this measure of justice to the widows for which we are now-asking. I am sure what the preceding Government could do for the widows, the present Government is prepared to do, after the expressions of opinion that have been given here to-night. I should like to refer to the question of the British Isles, and to go a little further than previous speakers. Why is there a limitation on any country with regard to this measure? We do not say to our retired servants that they shall not visit any part of the world. I want to see our pensioners, if they have children in America, or in some other country which does not fly the British flag, enabled to visit their children, regardless of the flag under which they are living. I should like to think if, in my old age, I happened to go to one of the Colonies, that I was at home, whatever part of the Empire it was, and I want that to happen when our pensioners go to the Colonies. If, by Act of Parliament—I do not know why it is, but there it is—we are to limit the place of residence for the pensioner, we are taking possession of his right to live where he thinks fit.
One case in particular, which we are handling at the present moment, in which we are endeavouring to help an old pensioner to regain his wife, will appeal to the House as showing how hardly the limitation in the Act is operating. This is the case of an old pensioner, who served for 26 years in the Metropolitan Police, retiring as an active sergeant, and his wife, who lived in North London, and his children migrated to Canada and, in their turn, were anxious to see the old people before they passed away. They were struggling settlers, trying to do what hon. Members are always anxious they should do— namely, colonise one of the great Dependencies of this Empire. In their struggle they were not very wealthy, but they appealed to the old people to come out to Canada, if possible, if only to have the pleasure of seeing their grandchildren, whom they had never seen. The old couple went to Canada, and while there the wife of the pensioner was taken seriously ill, and could not be moved. The burden of the illness fell on the younger family, the settlers in Canada, who could hardly meet it.
The old pensioner applied to the local authorities in this country to mete out to him some benefit under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. He was informed— correctly, I agree, so far as the enactment was concerned, the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police could not help himself, he was bound by the Act of Parliament to do what he did—the Receiver informed the old pensioner that unless he returned to his own country he could not give him any benefit under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. The old pensioner came over to this country, thinking that if he came here, and received his pension, it would be retrospective, and that he could go back to Canada with the money which had accumulated by the retrospective effect, gather his wife, and bring his family back to this country again, or even settle in Canada altogether. What happened when he got back to this country? He was informed he could only receive this increase of pension from the date on which it was going to be granted, that it could not be retrospective, and that if he went to Canada to fetch his wife home he would have to lose his increase of pension; and this old pensioner, in the evening of his days, is eating his heart out in North London because he cannot go to Canada to get his wife home or rejoin her out there. This is one case which we ask the right hon. Gentleman to give to the Cabinet, and we hope that when the Bill comes before the House he will keep this point in mind and endeavour to mete out a measure of justice apart altogether from the question of economy. After all, it will be a great credit to the Government to do the right thing, even if it costs something, and it will give more satisfaction to the country at large to know that old servants of the State have received the justice to which they are entitled.
:I would like to add my small portion of congratulation to the. Mover and Seconder of this Resolution for the admirable way in which they have moved and seconded it. I most thoroughly agree with them and with subsequent speakers on both sides of the House that this is not a party question at all. I know for a fact that the majority of Members of all parties in the House are pledged to do their best to get some small amelioriation in the lot of the. pre-War pensioners. So much did I feel that this was no party question, that I took the liberty of circularising nearly 500 Members in all parts of this House, and I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Bothwell Division has brought the question forward, notwithstanding the fact that two days before the ballot the Government had agreed, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southport (Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White) to do something in the direction we all desire. I think, taking it all round, the Government reply so far is very satisfactory. It is as follows, as stated in the reply to the question:
"His Majesty's Government have decided, after careful consideration, to introduce legislation with the object of increasing the scale of pensions of pre-War pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920."
I am glad to say that for my part I am extremely grateful to the Government for that. I trust the results of their deliberations will be declared very shortly and that the Bill will be introduced in the House. One thing that rather struck me in this Debate, more particularly in the opening words of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, was when he said that the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, did not include Navy and Army pre-War pensioners. I think they are the most important of the whole lot, and they have not been mentioned this evening. We have heard about the civil servants, the teachers and the police, and we have not heard a word about the Navy and Army.
:I mentioned the Navy.
:I excluded the hon. Gentleman from what I said. It is curious, however, that Navy and Army-pre-war pensioners have been so little mentioned, because they are the worst off and they are perhaps the most deserving. I want to speak of the position of Navy and Army pre-war pensioners. I do not know whether it is realised that a private in the Army after 21 years' service got when he left the Army 7s. a week pension, a Is. a day, and he got on top of that 50 per cent. increase, which brings him to 10s. 6d. a week. I have heard it said, "Why did they not save? "Do hon. Members realise that in the Army and Navy before the War the soldier and sailor had to provide very largely their own food and to a very considerable extent their own clothing, and they only got a Is. a day? It was absolutely impossible for them to save anything. If they served abroad for a long period and incidentally went through one campaign and their health was impaired, when they reached the age of 63 it was impossible for them to find work, and it would be impossible for them to do the work if they could find it. Therefore, I think their case is more to be considered than any other class of people. I do not know if it is realised that a very considerable number of these men who have served in several campaigns in different parts of the world and have lived 20 years abroad are now in the workhouse. Is that a right thing? I am very glad the Government has seen fit now to improve their position. I want to say one word about those men living in the Dominions and especially in India. There are many Navy and Army pre-War pensioners living in India who are badly hit, and I hope the Government will pay special attention to them, especially as the Pensions Increase Act of 1920 is operating in many Dependencies and Crown Colonies and there is no reason why it should not be extended to India. I should like to say one word to the Financial Secretary on the administration of the Act. I think it is very unfair that a man should have his pensions withheld because in the previous year he had been employed to some extent. He ought to receive his pension whether he has been employed or not. I want to say to the Government that I think everybody in every part of the House is very grateful to them for meeting us in this direction, and I personally would like to emphasise once more that this is not a party matter.
:I am sure it is a rare occurrence, especially for one who occupies the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to find himself in the more or less genial atmosphere of common agreement. I am sure the House will not regret, and, needless to say, I am the last of them to express a feeling of regret, that this discussion has taken place. It has been an intensely interesting discussion, although perhaps the House will allow me to suggest that many matters of administration have been dealt with rather than those matters which pertain to the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson). Those questions of administration, in themselves, are not directly connected with the Motion. That Motion merely coincides, generally speaking, with the already announced decision of His Majesty's Government that there should be an inquiry into, and future legislation regarding the increased pensions of those whose pensions were already somewhat increased by the Act of 1920. It is well known—reference has been made to it to-night—that a Committee has been set up by His Majesty's Government, which is at present considering the scale of increase and many other matters dealt with to-night. Mention has been made of the permissive character of one Clause affecting the police, of the means limit, of the age limit, of the question of Irish pensioners. All these matters were dealt with under the Act of 1920, and they will be considered—indeed, some of them have already been discussed.
The House would not expect me or anyone else in my position, while that Committee is sitting, to anticipate the results of its discussions or the Report which it may submit to the Cabinet for their judgment. I can assure hon. Members, especially because of the atmosphere of the House to-night, that there is no one on that Committee, as, indeed, I venture to say there is no one in the Government, or anywhere else in the House, who is not sympathetically determined to understand and appreciate the difficulties of Regulations and of the financial position as it affects the claim of the pre-War pensioners. Some figures have been quoted to-night, and the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) will forgive me if I suggest to him, with great respect, that figures are very dangerous things, they are so often the illegitimate offspring of facts, and the probable parents of fiction. Therefore, I will not pursue the figures as he put them before us to-night, except to recall that he suggested that this question of the revision of pre-War pensions would affect but 22,000. I am afraid he erred on the side of economy. More than 100,000 are at present in receipt of such pensions.
:The hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me to say that I gave figures quoted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I did not say they represented the whole.
:Then it is just as I ventured to state just now— that figures may probably be the parents of fiction. I will not go into these matters to-night. I can only say that the Committee which is considering the subject will report in due course. The general principle underlying the Motion is generally accepted by the House and is certainly accepted by the Government, who have already announced their intention of dealing with the question, and it is only necessary to point out that, whatever the decision of the Cabinet may be, it will be quite impossible, under any method of modern legislation, to entirely remove some of those anomalies to which reference has been made. Human intelligence has not yet been brought up to that pitch by which it can legislate absolutely to prevent hardships or anomalies in any form in this country or elsewhere. At the same time, may I, with great respect, feeling, as I do, that the whole House is in sympathy with this Motion, which is accepted in principle and generally by the Government, utter —and this is a not unsympathetic utterance—just one word of warning, and it is this, that with all the technical and administrative difficulties that are to be overcome in these matters, with all the sympathy in our hearts, we should still recognise, if I may put it in a quotation:
"The common problem, your's, mine, everyone's,
Is—not to fancy what were fair in life Provided it could be—but, finding first What may be, then find how to make it fair
Up to our means."
That is a very respectful warning that I throw out to those who imagine that all these anomalies can be overcome by legislation, that all difficulties can be removed, and that every hard case can be met under the terms of the decision, whatever the decision may be, or, indeed, any decision of any Government dealing with these matters. We have no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bothwell, and I would like to be allowed to say, if he will let me say so, as has been said by many other hon. Members on this side, that we welcome the kindly spirit in which he brought forward his Motion, and the sympathetic speech of the Seconder, the hon. Member for North Camberwell. There was nothing that anyone could object to, and there was much with which all of us agreed. Therefore, in that spirit, I can say, on behalf of the Government, that we have welcomed a discussion that has brought out illuminating and interesting facts, which will be the subject of consideration by the Committee and ultimately by the Cabinet, and we can say that, whatever our difficulties and differences may be on other occasions, when perhaps some might say there has been waste of time, to-night there has been none.
:The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Government has practically knocked the bottom out of the Debate, and had it been made at 8.15 a good deal of the eloquence that has been showered on the House would have been lost. I am, therefore, very glad that he did not speak till he did. It is very pleasant, indeed, to find that no one has claimed that any particular party has more to do than any other with this matter, and, at the same time, it is possibly owing to the fact that the matter has been treated as a strictly non-party Measure that we have been successful, because we have been able to bring pressure on the Government and to get them to see through our glasses what is, and has been for a long time, a very unfair method of treating the pre-War pensioner. It is gratifying from that point of view, because, if we think of it, we know that the pre-War pensioner is perfectly well aware who are his friends. He knows the individuals and he knows the parties, and he knows there are individuals in all the parties. As Kipling says:
"Tommy is not a fool, and Tommy knows."
In the same way, the old pre-War pensioner is not a fool, and he is perfectly well aware who are his friends. There is one little matter that I want to bring forward, and it deals with the sympathy of the House. It has been frequently said that pre-War pensions and pensions generally are deferred pay. I would that they were deferred pay, but, unfortunately, they are not. A great man who is now absent from this side—some of us think him great, and some think otherwise—said it was in the nature of deferred pay, and indeed that is the correct interpretation. I would that pensions were deferred pay, but they are not. Let me give an instance, and it is an instance in regard to which I hope that all those who hear me will assist in bringing the matter forward early after the Recess. It is this: there is the rank of officer in the Navy, the man who has passed 30 or 40 years on the lower deck, and has been given a pension. He looked upon his pension as deferred pay. He is told by Order in Council that it is a just reward for long and honourable service, and now, Sir, that naval officer is the only man among the armed forces of the Crown who did not receive his pension when he was called up. If any man had earned it, it was he. At the War Office they get their pension and their pay. I hope again to bring this matter before the House, and I hope hon. Members all over will support me. There is no more loyal supporter of the Government than myself, but I am beginning to think that a little judicious pressure at times is valuable. I need not remind the House that this matter of pre-War pensions is a very old matter. It was raised almost immediately after the 1918 "outs" became "ins." We have, I trust, begun to take a step in advance. Let the Government and the Treasury remember that the money is not theirs: it belongs to the people. They like to go step by step; not to hurry. They must be reminded of the fact that the money is the people's. It is for the benefit of the people who wish to have it. During the last Naval debate I raised this question of the 60 years. I do not go so far as to say that a man ought not to get his pension unless he is under the British Crown. If he is under the British Flag I can see no reason why he should not have it, because in the late War, pensioner or Englishman, wherever he was, came to the succour of the old country without being forced to do so. We know a great many were forced to do their duty in this country, but none of those from abroad were forced; they came of their own free will, pensioners or non-pensioners. We have made a step in advance; I hope it may not be the first or the second step, but the beginning of many.
