asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House what were the stipulations made by the British Government as a condition precedent to their withdrawal of their objection to the admission of Abyssinia to membership of the League of Nations; and whether he can assure the House that such stipulations have been fulfilled by Abyssinia?

The special condition upon which the United Kingdom, in common with other Members of the League, agreed in 1923 to the admission of Abyssinia was that that country should sign a declaration undertaking (1) to endeavour to secure the complete suppression of slavery and of the slave trade; (2) to abide by the rules which other countries with territories in Africa had already