:It is hardly worth while saying anything since the Government has given a promise, not a very warm promise, it is true, but a promise— [An HON. MEMBER: "Breach of promise! "]—No, not a breach of promise—at least I hope not. I want to impress upon the Government that when they come to look into these things they will remember that the whole country is concerned in the matter. As hon. Members opposite have said, that it is above party. The one thing you do not want, for the sake of the country, is ever to get these pensions matters into party politics. There is nothing in the world more inadvisable. I congratulate the hon. Member opposite for not even trying to make a party question of it. It is too serious for that. It might do some of us a little individual good at our election, but on the whole pensions, when they once get into party politics, as is proved in other countries, are by far the most corrupt thing that can possibly be in politics. Everything has been dealt with very admirably, but there are just two or three things which I should like to say.
It is really rather tragic the way the widows of these pre-War pensioners are treated. As things are now, it is only the widows over 40 who get the increased pension, although it is the younger widows of the Army and Navy pensioners who require it the most, because they often have young families to bring up. It is also very hard that those who were not widows before 1914 do not benefit under the Act.
With regard to what has been said about the police, I think the Government realise that under the emergency Act of 1915, the police due to retire could have secured their pensions, and if they had retired they would have made their pension certain. Many of them elected to remain in the Service during the War and they were penalised in consequence. I think the men who were compelled to remain in the Service ought to be treated as new scale pensioners. It is -really a tremendous hardship because these men were kept on during the War, whereas if they had been allowed to resign they could have got enormous wages during the War, as so many people did. I hope the Government will bear that fact in mind in dealing with this question of pensions. With regard to the treatment meted out to those pensioners who go overseas, I do not see why these pre-War pensioners should not get their pension, no matter what country they go to, because it is really deferred pay. I agree that it would be better if they kept within the British Empire, but they might have relatives in foreign countries, and why should they be penalised in this way. With regard to thrift, I am certain that the Conservative party of which I am proud to be a member does not wish to penalise our old pensioners who desire to live within the Empire, and it seems to me a ridiculous thing that they should be penalised in this way. Every man should be allowed to make his own living in the best way he can and stand on his own legs. I therefore ask the Government not to penalise thrift. I beg the Government, when they do this, not to leave a grievance behind. I know it is very hard to get the money, but these are old men, they will not live for ever, and it is not a thing that is going to increase; but the hardship is very real. I urge the Government to get the Bill on as soon as they can. The whole of this House and the whole country wants it. There is nothing that appeals to the country so much as old age and youth. We middle-aged people are not so interesting to the country; the two classes that appeal to all sections of all parties are old age and new age. I do beg the Government not to delay, and not to be led off by the people who say you cannot afford it. There is one thing that you cannot afford, and that is injustice to your very best servants.
:I do not propose to follow in the direction that has been taken by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), nor do I propose to enter into the vast field where there are so many difficulties that have already been pointed out, and where others also exist. I do feel very grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for having confirmed the opinion which has been expressed from all sides of the House, but I am somewhat concerned, having regard to our experiences in the past. The Financial Secretary has promised us a Committee, and, as far as he knows with regard to it, he has every reason to believe that it is sympathetic, and that it will lose no time in going fully into the matter; but so much time has already elapsed that some of us are very much concerned. Could we have a declaration, openly and straightforwardly, from the Financial Secretary to-night that, once that Committee has made up its Report and indicated its recommendations, the Government will accept those recommendations and lose no time in putting them into operation? I think we really are entitled, having regard to the many promises that have been made every time this matter has been broached in this House, and after the expressions from all sides of the House of good will, readiness and ability, and of the obligation of the country to these people, to understand where we are; and I do not think it is too much to ask the Financial Secretary to give us some indication as to whether the Government will go further and say that any recommendations within reason that are made by that Committee when they make their Report will be accepted, put into the form of a Bill, and brought before this House.
:I have never taken part in a Debate in this House that has had the peculiar characteristic of the one that we have had since a quarter-past eight to-night. There has not been a discordant note in it from beginning to end. Everyone is agreed—the Government and private Members in every part of she House. And yet I am sure that there has never been a Debate of this nature in the House that has been more useful, and has been a more direct reflection of the opinion, not only of the pensioners concerned, but of the great mass of the people in this country, which wants enunciating in this House. After the speeches from all quarters, there would be no reason for my rising if it were not for one or two things that fell from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said, speaking of the Act, that the Government were prepared to deal with the grievances that had arisen in regard to the permissive character of the provisions applicable to the police. The permissive character of the Act, as I read it, is applicable to all classes of pensioners who are included in the Act. Cases have come to my knowledge under one particular local authority where practically no effect has been given to the Pensions (Increase) Act at all. An ex-police constable, 81 years of age, in receipt of a pension of £42 a year has been granted an increase of 2s. a week, whereas under the scale laid down in the Act, local authorities may give 50 per cent. where the pension is under £50 a year, so if "may" had been "shall," this ex-police constable would have been entitled to £21 increase, and he is given £5 4s. I have here a list of seven ex-police con-stables who served their time as borough police at Barnstaple. They were turned over to the county two years ago. The Watch Committee of the borough under this Act gave an increased pension in two cases. One I have already referred to. When they were turned over to the county, in one of these cases the increase was taken away, and now out of the seven there is only one who is receiving any increased pension at all. There are not only men of 81 receiving £42 a year. There is another of 72 receiving £46, a man of 54 receiving £23, a man of 65 receiving £73, and so on. On the broader question whether the Act has been given effect to I find there is a difference according to whether a man retired one day before 1st April, 1919, or one day after of no less than £100 a year.
That brings me to the only other point I wish to refer to in the speech of the Financial Secretary. He said it was quite impossible in the present state of the development of the human brain, or words to that effect, to prevent hardships and anomalies. I quite agree, but I am glad the Government is determined to prevent such really absurd anomalies as exist at present, where a man who retires one day is entitled to a pension of £65 a year, and a man who retires a day or two after is entitled to a pension of over £160 a year. I have had cases sent me from all over the country, where an experienced inspector receives a far less pension than a police constable who served under him during the greater part of his service, but happens to retire a year or two after. It has been put before me that the police constable has a much shorter service than the inspector who is receiving a far smaller pension. That kind of anomaly, which means the grossest injustice, is an anomaly which it is within the power, the skill and the knowledge of humanity as it is at present developed, and developed on the Front Bench, to find a means of altering entirely and abolishing.
It is not only a question of increasing the scale, but of seeing that in the new Act there is nothing whatever permissive about it. The old question of "may" and "shall" was raised in Committee, when this Act was a Bill, and the usual answer given by the Law Officer at the time was that "may" meant "shall" in such an Act. I have spoken to him since, and he says that after he had given his opinion a Schedule was inserted which altered the whole thing. In the Schedule, in line after line, it was said that "it may be increased ": "it may be increased 40 per cent." and so forth; but I understand that what is good in the Act is not necessarily good in the Schedule. There is no Law Officer of the Crown present, and I am not qualified to give an opinion on the matter, but I do ask the Government to look into these cases very carefully. We shall look very suspiciously in future, after this example, when the answer is given that "may" means "shall." We find that in an Act of this kind, when "may" comes in, it is taken full advantage of in some parts of the country, while in other parts the Act is carried out to the letter. That is a matter which w-e cannot have repeated in Acts passed by this House.
:I want to reinforce what has been said on this subject. I happen to be particularly interested in it because one of my constituents, who is quite the finest type of ex-warrant officer of the Army, has brought his very deserving case to my notice recently. He is more than 70 years of age, and has had nearly 40 years' service with the Colours, serving in three campaigns, and now because in his old age he declines to be unemployed and to be a burden on his relatives and prefers to work profitably, he is debarred from receiving an increased pension. That is unfair. I gathered from the remarks of the Financial Secretary that it is not the wish of the Government that the thrift and industry of a man of that kind should be penalised. Therefore I am anxious to add to and support what has been said by hon. Members, and to ask the Government if we can have to-night some kind of undertaking that in a broad and general manner the findings of the Committee which is being set up will be endorsed and carried into legislation without delay.
:I was very glad that the hon. Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) mentioned the question of the Army and Navy pre-War pensioners, which had not received much notice in the Debate. It was the position of the Army and Navy pre-War pensioners which induced the great majority of Members originally to take up the question. It was in looking into the cases of men who had fought in campaigns ending their days in the workhouse, that we found there were other classes of the community in the same position. As the result of a question I asked in this House a fortnight or three weeks ago, I have received a very large number of letters from all over the Kingdom, and I have, by the express permission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, forwarded all those letters which contain any valuable and concrete examples of hardship to them. I should like to bear testimony to the extraordinary consideration and sympathy with which they have treated this matter, and I have reason to believe—though I cannot say so officially—that these special cases, will be laid before the Committee. It struck me very much that in all those letters I received, though there were some, there were very few indeed where people who were already, I will not say well-off, said, in effect, "Why cannot I get a little more?" The cases brought before me were mostly cases of real hardship. Amongst those which I think, on the whole, deserve especial consideration out of all those which I saw were, first of all, the cases of men who were non-commissioned officers before the War, who came back voluntarily during the War, got commissions, and in nearly all cases went back to the original pensions, sometimes of 1s. a day, which they had before. That is one of the very hard cases. The other, and even more pathetic case, which has been raised more than once in this House, is that of non-commissioned officers and men of the late Royal Irish Constabulary. Those are the most pathetic cases of all, because not only were the pensions miserably low—looking back, one wonders how those things could have existed a few years before the War—but, in addition, those men were specially penalised on account of the fact that whereas the old age pensioner in this country, if he has not sufficient to support himself, can, perhaps, get some sort of casual job, many of these Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland cannot get employment of any sort. Everybody's hand is against them, and if it is humanly possible to avoid it, I hope they will not be made a kind of shuttlecock in the matter of whether the Free State Government or we are to increase their pensions. Whether that increase comes from the Free State or from us, I hope this gross scandal of the Royal Irish Constabulary pensions will be dealt with.
:It has been said that there has not been a discordant note struck in this Debate to-night. This is perfectly true, but it would be very easy to strike a discordant note in regard to the attitude taken up by some Members on the old age pensions question a short time ago when we were discussing the harassing and limiting conditions applied to them. I want to support this, and I hope when that matter arises again we shall have exactly the same unanimity as has been expressed on this point to-night. The whole system of pensions needs to be overhauled. We were told one day this week that pensions given practically a hundred years ago are being continued to-day to persons who have rendered no service whatsoever to the community. In these higher pensions of £2,000 or so there are no limiting conditions applied. Sometimes we do a good thing and take away from it by the conditions we apply. It is exactly the same with these pensions, and I hope when the Report is published effect will be given to it immediately. I support this most heartily, and hope that the same unanimity and accord will be given to the old age pensions scheme when it comes forward, as it must very soon. Matters of this kind cannot be allowed to remain without consideration. It is unfair and unjust to old age pensioners So I am very glad to find that we have been supported by every section of this House to-night, and I think that we can reasonably look forward to that same support when we come to discuss the other phase of this question.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920. are inadequate to meet the needs of pre-War pensioners, and further legislation should be passed to augment the increases allowed by that Act and to amend other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character which have disqualified many deserving pensioners from receiving benefit under the Act."
Dogs' Protection Bill
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [ 2nd March ], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed.
:I would ask that the House should now give a Second Reading to this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Object!"] I would point out that it is not yet Eleven o'clock, and theefore hon. Members cannot object. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
:I support the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is the best Measure that has been before the House for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I support this Bill because [ Interruption. ]
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
:On a point of Order. Might I ask that the Question be now put?
:That is not a point of Order.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKEB withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 28th May.
Industrial Assurance Bill [Lords]
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended ( in the Standing Committee ).
Question again proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
:When the business was interrupted at 8.15, I was moving an Amendment in Clause 24, Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "five;" and to insert instead thereof the word "three." I was pointing out that the five years' period was unnecessary. The Report of the Parmoor Commission, which recommended five years, was made three years ago, and the public had warning by the publication of that Report that legislation would be forthcoming soon. When, recently, we were discussing the Rent Restrictions Bill the learned Attorney-General held that because the Prime Minister had made a statement on the subject in the House some months before the introduction of the Bill, the people knew that legislation would be forthcoming. In other words, the Prime Minister's statement was to be regarded as notice of the nature of the forthcoming legislation. I want to argue, in the same way, that the companies, because of the Report of the Parmoor Committee, must have known that legislation would be introduced, and that therefore it is unreasonable, as suggested in this Bill, to give them five years further. I know that the good law of the Attorney-General has received rather a bad shock since that statement was made, and some of us perhaps will not have the same faith in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ability to interpret law as we had at that time. I suggest, however, that this Amendment is not only good law but good common sense. For those reasons, I hope the House will accept the shorter period,. and that, as a consequence of accepting that shorter period, the companies will give more reasonable conditions to the people who will suffer under the Clause as it at present stands.
:I beg to second the Amendment. The date of the original Bill was August, 1921, and what my hon. Friend says about all this is more than borne out by that fact. It was obvious that this legislation was pending, and that there was plenty of time to make this arrangement.
:The ground on which the proposal in the Amendment is made is that, inasmuch as the Parmoor Committee suggested two years ago that this proposal should be put into the Bill, it is reasonable, so to speak, to date back the Bill. That is an attractive argument, but the fact remains that these companies and societies have not been compelled to offer the advantages which they would be compelled to give by the Bill as it stands; their reserve funds have not been built up upon that hypothesis, and, although this proposal would really not affect the large and powerful companies like the Prudential, it would wreck small companies, some of which it is hoped, will develop their business under this Bill. It would have the effect of breaking some of these small and perfectly solvent societies, to the great prejudice of large numbers of policy-holders in those societies. I am sure that is not the intention or desire of the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment. If the companies, two years ago, had built up their reserve funds with the object of providing these increased benefits, it might be reasonable to say that this Clause should come into effect in three years' time, instead of in five years.
I cannot accept the Amendment. Not that I have the least desire to postpone these proposals a day longer than is necessary, but in this matter I am bound to act on the advice of those persons who are skilled to give advice. It really is an actuarial question. If the House were to alter five years into three years, it would be disregarding the advice of the persons who know what they are talking about, that is to say, the experts, and adopting the advice of hon. Members, who, however earnest and honest they may be in this matter, are, after all, not possessed of the actuarial knowledge upon which alone it would be safe for the House to act. I therefore hope, although I quite recognise the genuine desire of hon. Members to make this Clause effective at the earliest possible moment, that the House will not accept the Amendment.
:I wish to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor-General a question. Presumably, the Parmoor Committee acted upon the highest actuarial advice they could get when they fixed the period they did, over two years ago. Are we to take it that the actuarial advice which the right hon. Gentleman now has differs from the actuarial advice given to the Parmoor Committee?
:No; the actuarial advice is the same. The Parmoor Committee recommended five years on the footing that the proposals would become operative from that date.
:That five years, may I point out. was three years ago, so that virtually they have had eight years to put their house in order. I am merely asking whether the actuarial advice which was given to the Parmoor Committee differs from the actuarial advice now given to the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment.
:If my hon. Friend would refer to the terms of the Parmoor Committee's Report he would see that the Committee say that the five years was to date from the passing of the legislation in question, and as a matter of fact the Clause will exactly comply with the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee itself. If the House will look at this Clause they will see that it is of a very extraordinary nature and that it is imposing upon insurance institutions payments which were never actuarially contemplated, and therefore every insurance institution has a certain time to set its house in order. It is not so much a difficulty for large institutions with ample reserves, as it is for the small societies who within a period of five years have to find payments that they never contemplated. This Clause is carrying out to the letter the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee, and there is no inconsistency in the Government's proposals.
:In view of recent legal decisions, may I put it that after all the lawyers do not know everything, and that in this particular case the recommendation by a Commission does not necessarily mean that the Government are compelled to accept a decision given by lawyers. They are now trying to save themselves from their friends and from each other. May I not ask in this case whether the Solicitor-General will not take into consideration the proposal of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) in order to square the Bill and that an ordinary workman may learn the lawyers wisdom?
Amendment negatived.
CLAUSE 26.—( Transfers from one Society or Company to another. )
(4) As from the date of the said notice the society or company from which the person is sought to be transferred shall cease to be under any liability with respect to the policy in question and shall not be required to serve any notice of forfeiture of the policy in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act.
:I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4) to insert the words
"Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent a person assured with a collecting society or industrial assurance company from effecting a subsequent assurance with another collecting society or industrial assurance company."
My purpose in moving this Amendment is to secure an assurance from the Solicitor-General that the Clause relating to transfers does not in any way prevent an individual from effecting an insurance with a second office. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware there is considerable legal difficulty in defining what a transfer is. Courts of law have given various decisions on transfer. It is in the interests of everybody concerned, particularly the collecting friendly societies that a clear definition should be given as to the limitations in regard to transfers. Particularly, it should be made clear that the Government does not mean that a person shall not effect a subsequent assurance with a second office
:I beg to second the Amendment. I do so in order to elicit some more definite statement from the Solicitor-General than we have been favoured with up to the present. In Committee, the Solocitor-General carried an Amendment to insert in Subsection (2) of this Clause, the words "and rights under "—["setting out the terms of and rights under the existing policy and the terms of and rights under the policy to which the assured will become entitled on transfer "]—this referring to the prescribed form of the document to be furnished by the society or company to which the transfer is to be made. He did not give a Very wide explanation as to the reason for those words. Will he tell the House whether in the form which is to be prescribed, I understand, by the Industrial Assurance Commissioner steps will be taken to provide specific headings under which the information asked for in the case of persons to be transferred, can be given? Obviously it may be immensely difficult for those connected with societies dealing with transfers to guarantee to supply information in regard to those words "and rights under "unless the prescribed form states very clearly what is required. No society or company ought to be expected to give particulars of various kinds which they cannot reasonably obtain from the policy-holder.
:I am very willing to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the transactions which the proposed proviso is intended to preserve. That is my opinion if it is worth anything—which apparently the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) is not prepared to concede. I rather think the Mover of the Amendment has at the back of his mind the idea that this Clause in some dark and mysterious way seeks to prevent what the Courts held to be a transfer in a case against the Scottish Legal Society. Whether that be so or not, this proviso is quite useless and unnecessary for the purpose which the hon. Member has in view, and I give him that assurance. In reference to the point raised by the Seconder of the Amendment, I think, if I may be allowed to say so, it was a little out of order. At any rate, I am quite prepared to give him the assurance that there will be nothing to hurt the transferee's society, in the prescribed form. This is an illustration of the difficulty of striking an even 'balance between the interests of the society and the interests of the policy-holder. I put in these words to protect the policy-holder, so that the poor policy-holder, of whom we have heard a great deal, should have the fullest information as to what his rights were. Now I am pressed to see that it is not used to hurt the society. I have tried to hold the balance fairly between the society and the policy-holder, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not in the least intended to do anything that will be a hardship to the society.
:I wanted to know whether the prescribed form would be based on specific headings.
:I cannot say at the moment what the prescribed form will be, but it really is a question as to a Clause which we have passed.
:Will the Solicitor-General give an interpretation of Subsection (2) of Clause 25? I should like to know if the person there referred to is the agent or the policy-holder.
:We have passed that point in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CLAUSE 30.—( War Bond Policies. )
(1) The owner of any War Bond policy existing at the passing of this Act shall be entitled to make application to the Commissioner alleging that the conditions of the policy are so unreasonable as to entitle him to claim relief under this Section, and the Commissioner shall consider the application, and if he is of opinion, after giving the society or company an opportunity of being heard,
Provided that any society or company may appeal to the High Court or in the case of a society or company registered in Scotland the Court of Session, against any decision of the Commissioner under this Section.
(2) For the purposes of this Act "war bond policy "means a policy of life assurance, whether an industrial assurance policy or not, where the amount assured is payable in. any securities issued in connection with any Government loan raised for the purposes of the War, or in such securities or in cash at the option of the owner of the policy.
(3) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "owner," to insert the words "or former owner."
I have a series of Amendments to this Clause, and hope I am not going to steal anyone's thunder on them.
:The last one, to insert a new Sub-section (3), I was not proposing to take in any case, and the hon. and gallant Member need not argue that, but the others could be taken together.
:I notice that only hon. Members, except those whose names appear against these Amendments have taken any notice of this point. My object is to deal with the owners of the so-called War Bond policies. The Report of the Parmoor Committee dealt with this aspect of industrial assurance during the War years in Section 44, in which they say:
"The Committee are of opinion that special provision is required in the case of this class of policy for the protection of the assured, who, in many cases, have entered into obligations which it is beyond their power to fulfil. They recommend that, in the case of these policies, the controlling authority should be empowered, on the application of the assured, to revise the conditions of the policies as to lapse and surrender where these appear to act inequitably to the assured, regard being had to the legitimate interests of the companies."
I do not want to go into the history of the War Bond policies now, but I will first inform the House that up to date, out of 1,882,000 odd persons who took on these War Bond policies—in many cases, I am afraid, under false pretences, as is admitted, in fact, in the evidence given before the Committee, when they were wrongly described as War Bond policies—already 938,000 odd have lapsed up to the end of 1922, and how many have lapsed since then I do not know, but obviously a good many thousands. To show why they lapsed is easy. Most of these War Bond policies were forced on the people during the stress of the War, during the drives that were organised, quite properly, for War Loans, and quite poor people, serving soldiers, artisans, widows, and so on, undertook to pay £1 a month for these very unfavourable policies. They have not possibly been able to keep up their payments in the hard times following the War. It is not surprising, therefore, that nearly a million have already lapsed— 938,000. The Bill as drawn acknowledges the injustice that has been committed, but only those who have been able to keep up their payments, better-to-do people, and in many cases onerous payments, are covered to a certain extent toy this Bill. I notice that the companies concerned, the Prudential principally, and the Pearl, have been amply covered, in that they are permitted to appeal to the High Court in England, and in the case of Scotland to the Court of Session. With their immense wealth they will be able to protract litigation to a very great extent. Therefore, they are well protected. But what is the protection for the 938,000 and more people whose policies have lapsed? None whatever! The only people who have any redress are the present holders, and all those persons who were led into embarking on these gross and onerous conditions in taking up these most unfair policies, as I hope to show on the Third Reading and to give actuarial figures—these people are left unprotected ! They have no redress at all! These people are poor. They are unversed, probably, in insurance law, and still less in actuarial practice. They are faced by a most wealthy and powerful company which has been able to exercise, I am afraid, behind the scenes, a great deal of influence on this Bill. If I desired proof of that it is to be found in the difference between this Bill and the one introduced by Lord Onslow following the revelations of the Parmoor Committee. These people will be perfectly helpless unless they have money—which most have not. In some cases they have paid £14 or £20, and sums of that sort, and they have not had a halfpenny back. Unless they have paid £1 a month for a couple of years their policies have no surrender value, and these ex-service men and widows have no redress under the Bill. It is a crying shame and a gross injustice. Unless the Government admit these words which will give them some redress before the Commissioner, then I day they have been influenced to do it by a craven fear of those great companies, and their hordes of agents, whose political influence they have overrated. I only hope that that fear has had no effect on the benches on my right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hope not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches will have an opportunity to say what they have to say. I hope they will support me in my protest. I will not delay the House. I have tried to-day to expedite the business. But we must fight on behalf of the 900,000 policy-holders. I hope I have made by case clearly and temperately. I trust the Government will see to this point, and that the House will support me in this most reasonable demand.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:I cannot help feeling surprised, after the criticisms we have had in this House against retrospective legislation, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have brought forward a proposal in favour of retrospective legislation.
:Retrospective justice!
:In this Bill there is already a proposal that the policies taken out six or seven years ago shall be amended by the Commission in accordance with justice, and that is in itself very drastic. That is something which this House and another place would not probably have agreed to, but for the fact that they, acting with a very general sense of what is right and just, and because there was no 'strenuous opposition to this proposal from the societies and companies concerned, notwithstanding what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, I have to take into consideration what those whose interests are adversely affected have to say. I have had no personal communication with them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that I was in a state of craven fear on account of some political influence which these companies were exercising. If the hon. and gallant Member likes to make such suggestions, let him; but I shall still do what I think is the right thing to do. The Bill deals with policies in existence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes us to reopen those policies which expired over six or seven years ago. Hon. Members who are acquainted with the circumstances, the changes and deaths which must have occurred during that period, will realise at once the many difficulties involved by adopting such a course.
:Under the Bill it is only those who apply to the Commission, and these cases of loss are not gone into by the Commission.
:What the hon. and gallant Member now proposes is that only those who have the wealth, the influence, or the knowledge to enable them to make an application will secure a revision of their policies, whereas those very defenceless people whom he desires to protect will not be in that position, and will not get the advantage of what he is proposing. That is a proposal which I do not think this House will accept, and as it is not practicable, I oppose it. There is also the general objection to retrospective legislation of this character. The hon. and gallant Member said that there were 900,000 cases in which these policies had lapsed, but in Committee upstairs the total was given as 300,000, and that figure appears now to have been multiplied by three. I do not know which total is right, but whether the total is1 300,000 or 900,000, the number of policies which would require revision is very large, and in view of the fact that many of these policies may have been lost, and the holders have lost the rights they once had, the difficulties are so obvious that, even with the greatest sympathy we must all have with those who have lost money, the proposal under discussion does not meet the case. I do not propose to reply to the argument I about gross frauds. With regard to such charges as these, I know the companies are quite capable of taking care of themselves. I am here to try and produce a Bill which is workable, and which conforms to the dictates of common-sense. I content myself with asking the House to resist this proposal, because I believe it would be objectionable upon general considerations which I am sure are familiar to hon. Members in all parts of this House.
:The Solicitor-General first of all based his reply to this Amendment, as I understand, on the ground that it is retrospective, but I respectfully submit to him and to the House that in any case the Clause as the Government have it is retrospective. It asks us to review contracts made some years ago between two independent parties, and surely, if it does that, it is of a retrospective character. The reason, as I understand it, why it seeks to give power to the policy-holder to have his contract varied is not because of anything that has taken place since the contract was made, not on account of any new fact that has arisen, but because the Parmoor Committee, as the result of their investigations, came to the conclusion, in the words quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend, that the conditions were not altogether just or altogether fair. I want to put it to the House that, if it is right to reopen the question for any policy-holder, then it is right to do so for all, because the conditions at the time when the contracts were made were the same in all cases. if the Government feel that there is a need for giving these policy-holders an opportunity of having their policies reviewed, then I submit that the objection as to retrospectiveness applies as much to the Government's own Clause as it does to this Amendment.
This is a very important question, and it is right that we should know what really are the facts of the case. I would recall to the recollection of hon. Members that in 1916–17 the Government were very anxious to raise all possible funds by means of War Savings Certificates, War Bonds, and one means and another, to carry on the War, and at that time various insurance companies offered to the public what they called War Bond policies; and the point, I take it, that was in the minds of the Parmoor Committee and of the Government was that, when these policies were offered to the public, the public thought they were getting what was really a Government security, because they were called 5 per cent. War Bond policies. I have here one of the forms that were used, and in big black letters there is printed on it, "£5 National War Bonds." I submit that even ordinary business men might be misled by a term of that sort, and people unaccustomed to reading contracts, the poorest of the poor, who necessarily were more or less ignorant of contracts, and who were under the influence of the fever and excitement of patriotism to raise money, naturally thought that these £5 War Bonds were really Government securities. Therefore, it was a shock to them when they found that, instead of getting a Government security, they had got what was in effect an industrial insurance policy. What were these policies' For a payment of 8s. every four weeks for eight years, they offered, in 10 years' time, a return of eight £5 Bonds or £40. As a matter of fact the amount paid in during that period was £41 12s., no interest was allowed, for two years the full sum lay in the hands of the company, and at the end of 10 years either eight £5 Bonds or £40 could be drawn.
:Their lives were insured.
:I was coming to that point. I cannot deal with every point at once. My hon. Friend says that there was also a life policy, but let us understand what that life policy was. When we take out a life policy, be it for £40 or £100, or whatever it is, we naturally understand by that that if we are unfortunate enough to die before the endowment is completed the full sum is paid. Was it a life policy in that sense? What were the returns given? I do not ask the House to take my figures; I give the figures that were given to me yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade in reply to a question, and were furnished by the insurance company themselves. I will read to the House the amount of life insurance attaching to these policies of £40, or eight £5 Bonds. It is arranged in periods of two years, and if death occurs at the end of two years—I am reading from the copy of a letter which the company themselves have sent—the owner of the policy will receive, not £40, which is the full value, but two £5 Bonds, or £10, having paid in during that period £10 8s. There is no great catch there. At the end of four years, if he happens to die, he gets four £5 Bonds, or £20, having paid in during that period £20 16s., and so on during a period of two years. If he has the good fortune to die at the beginning of one of the new periods his representatives get a few pounds more. If at the end of two years and one month he dies his representatives get four £5 Bonds, or £20, in return for the £10 16s. he has paid in. But that only happens if he is fortunate enough to die at a particular period. It was suggested that, although he might not get much in the way of War Bonds, there was an insurance policy attached to it which was worth a great deal. That contention is not correct, and he gets in the majority of cases very little more than he actually paid in in premiums, and therefore the insurance value is of no account as a set-off against the loss he makes.
The point is as to the surrender value. I do not want the House to take my word for it. I have a reply from the Board of Trade as to the surrender value of these war stock policies, and I have the statement supplied by the companies themselves, and they say that all War Bond and War Stock policies have a guaranteed surrender value after two years, hut the great bulk of these lapsed. The figure was 310,000. My hon. And gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was speaking, I believe, of surrenders as well as lapsed policies. So far as lapsed policies are concerned, the total number, again according to official figures supplied by the company themselves, is 310,000 up to the end of last year. Of these 310,000 policies, not one penny piece of surrender value or return of premiums have been paid, and yet they may have been running one year and 11 months. These are not policies paid in by premiums of 2d. or 3d. a week, but paid it at the rate of 8s. or 10s. or more per month, and therefore what has happened is this. The poor people, thinking they were going to get the Government security, investing at a time of patriotic fervour to raise money to carry on the War, raising all the funds they could to this end, have paid various sums, from a few pounds up to £20 or £30, and if these payments had been made within the two years, they have not got a penny piece in return. There is a very strong case here for inquiry, and if the Government are prepared to allow existing policy holders to have their case reviewed, it is only right that those who have lost these many pounds and have not got a penny in return should also have an opportunity of having their case reviewed
So far I have only quoted official figures given by the Board of Trade and supplied by the companies. I will give a few illustrations of what has happened. I have here a policy book in respect of 5 per cent. War Stock for £100, 1920–1947 on which a man has paid nine monthly payments of £1 each. The man's name is William Robinson, of Hull. Attached is a notice of lapse sent by the company on the 25th March, 1922. The man has not received back one penny piece. This is one of many cases where similar amounts have been paid and lost. I have here a certificate signed by the man— lapsed. We have a right to ask what are the amounts of these premiums that have been paid on the lapsed policies. If the figures run into hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of pounds, these poor people should have the protection of the law.
I do not ask the House to accept a single statement I have made without verifying it. I have quoted the figures given by the companies. The only report we have have had is that there has been an insurance value attached to these policies. From the figures given to us, I think the insurance value is worth very little. Whether they be worth much or little, my point is that if the Government think it right to give the existing policy holder an opportunity to have his policy reviewed, then, on the same grounds, they cannot resist the appeal in justice that people who have had similar policies, and who through misfortune and bad trade have been unable to continue their premiums should have an opportunity of having their cases reconsidered. I appeal to the Solicitor-General as trustee for these poor people—not as standing on the side of the policy holder or the company —but as representative of this House, which above all else desires fair play and to see justice done to the poorest, to allow this Amendment to go through, so that these people can have an opportunity of putting their case to the Commissioner. In Committee, he gave one or two what he called practical reasons why it could not be done, and he repeated them tonight. He said it was impossible to trace them, and that the cost would be so tremendous.
:I did not say anything of the sort. What I did say was that out of the 300,000 cases there were very large numbers of persons who would never be able to come forward and prove their cases, and that to the remainder of the 300,000 the cost would be immense.
:I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. and learned Gentleman, but this is the statement I had in mind. Speaking in the Committee on the 3rd May he said:
"The poor people who are interested would be involved in expenses which would more than swallow up the comparatively trifling surrender value that would be the most that the Commissioner could give them."
I submit that, whether the cost or difficulty be large or small, it is entirely a question for the insured persons themselves, and if they agreed to take the trouble and to go to the expense that is no reason why the Government should refuse them the opportunity to make good their case. The further point the learned Solicitor-General made was that the companies, apparently, would not agree to this. Surely, that is a most extraordinary argument to use. If there is a good case for investigation it ought not to be in the power of the person or firm whose action has to be investigated to say whether it shall take place or not. I submit that there is no reason in these grounds, and that I have made out a prima facie case for these matters to be investigated. My main point is that, if it be right, as the Government suggest, to allow existing policy-holders to have their cases reviewed, it is right that those who have lost everything should have the opportunity to get their claims established.
:As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has been very active in telling the Members on the benches above the Gangway what they ought to do, it is about time that he realised that we can manage our own affairs quite as well as he can. It also needs to be said, in regard to the matter with which we have been dealing, that, in this matter, the Labour party have never been led at all by political pre-judice or the fears to which he has referred to-night. I resent that suggestion levelled against these benches just as much as the learned Solicitor-General would resent it if made against him as the responsible Minister in charge of the Bill in dealing out justice, as I believe he is endeavouring to do, to the people concerned. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the Committee upstairs—
:I was not a Member.
a Member of the Labour party supported the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) in this matter. We have never taken any other view, and it is a very great pity that, at short notice, the hon. and gallant Member should come to this House with a brief and make charges against this party and the Solicitor-General. The Labour party are prepared to go into the Lobby in support of him, but we do not like the way in which he appeals to us to do it.
:There have been some interesting aspects of this Debate on an important subject, and not the least interesting has been the rejoinder by the hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, to my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I think his heat was somewhat uncalled for. After all, there are some people in this House who have been accustomed to attack on both sides, and have submitted to it—
:And replied to it.
and have submitted to it in a chastened frame of mind.
:If the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander) had not sat down, I was about to ask what his remarks had to do with the Bill.
12 M.
:I was merely remarking on the super-sensitiveness of some people. Another interesting aspect of this Debate is that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who has been putting perfectly fairly the point of view of certain people who are interested in this Bill, on other topics discussed to-night, has not intervened in this discussion. I think the inference to be drawn from that is that a very strong case, which should commend itself to the House, has now been put forward. I do not wish to amplify the facts put by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). I think he has put a case which has impressed the House, but I would remind the House that the Parmoor Committee found that these War Bond policies require special provision made for them. That Report was made as long ago as February, 1920, when the position was not nearly so bad as it has since become owing to the depression of trade, which has caused a large number of these policies either to lapse or to be surrendered. There is another reason. The Government have some responsibility in connection with the matter. It started in connection with the War savings campaign. There is no doubt that the tanks that went round the country were made use of by the companies for these War Bond policies. Consequently, the Government agents have responsibility for allowing these agencies to be used for the purpose of these improper policies regarding which the Parmoor Committee reported. No doubt also these policies have been recommended to ignorant people by unscrupulous canvassers. I have a paper called the "Prudential Staff Gazette," which is the organ of the Prudential Staff Union. Consequently, it may be said that this journal can speak with some authority. It says:
The Solicitor-General justifies himself on the ground that this is retrospective. But the whole Clause is retrospective. The sole question is as to the extent to which you are to be retrospective. The Solicitor-General is going to be retrospective in favour of the more prosperous. We ask him to make the provision retrospective from the opening in respect of those who have suffered most. It is suggested that many of these people will not be able to get redress. It may be so. But there are others who have preserved their policies and who would be able to get some sort of redress for the injustice which they have suffered. Are these people to be denied redress? On this matter the House should take the question into their own hands and should decide that people who have admittedly been wronged and have suffered privation, probably through un- employment, should be given an opportunity of receiving redress.
:I rise naturally, after the remarks of the last speaker, for I wish to make a few observations upon the charges which have been made. There is only one company connected with this matter of War Bond policies, arid with that particular company I have at no time had any connection in a professional or any other way. I think it is fair to the House, and I think they will be the first to recognise it, that some statement should be made in reply to the observations which have just fallen from the two hon. Members. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has called for an inquiry into the question of these War Bond policies. The first answer to that is that the inquiry has already taken place. That inquiry has been held by the Parmoor Committee, a Committee which, so far as representatives of this House were concerned, was fully representative of every party and was presided over by Lord Parmoor, a distinguished lawyer and King's Counsel. It is only fair to say, in respect to this particular company, that at no time and in no recommendation which they made was there any question of fraud nor, as I believe the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough mentioned to-night, any question of false pretences. If there had been, the ordinary law was quite open to any person or policy-holder, to complain of such a cause. At this moment, any policy-holder who had taken out a War Bond policy in this particular company, and alleged that he had done so by the fraudulent misrepresentation of any agent, or of the company itself, has a full opportunity of deciding that matter in the Courts of this country. I think it is fair to say that at no time has such an action been taken or such a course pursued. Before the Parmoor Committee itself, I think I am right in saying—the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough will correct me if I am wrong—there was at no time any charge made of the nature which he indicated to-night.
:The hon. Gentleman has asked me to correct him. I never made any charge of false pretences by saying that as these things were called Five Per Cent. War Bonds, and were sold at the same time as other Government certificates, unlearned and ignorant poor people might have been deceived in what they thought they were getting.
:I am very glad the hon. Member has made that statement, because, as he knows, there is a very serious difference between any charge of fraud or misrepresentation in the matter. I think it will be agreed, and the Parmoor Committee took that view, that many people did not appreciate the exact nature of the contract into which they were entering, and it was for that reason that they made their recommendations. The real answer to all the statements made to-night is this, that in the Clause before the House at the present moment the Government are adopting the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee, because, when this Bill came before the other House, on the First Reading, one of the first men to get up in that Chamber was Lord Parmoor himself. He said that, so far as the recommendations of his Committee were concerned, he was satisfied that they were amply carried out in this Bill. He said that, so far as he and his Committee were concerned, they were satisfied that their recommendations were being amply carried out by the Government.
I venture to say that this Clause is going a very long way indeed. When hon. Members say, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough said, that there is no question of fraud, that there is no question of misrepresentation, but that there is a question of misapprehension, directly you begin to enter that uncertain field, and say that every contract in this country is to be subject to variation or alteration by some independent person, because of misapprehension, you are entering upon a very slippery path indeed.
:This Clause says so, surely.
:When this Clause, as it does, says that a contract entered into of this kind shall be the subject of examination, I say that a very great step has been taken, and a good deal could be urged against this particular course. So far as the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee are concerned, I think it will be in the recollection of the House that there was a very significant phrase, in which it was stated that when this matter should be considered by the Insurance Commissioner he must have regard to the legitimate interests of the company concerned. I think hon. Members will agree with that suggestion. What is the suggestion which the hon. Member is making to-night? He made it in Committee. He then made a statement concerning his own constituency. I observe he did not make those statements in the House to-night. He said in Committee that his own town of Middlesbrough had been deceived, that the Mayor had been led into this War Bonds campaign by this particular company, and that the whole thing, so far as this particular effort was concerned, was against the wishes of the local authority and of the head citizen. He does not make that statement to-night, for the good reason that since then that statement has been inquired into, and we are able to check to-night the statements which could not be checked before when the statement was made without notice. I have before me now, so far as Middlesbrough is concerned, this very interesting statement. It says:
"Middlesbrough and District Banking Week. Results already achieved by the Prudential War Bond Scheme."
Then follows a statement by a gentleman whose name will be very well known to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, Councillor T. Bosher, Justice of the Peace. I believe he is one of the gentlemen who supported the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough very strongly. He concludes his statement, after submitting the scheme to examination, with these words:
"The Prudential flag which is still flying over its local office in Albert Road, Middlesbrough, is certainly a great reminder to those who have not done their bit. No wonder the Prudential is such a national institution when they have such good head men as their local superintendent."
He goes on to commend this particular scheme to which my hon. Friend has objected to-night. When the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough made his allegation, it was based on the fact the people of Middlesbrough and the local authority and the mayor—whose statement I also have before me—had repudiated this scheme in its entirety. In fact, I suppose the worst that can be said about the scheme was what was said by the Parmoor Committee—that the large majority of the people have misapprehended their rights in that particular direction. The hon. Member made a statement in Committee that the Middlesbrough people had repudiated the scheme, and that the local authority had done so, and I am giving certain observations of well-known people in Middlesbrough who took no such view. I have here, if the hon. Member desires to hear it, a letter written by the Mayor in connection with that scheme. The Mayor was Mr. Calvert. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the date of the letter? "] The date of the letter was November, 1917. [ Laughter. ] I do not know why my hon. Friends should make any comment on that fact. That was the date on which the scheme was launched and all these policies were issued. If I had said the date was in 1918 or 1919, the obvious reply would have been that that was not the time when the policies were issued. Be that as it may, I only mention these matters in reference to the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. I think, myself, that the Government having adopted the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee, having as Lord Parmoor himself said, gone to the limit in this particular matter, we cannot expect that there should be a revival of all the disputes in connection with policies which are not now in operation. Under this particular Clause all these people who are now claiming and who have grievances have an opportunity of going before the Insurance Commissioner and putting their case, and the Insurance Commissioner is to have regard to that case and also to have regard to the legitimate interests of the company. If that be secured—and the Committee considered it was necessary—then most people will regard this as a reasonable concession in view of the misapprehensions which have arisen, and will feel that the best has been done in difficult circumstances.
:I beg the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) makes a rather serious insinuation as to statements I made in the Committee. I do not wish to traverse the whole ground, but the evidence he brings against me is that a certain gentleman, Councillor T. Bosher, made the statement that the Prudential Company did good work in the matter of war savings or investments.
:In connection with this scheme?
:In connection with this scheme. Councillor T. Bosher does not belong to Middlesbrough, and is not a member of the Middlesbrough Council, but is a member of another town council some miles away. What interest he has in the Prudential Company I do not know.
:My hon. Friend has not dealt with the position of the Mayor of Middlesbrough.
:It is very interesting indeed to listen to some of the apologists for the various insurance companies and societies. Unfortunately, there are very few apologists for the people who have been taken in. When the Union Jack was waved in front of the Union Jackasses we did all sorts of things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Yes, there are hon. Members of this House—numbers of them—who owe their seats to the fact that they stood outside factory gates asking people to invest in War Bonds, and insurance company canvassers were very prominent in that campaign. In my own constituency thousands of people who are now out of work were induced to spend some of their earnings in buying up these insurance policies, believing they were getting something for nothing. Of course, putting a shilling on a horse is a crime, but buying an insurance policy is looked upon as a providential scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Prudential!"] They are too prudent to pretend to understand me. Why is it that the man who still maintains a policy can have redress, and the man who, through unfortunate circumstances, finds himself unemployed cannot get any redress? As I understand the Amendment, it means that all those who entered into the scheme are to have the right of claiming redress. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) seems to think that those who were unfortunate enough to be taken in in the first case are to have no right to redress later on.
The only people who will have a chance of reclamation are those who are now in benefit, but the other man, who, through the force of circumstances over which he has no control, finds himself down and out, although he may have paid in pounds —in many cases £20 and £30—has no claim at all. Talk about robbery. It is a bit of daylight robbery, and Dick Turpin was a gentleman as compared with some of these insurance company directors, some of whom sit in this House. Talk about money for nothing. We are asking in this Amendment only that the men who are least able to help themselves, the people who were led by a wave of patriotic sentiment to put their extra earnings into War Bonds by insurance policies, shall have the right given to them of getting their money back if they cannot get any more. That is all they are asking for; they are not asking for interest on the money that they put in. These companies, which are boasting of their £14,000,000 balance, have got their representatives in this House, men who were supposed to come here not to represent the insurance companies, but to represent the people, and they are sitting here like dumb dogs, but they will go into the Lobby to back up their right to rob.
We are asking for a common piece of justice, not that the people shall have interest paid to them on the money they have invested, but the right to have, the money they paid in returned to them. They are asking for the right to go before the Commissioner, and has not every man who put his money in these policies that right? When we come into power, I hope we will be more just to you, who talk about us, than ever you have been to us. I hope that we will treat you more fairly than you are dealing with us in the matter of this Amendment. You are ruling us out of order, and you are telling us that if we have not been lucky enough to be in work we have no rights, because we have lapsed our claims. From my own constituency I can produce hundreds and hundreds' of cases of people who put their extra earnings into War Bonds by insurance policies. The body-snatcher came round and canvassed the women, and because they had an extra shilling or two to spare, they put them into these policies. These women knew nothing about the legal technicalities of the documents put before them. Have they to consult a lawyer every Monday morning if they put an extra sixpence into the Prudential, which is only one of them? All the insurance companies did the same thing. They put special canvassers on—they might call them special constables now—and they got the people to put their money in, and they got the people, and all that this Amendment, in my opinion, means is that the people who put their money in shall now be given some right to realise the value which they did put in, that they shall have a claim to get their money back if they cannot get any more. If I back a horse and it does not run I get my money back.. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are lucky!"] Yes, but I deal with decent bookmakers. We are only asking that in this matter those concerned should be on the same footing as in our dealing with a decent bookmaker, that the men and women who have put their money into these insurance companies shall be in the same position. I know the right hon. Gentleman himself does not back horses. He has got more sense. I ask the House to support this Amendment, and give justice to those people who are unable to help themselves.
:May I appeal to the House to come to a decision, in view of the fact that we have had a full Debate?
:And might I also make an appeal on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House? I think I may fairly say that what has been said on this side has made an impression because of its reasonableness on the other side, and I believe there are many hon. Members on both sides who would like to go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment. Might I appeal to the Solicitor-General to take the Whips off?
:I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He said quite distinctly and quite definitely that there was only one assurance company which did indulge in this particular form of exploitation. He was under the impression that it was only the Prudential. It is not so. If the hon. Member will turn up the evidence given before the Parmoor Committee he will find on page 79 a witness there giving evidence and producing documentary evidence to show that another office called the Pearl Company had been engaged in the same thing. He gives the instance of a person called Elizabeth Chapman, of Leeds, who had taken out a policy:
"On the 16th February, 1916, she was induced by an agent of the Pearl Life Assurance Company to take out a war bond policy for £100 at a premium of £2 3s. 9d. per year. She was assured that if at any time she was unable to pay the premium the amount paid in would be refunded. It should be clearly understood that no life assurance is involved in the policy at all. Mrs. Chapman paid five quarterly premiums, altogether £10 18s. 9d. on that policy; she then made application to the Pearl Life Assurance Company for the money she had paid in because she could not continue. She is the wife of a soldier on active service and there. were four children. She had paid £10 18s. 9d. on what she believed to be a war bond and they offered her in return £6 13s. 9d. surrender value on that war bond policy as they called it. Therefore the woman loses £4 5s. on a transaction of that kind where there is no insurance attaching to the policy at all. It is simply exploiting the nation's trouble in order to get hold of money."
Surely the poor people who have not been able to meet their premiums have the more right to appeal to the Insurance Commissioner for an examination into their work, and if the office has nothing to hide, why should it object? If the insurance interests on the other side of the House have nothing to hide why-should they object? This is an official being appointed not by us, not by Members of the other side of the House, but by the Government to deal with questions of that kind. If he is satisfied that people are being defrauded and there ought to be a refund of their premiums I submit that this House is not acting fairly in the interests of the poor people if they go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.
:The appeal I would make to the Solicitor-General is to accept this Amendment. If these people had gone to the Post Office and paid 15s. 6d. they had their guarantee of 15s. 6d. back, plus any interest that accrued. We did send tanks round, rightly or wrongly, and the Union Jack, asking these people to put their money at the disposal of the Government, and I think the Solicitor-General will be most unwise if he places the Government in the position of being parties to resist an inquiry into the justice of the claims of these poor people. To my mind it is indefensible, and let me say this: that I disassociate myself entirely with any attacks that have been made upon our great industrial assurance companies, They did a very wonderful work. But I am convinced that in this case the Solicitor-General would be well advised if he left it open for every contributor to go before this tribunal stating his or her case, and then leave it to the decision of the tribunal. It would remove a sense of injustice and give the feeling that they have had fair play and have had an opportunity at any rate to follow their money a little further than just the closing down by an assurance company. I would appeal to the Solicitor-General to accept this. It is only a small matter, but it is a very important matter. Ten pounds, five pounds, to working people was a very big thing, and I would appeal to him not to put the Government and those who support the Government in the position of saying that they refused these poor people the opportunity of appeal in a matter of this kind.
:I would not have risen because I have not been able to study this Bill as thoroughly as I would have liked, but on this particular question I would like to tell the Solicitor-General this: Until I came to this House I was editor of a daily newspaper and on this particular question I had as many letters from people in the country as I had in regard to some other War Bonds which were supposed to have been obtained under false pretences. I want to assure the Solicitor-General that when he says that they cannot find these people it only wants to be known that there is some person to whom they can make their claim. When I heard the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) talking about this I do not really understand his mentality. If it is a small matter then obviously it ought to be conceded immediately. If it is a big matter then there is another reason. There is no argument against this at all. I want to appeal to hon. Members opposite. Numbers of Members will vote who have not heard this discussion; it is rather terrible that this should be so. I am sure those who have heard it will be convinced of the justice of what has been put before us.
:I think there has been a little misapprehension as to the effect of this Clause. This Clause provides that the Commissioner shall consider the application, and if he is of opinion, after giving the society or company an opportunity of being heard, that the conditions of the policy are such as to warrant such a course, he shall direct that, so far as relates to lapse and surrender, the policy and all other policies (if any) issued by the same society or company which contain the same conditions shall be modified in such manner as, having regard to the legitimate interest of the society or company and the other owners of policies, appears to him just, and all policies to which the directions relate shall thereupon have effect as so modified. The proposal in the Amendment is to give something really impracticable. It is to ask the Commissioner to take a number of policies which have come to an end; they no longer exist. It is suggested that the Commissioner shall have the power to have the policy alive again. But on what terms? Is it on the terms of paying up four, five or six premiums. Hon. Members say on the value. That is an entirely different proposal from that which is contained in Clause 30, and a different Clause would be required. This is not the time in which that can be done. No one has suggested such a Clause. The adoption of the proposal would give the Commissioner power which he could not exercise, and it would make this Clause impracticable and unworkable. It may wreck the whole Bill, and, I am afraid, would not give those people the advantages which hon. Members have it in their minds to give. It is on this broad line that I ask hon. Members to accept the Bill as it stands, and I hope we shall now come to a decision.
:Is it not the case that Clause 30 specifically says that the owners of existing War Bond policies may have their policies altered so as to benefit them by having a surrender value? If the terms of existing policies may be altered so that the policy-holders may get a surrender value, why not alter or modify policies which have lapsed?
:Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman introduce into the Bill a Clause which will benefit everybody?
:If the Solicitor-General is sympathetic to the ideas expressed by Members who have spoken, is it possible that a Clause could be introduced in another place?
Question put: "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 109, Noes, 163.
Division No. 155.] AYES. [12.43 a.m. Adams, D. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Potts, John S. Ammon, Charles George Harbord, Arthur Price, E. G. Batey, Joseph Hardie, George D. Pringle, W. M. R. Berkeley, Captain Reginald Hartshorn, Vernon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Bonwick, A. Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Ritson, J. Briant, Frank Hayday, Arthur Roberts, C. H. (Derby) Broad, F. A. Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Brotherton, J. Herriotts, J. Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Saklatvala, S. Buchanan, G. Hill, A. Salter, Dr. A. Burgess, S. Hinds, John Scrymgeour, E. Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James Chapple, W. A. Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Charleton, H. C. Jarrett, G. W. S. Simpson, J. Hope Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sitch, Charles H. Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, T. (Pontefract) Dunnico, H. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) Ede, James Chuter Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Stephen, Campbell Edge, Captain Sir William Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Warne, G. H. Entwistle, Major C. F. Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Lansbury, George Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Fairbairn, R. R. Lawson, John James Westwood, J. Fildes, Henry Leach, W. Whiteley, W. Foot, Isaac Linfield, F. C. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Fraser, Major Sir Keith Lunn, William Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Gosling, Harry M'Entee, V. L. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Gould, James C. McLaren, Andrew Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) Gray, Frank (Oxford) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Moreing, Captain Algernon H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Groves, T. Murray, John (Leeds, West) Mr. Vivian Phlilipps and Sir Arthur Marshall. Guest, J. (York, W. R, Hemsworth) O'Grady, Captain James Guthrie, Thomas Maule Paling, W.
NOES. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Clayton, G. C. Hudson, Capt. A. Ainsworth, Captain Charles Cobb, Sir Cyril Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Cope, Major William Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Curzon, Captain Viscount Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Balfour, George (Hampstead) Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Lamb, J. Q Banks, Mitchell Dawson, Sir Philip Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Barnett, Major Richard W. Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Barnston, Major Harry Edmondson, Major A. J. Greaves-Lord, Walter Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devizes) Ednam, Viscount Lort-Williams, J. Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Lougher, L. Betterton, Henry B. Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Lumley, L. R. Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) Falcon, Captain Michael McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Blades, Sir George Rowland Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Manville, Edward Blundell, F. N. Ford, Patrick Johnston Margesson, H. D. R. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Forestier-Walker, L. Mercer, Colonel H. Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Galbraith, J. F. W. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Brass, Captain W, Ganzoni, Sir John Molloy, Major L. G. S. Brassey, Sir Leonard Garland, C. S. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Goff, Sir R. Park Morden, Col. W. Grant Brittain, Sir Harry Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Halstead, Major D. Murchison, C. K. Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Nall, Major Joseph Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Butt, Sir Alfred Harrison, F. C. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Button, H. S. Henn. Sir Sydney H. Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Cautley, Henry Strother Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Paget, T. G. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Parker, Owen (Kettering) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hopkins, John W. W. Pease, William Edwin Chapman, Sir S. Houfton, John Plowright Penny, Frederick George Churchman, Sir Arthur Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Sandon, Lord Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Peto, Basil E. Shepperson, E. W. Wallace, Captain E. Privett, F. J. Skelton, A. N. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hult) Raeburn, Sir William H. Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) Wells, S R Raine, W. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Remer, J. R. Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Reynolds, W. G. W. Sparkes, H. W. Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Robertson-Despencer, Major(lsl'gt'nW) Stanley, Lord Winterton, Earl Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Steel, Major S. Strang Wise, Frederick Roundell, Colonel R. F. Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Wolmer, Viscount Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) Russell, William (Bolton) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. Yerburgh, R. D. T. Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thorpe, Captain John Henry Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
CLAUSE 33.—( Disabilities of collectors, etc. )
(2) A collector shall not be present at any meeting of the society or company.
:I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "A collector," and to insert instead thereof the words that if this Amendment be carried, members of the staff of a friendly collecting society, who are bonâ fide members of the society, will be prevented from attending the annual meetings and that, therefore, the members of the Labour party, who are always proclaiming democracy, ought to be the last to move an Amendment of this kind.
But there may be a. friendly collecting society with half a million members in England, Scotland and Wales, and with a head office in London having a staff of 500. That staff of 500 might be compelled by the committee of management to attend the annual meeting and bring about a decision contrary to the wishes of 500,000 members. That is the whole aim of the Amendment. When I made a statement that there had been a case in the Law Courts, I was asked why should there be this Amendment when there had been only one case. We are told also that, if there is anything done of this kind, the Law Courts are always open. But why should it be necessary in the House of Commons to make a statement of that kind. We have the opportunity of making the law clear and preventing the necessity of individuals having recourse to the law. We have to realise that there may be a committee of management of a wealthy friendly society able to manipulate the annual meeting and turn the friendly society into a limited liability company, and that they could do that because their staff could not refuse to obey their orders. What chance has a member, or a group of members, in Lancashire, against a committee of management of that kind with all these resources at their command—resources made by the contributions of the very members who protest. I trust, after the statement made in Com- mittee, that the Solicitor-General will look favourably on this Amendment.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure that whoever treats this Amendment lightly, it will not be the Solicitor-General, who has conducted the business to-night on behalf of the Government. We have supplied him with documentary evidence proving that meetings have been manipulated, and that they are deliberately packed. At these packed meetings extraordinary proposals are made and carried for the raising of the managers' and directors' salaries by very large sums. I trust the hon. and learned Gentleman will oblige the House by reading out some of that evidence as to what happens at some of those packed meetings. This Amendment does not look like democracy on the face of it, but at present, toy Statute, a collector may not attend these meetings. A collector is barred for the good and sufficient reason that in practice he was used by the management to feather the management's nest. Now we propose that to the term "collector" shall be added certain other classes of employés, and we have evidence given before the Parmoor Committee that there is a friendly society, of which the head office is in London, which had meetings in its office and then adjourned meetings held outside. What possible chance had members in the North of England and Scotland to attend these annual meetings and vote down 500 to 1,000 officials and clerks.
1.0 A.M.
The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) put questions to witnesses which brought out that point very clearly. He will recollect examining some of those witnesses. He brought out very clearly how these meetings can be packed. We are perfectly well aware that some officials must attend these annual meetings. It is impossible to expect that members who attend have any knowledge of insurance, but it is a bird of another feather when the meetings are going to be flooded out by a staff organised for the purpose, when motions are drafted at these meetings, which feather the nests of the officials who have in fact no power to take the control out of the hands of the members altogether and place it in the hands of the permanent officials of these institutions. The Parmoor Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that the present power which prevents a collector attending should be extended to superintendents. The Solicitor-General in this Bill carefully takes out—I do not say it in any offensive sense—superintendent. These annual meetings should be held free and not packed and this can be only done if such an Amendment as is moved is accepted by the House.
:Hon. Members are quite right that this proposal was before the Committee and I promised to give consideration to the question. This Bill is framed upon the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee. When the point was before the Committee I was unaware of any case except one where there had been a packed meeting, and I said it was rather a drastic proposal to exclude members of a society from their own society merely upon the evidence of one case. Then hon. Members assured me that there were a large number of cases, and I asked for information and would give it consideration. I waited three weeks and I received no information till Monday evening when I was handed a bundle of documents. I looked into the information as soon as I could. There were three cases where there were meetings, which were alleged to have been packed. One of them occurred in 1907 and one in 1908. I disregarded both these cases; they were too ancient history really to merit attention. The third case was the case already mentioned, that of the Liverpool Victoria case in 1920. In that particular case se large number of employés were present. But that is the only one that has been brought to my attention and I do not feel able upon that case alone to take this drastic step and to say that these employés cannot attend the meetings of the society of which they are members. I think that what hon. Members have in their minds is a fear that some of the societies are going to be turned into companies by these packed meetings. Hon. Members should look at Clause 38, and under the provisions such a proposal can be ventilated in the Court, and the Commissioner has the right to be heard against the proposal. I only mention that because the Government stiffened up that Clause in order to prevent any secret underhand conversion by packing meet- ings. We have made that impossible, and in the absence of any evidence, except in one case which is exceptional and will never be repeated, I do not feel able to put in this rather drastic and undemocratic proposal. The Parmoor Committee suggested that collectors and superintendents should be included. The Bill only says "collectors." To show how anxious I am to frame this Bill on the Parmoor Committee Report, I will add to the Clause "and superintendents." Then we shall be exactly in accordance with the Parmoor Committee recommendations, and I hope that will be accepted.
:If there be any consistency or political honesty, if such a thing be possible in the minds of hon. Members opposite, I would like to know how they can possibly refuse this Amendment. We have had examples in this House during the last week or so of Bills being introduced for the protection of trade union members against the tyranny of trade union officials which hon. Members opposite have voted for.
:I voted against it.
:Here we have a proposal which prevents societies being bossed by the officials. If there is any consistency, hon. Members who voted for the protection of members of trade unions who did not want protection ought to vote for this Amendment.
:Would the Solicitor-General be willing to add the word "clerks" to the word "superintendents"?
:I do not feel able to go beyond the recommendations of the Committee which I mentioned.
:The Solicitor-General has said that the Government have gone the length of stiffening up the Bill, in order to prevent the packing of a meeting to prevent the conversion of a society to a limited liability company. Has he thought of the packing of a meeting with regard to the emoluments of the officials. If these were organisations that held annual conferences through delegates from branches there might be something to be said for the position of the Solicitor-General. But what of the case of a meeting where there is a large mass of officials attending whose views are bound to be coloured by the influence of the head office officials. Seeing that the Solicitor-General has stiffened up the Bill in regard to a particular thing he may also do the same in regard to this other matter. It is after all only democratic that those who are paying for certain benefits should not have their rights prejudiced by the paid officials of a society. It is not a question of anti-democracy. It is a question of giving to the members of a society the full rights of membership and not leaving the control of the society to a select bureaucracy. That is the very antithesis of democracy. That is what the Amendment proposes to do: to have the societies placed in such a position as will enable the members to have their say. Seeing the Solicitor-General has gone the length of putting a bar on superintendents and collectors, he should include those other officials who are connected with the head office and are more directly under the domination of the permanent officials than either the collectors or the superintendents.
:I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "collector" ["A collector shall not be present"], insert the words "or superintendent." — [ The Solicitor-General. ]
CLAUSE 34.—( Restriction on employment of persons to procure new business. )
(1) A collecting society or industrial assurance company shall not, nor shall any person employed by such a society or company, employ any person not being a person in the regular employment of the society or company to procure or endeavour to procure any person to enter into a contract of industrial assurance, and no person not regularly in the employment of such a society or company shall procure or endeavour to procure any person to enter into such a contract:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent a deputy-collector in the regular employment of a collector from procuring contracts of industrial assurance on behalf of the collecting society by which that collector is employed.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words
"Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent a deputy-collector in the regular employment of a collector from pro- curing contracts of industrial assurance on behalf of the collecting society by which that collector is employed."—[ Mr. A. V. Alexander. ]
CLAUSE 43.—( Regulations. )
The Commissioner may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make regulations for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed and for imposing fees and generally for carrying this Act into effect and all regulations so made shall forthwith be laid before both Houses of Parliament:
:I beg to move, after the word "Parliament" ["Houses of Parliament"], to insert the words:
"and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House in the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat, that after the Regulations are laid before it, praying the Regulations may be annulled, they shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new Regulations. If the Session of Parliament ends before such twenty days as aforesaid have expired, the Regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next Session as if they had not previously been laid."
Such provisions are well known to the House in regard to Measures where there is to be any administration or government by Regulation by a Department or a Commissioner, and it should be quite within the province of this House to criticise or raise objection to these Regulations before they become operative.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
:The only hesitation I have in accepting this Amendment arises from its being a manuscript one. I do not know that it is in the usual form, for I have only just had a draft of the Amendment. I do not know whether it is quite in the right form, and I suggest that there are only two matters left to be provided for by Regulation under Clause 43. These arise under Clause 26 (2) and under Clause 28 (2, b )—as to the amount of the policy to be allowed under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. The main point has been raised earlier in the evening about the termination of the policies. I do not like to keep the House, but I do not think that it is very reasonable for the hon. Member to come along with a manuscript Amendment when he has had three or four weeks to put it down. If I do not accept it, I hope he will not press me.
:I did not make any real speech because I thought it would be accepted at once. It is generally Members on the other side of the House who have insisted upon Regulations made by Departments and officials being laid before Parliament so that the House may discuss them and exercise control over them. I would point out that it is not clear that the matters to which the Solicitor-General referred are the only matters regarding which Regulations may be made. The Clause states:
"The Commissioner may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make Regulations for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed."
As the Clause stands, it does not make provisions for objections being taken and an Address being presented. The Clause stops abruptly.
:I will take it that if there be any informality in the words, it may be necessary to deal with the form of the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Bill be now read the Third time."
:In the main this Bill is good, and I would not think of voting against the Third Reading, but there are one or two observations regarding it which I will make very briefly. This Bill, as amended, will, I think, receive the Royal Assent and our interest will be in its administration. Hon. Members will have observed in looking over the Bill, and listening to the Debate generally, that the whole working of it when it becomes an Act will really depend on the personality of the Commissioner. He will find many dragons in his path if he does his duty, and if he does not do his duty the Bill will be a dead letter. There is great need for the services of the Commissioner, and also that he should be supported, as was shown by the figures before the Parmoor Committee. It is generally realised that this industrial insurance, which is for death or endowment, is maintained by the poorest class of the com- munity. The premiums are collected weekly from door to door and there are frequent lapses and losses. Many cases of injustice have arisen owing to the helplessness and want of knowledge of the people insured. This business is extremely expensive as things are at present. The income of 62 societies and companies was shown to be 39½ millions, their expenses were 17 millions, and the amount paid in claims was 11½ millions. Whatever the benefits the holders of the policies get they pay a high price and anything which can be done to reduce this expense should be done. The matter should be safeguarded so that the poorest class of the people should receive justice and value for their money. I appeal to the Government to have it made known annually that there is such a person as the Commissioner who can be applied to. It ought not to be difficult to make these people aware, say once a year, that anyone aggrieved in this matter of industrial assurance can apply to the Commissioner for redress.
We have had certain small concessions made on the Report stage, the principal one being the undertakers. I am glad that concession was made, and also the one which is made by the hon. Gentleman on the question of the rules being laid before the House.
Before we part with this Bill I want to say one more word on the question of the War Bond policies. This is a very grave question indeed, and it does merit the attention of Parliament. These policies were commenced in 1916–17, and the figures are that 1,882,000 persons took out policies. That is admitted, and also that at least 900,000 lapsed. My figures are 938,243 persons had either lapsed or surrendered their policies and only 988,000 odd paid up. There are some very extraordinary figures connected with that. The interest alone on the sum paid in premiums comes to £1,665,000. Up to the 31st March, 1923, there had been collected in premiums £14,500,000. I am told that these are Board of Trade figures, that there were practically in a great many cases no insurance risks. They were looked upon as an investment. Where there was an insurance risk it was very slight. In order to bring this point out I want to quote the case of one man in my own constituency called Dewland. I have the actual facts of the case here. Dewland was a man of 24 years of age. He paid £1 a month under his policy and at the end of eight years he will have paid £104. He is entitled at the end of 10 years to £95, whereas he has paid out £104. The company in the meantime get £44 interest. At the end of 1 year (he is insured for 25 years) he has paid £13 in premiums, less 5 per cent. At the end of two years he will have paid £26 more than the amount for which he is insured. At the end of three years he will be insured for £37 10s., less 5 per cent., and he will have paid in £39. The ordinary death policy on fair terms at £1 a month would, I am informed, be worth between £400 and £500, but all he gets is this miserable sum. The ordinary endowment policy at the end of 10 years for the same payments should bring £200; all he gets is this £95. That shows that the conditions are most onerous, most unfair. The poor people who take out these policies would never have done it but for the abnormal circumstances, the excitement of the War and the appeals made to them by the State and by their neighbours to invest in War stock. The surrender value of the policy after two years is about 60 per cent. of the premiums. This Bill suggests 75 per cent. of the premiums as the surrender value at the end of three years. There is no insurance at all. The companies had to take up War stock in any case, and what has happened? They have taken up the War stock, and there have been dupes to the number of over a million. I am afraid in thousands of cases they have had to lapse their policies and have not got a penny.
The facts that I have given show that there is a great vested interest that has become immensely wealthy by methods of this kind, which are reprehensible. The Commissioner will have, if he is to do his duty, to protect poor people very often ignorant of the conditions. He will have to protect these people against these great wealthy corporations. He will have a very hard task. If he is to do his duty I fear he will be exposed to every sort of attack, and I hope that the Government are going to support him and give him a proper start to help him and to see that he is protected. If he does not do his duty, then somebody must be put there who will. We are really trying to help a particularly helpless class. The Bill goes some way in that direction, but most of its virtue will depend on the way it is administered. I have taken this last opportunity of drawing attention to the scandalous doings that went on, and to show the House that a crying need for redress exists. The Government should be made aware of the condition of affairs which this Bill attempts inadequately to remedy.
:I gather from the reply of the Solicitor-General that he was sympathetic towards the aim put forward on this side with regard to War Bond policies. In view of the feeling expressed, I want to ask him whether he is willing to consider the possibility of appointing a Committee of Inquiry or of making further investigations into the facts of the case, so that we may really know what has happened. We do not press him to give a reply now, but to keep his mind open. I submit that, from the findings and the evidence of the Parmoor Committee, an exhaustive inquiry was not made.
:I wish to thank the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has, both in Committee and on Report, met the various points brought to his notice. There is only one point on which I would make a reservation, and that is the matter which has been referred to on the Third Reading by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). That is an outstanding issue which has not been dealt with either in the discussions or in the provisions of the Bill. In the Report of the Parmoor Committee only a passing reference is made to the matter of War Bond policies. My recollection of the evidence that was taken is that a serious case was made out before that Committee, but had the evidence been taken now instead of three years ago the case that could have been made would have been far more grave. I am sure that if all the facts, as now known, were brought out, that Committee would have suggested far stronger provisions than those which the Government have adopted. I regret, therefore, that the Solicitor-General has not seen his way to give due attention to the changed conditions. It is true that, in the year 1920, when the Parmoor Committee was investigating this matter, a large num- ber of cases had arisen in which it appeared that there was a hardship arising to a large number of innocent people who, for various reasons, had been induced to accept these War Bond policies. But, since then, conditions have been very much worsened for the great body of those who took up those policies. In 1920 the country was still prosperous. The great bulk of the people did not have their wages reduced, nor had they fallen into unemployment. The result was that some of those who improvidently undertook obligations which it was difficult for them to fulfil were still able to keep up the policies. But the events of the last two years have greats aggravated the situation, and, while it is true that the number of lapsed policies exceeds a little over 330,000, if you take the surrenders and lapses together they are well over 900,000, almost equal to 50 per cent. of the policies.
Under these conditions the Bill as it is leaving the House is offering protection only to half of those who have been insured under these policies. The other half whose hardship varies in proportion to the amount of premiums paid are left altogether without redress. Under these circumstances I do not think the Government are entitled to leave the matter where it is. I think it should be a matter for further inquiry as to how far those who have fallen out of insurance have suffered and the amount of money which has, in fact, been lost. We have had no particulars given as to how much money has been lost under this War Bonds scheme. Inquiries have been made from time to time, but the companies have refused to disclose the particulars. Questions have been addressed to the Government, but every question up to the present has failed to elicit any answer. The Government surely have the means of ascertaining exactly how much these poor people have lost and how much the companies have profited by their misfortunes. I have no doubt the Member for West Woolwich could give us some information on this matter. He is in possession of better information on nearly all these points than any other hon. Member of the House, and even at this time of the morning I should have hoped he would have been prepared to communicate something on the matter.
As I remarked at an earlier stage, this is the one matter on which he has been economical of the assistance and information he has been willing to afford to the House. It was only as a result of an appeal I made that he was induced to take any part in the discussion on the Report stage, and what was significant reticence on his part was only less significant than the speech he made when eventually he broke silence. To do him justice, when he has a good case he makes a good job of his case. I do not know an hon. Member who can handle a case better and put information at his disposal in better form before the House. But on this occasion he really added nothing to what the House knew of the matter. He traversed some of the statements or arguments which had been adduced by my hon. Friends or myself. His sole contribution to the Debate was to try and convict the Member for Middlesbrough of the inaccuracy of a statement made of his own constituency.
:On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the point?
:I regret if I have said anything of which the hon. and festive Member disapproves.
:Will the hon. Gentleman address me.
:I was addressing the House, Sir. I merely expressed my regret that I had called out the disapproval of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hope I have not said anything discourteous in making that observation. At the time I was interrupted I was referring to the argument put before the House on this matter, and it was in view, mainly, of the inconclusive observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite that I was endeavouring to impress members of the Government with the necessity of doing something more on this matter. The discussion has shown there is a strong feeling on the matter all over the country. It is a feeling which has found expression not only on these benches and the Labour benches, but I think hon. Members on the Government side were equally strongly impressed. I am quite certain of this, that had there been a free vote of this House, and had the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth not decided to exert his authority, we would have had a very different decision. I think these circumstances must be well known to the Solicitor-General, as well as to the Patronage Secretary, and have influenced the Government in relation to this matter. It is true that a decision has been taken and that, so far as the Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading is concerned, nothing further can be done. But Ministers must recognise and be fully aware that that decision does not represent really the considered view of the majority of the hon. Members of this House. In these circumstances I venture to suggest why we should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough suggested, have some further assurance from the Government in this matter. It was said, I think by the hon. Member for Woolwich, that people suffering under this have their remedy in the Law Courts. Many of them are seeking such a remedy. But these are poor people, many of them unemployed, and the companies which are sued are able to delay proceedings. They have unlimited resources at their disposal. They can keep a case alive and pile up legal expenses. It does not matter to them. It can go on interminably, but the longer a case goes on the longer these people are prevented from obtaining redress.
I do not want to quote examples, but I will give one case where the policy was taken out in 1920—only a month before the Parmoor Committee reported, and obviously it was not one of the cases before the Committee. The man was informed by two canvassers that they were selling 5 per cent. War Stock to ex-service men only. Here you have an appeal to ex-service men—to their patriotism. This man decided to purchase £100 worth in monthly instalments. After paying £14 on account he became unemployed. The company refused to give him anything, and as he has failed to get any satisfaction an action has been entered in the County Court. I am told that the case has been called on seven occasions, or has been down for hearing on seven occasions. This man's representative has appeared in Court on these days. It does not matter to the company, to whom it costs comparatively little. But to this ex-service man who paid £14 and is losing his money it is a serious consideration.
2.0 A.M.
There are many other cases of exactly the same kind where men are being put to heavy costs in legal proceedings which they cannot afford. Where a grievance of this kind is publicly disclosed, it is for the Government to go further than they have done to deal with policies that have lapsed. I have endeavoured not to state the matter at undue length. I think I have stated it with moderation and restraint, and I do not think that even the hon. Member for West Woolwich would say that I have endeavoured to introduce any prejudice in it at all. I have not sought to blame the companies in the matter. But on this occasion I think hon. Members will admit that a reasonable case has been put, and that in the circumstances I think the learned Solicitor-General will admit that there is a matter for further investigation, and, if possible, something should be done to redress the very serious grievance to which attention has been called and in regard to which such good feeling has been manifested in all parts of the House.
:I only want to make an appeal. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General if he will consider the points that have been raised and if he is prepared to meet us. Some of us were asked to appear on public platforms during the War period to meet the financial difficulties of the nation. Numbers of workmen at that time were doing fairly well. They were getting good wages, and they were asked to invest their surplus earnings. They did so at our request. If it had not been for us doing that kind of work they would not have done it. They have put their money in, and now they have lost it. All we ask is that the Government should provide means for getting their money back. They are not asking for interest. They are only asking to get a bit of their own back, and the Amendment we propose to-night was to give them some recognition in their patriotic sacrifice made during the War. Is the Solicitor-General going to do anything, or can he do anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or will he do anything?"] I have heard hon. Members in the Division Lobby say that if it were not for the Government Whips they would vote with us. They never gave a more regrettable vote in their lives than they have given to-night.
I am only a common or garden person, but hundreds of people in my constituency are suffering in consequence of putting their money in because they were asked to do so, and now they have lost it. We have had retrospective legislation to guarantee landlords. Why cannot we have something for the workman who put his extra few shillings a week into War Bonds. Why cannot he have his rights guaranteed 1 Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor? Evidently there is, according to the decision of the House when the Government is not prepared to meet us. All we are asking is that the lapsed policies shall be recognised and that the holders shall have the right of appeal to the Insurance Commissioner. Is not that a fair argument? They may be turned down when they do appeal, but surely they should have the right of appeal. Is there any argument against it. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself has no argument. He is a lawyer, I am a labourer. Up to now the lawyers have proved to be wrong and the labourers right. I do appeal with all sincerity to the hon. Gentleman opposite that he will at least give us some consideration in this matter, and to the people who have paid all this money. I know some of the directors of some of the insurance companies myself. Men who I worked with, who were nothing when they started and now are worth thousands mostly made out of lapsed policies. They are big people, great pots, and that is where they make their money. All we are asking for is protection. Is no protection to be given? I hope when the Labour party gets into power the arguments that have been advanced to-night will be used by us. I never want to be as unjust to you as you have been to us. I want to treat you fairly as I hope you will treat us fairly to-night. Give the people back their money. Give them the right to claim, let them come before the Commission, let them prove their case, and if they justify their case, give them back what they have paid in.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
:I object.
:I understood it was agreed to take this Bill, and I would appeal to the hon. Member to let us have it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday, 28th May.— [ Colonel Leslie Wilson. ]
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday, 28th May.— [ Colonel Leslie Wilson. ]
Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Bill
Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[ Mr. Bridgeman. ]
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
CLAUSE 2.—( Amendment of S. 13 of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920.)
(1) The following Sub-sections shall be substituted for Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section thirteen of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920:
(2A) NO proceedings for an indictable offence against this Act shall in England or Wales be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and no person shall, on conviction for any offence of contravening or failing to comply with any Regulation under this Act relating to the keeping of books or the issuing or dispensing of prescriptions containing drugs to which this Act applies, be sentenced to imprisonment without the
Lords Amendments:
In Sub-section (1) ("2A") leave out the words
"No proceedings for an indictable offence against this Act shall in England or Wales be instituted except "
and insert
"Subject as hereinafter provided no person shall in England or Wales be proceeded against by indictment for an offence under this Act unless the proceedings are instituted."
At end of Sub-section 1 ("2A"), insert
"Provided that the provisions of this Sub-section prohibiting proceedings by indictment unless the proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Attorney-General or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, shall not apply where the person charged claims in pursuance of Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to be tried by a jury."
Agreed to.
CLAUSE 6.—( Short title, interpretation and extent. )
(1) This Act may be cited as the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Act, 1923.
Lords Amendment:
At end of Sub-section (1), insert
"and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920, and this Act in so far as it amends that Act may be cited together as the Dangerous Drugs Acts, 1920 and 1923."
Agreed to.
Consolidation Bills
Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [9th May] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills be now considered."— [ Colonel Gibbs. ]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, "That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session."—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Committee nominated of Lieut.-Colonel England, Mr. Foot, Mr. Maddocks, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, and Mr. Short:
Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered, "That Three be the quorum." —[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords.]
Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [ 19th April ] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the Guardianship of Infants Bill [ Lords ] be now considered.—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, "That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the said Bill."—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Committee nominated of Mr. Cairns, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Gerald Hurst, Mr. Nesbitt, Mr. Robert Richardson, and Mrs. Wintringham.
Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered, "That Three be the quorum." —[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after Two o'clock a.m. Thursday, 17th May.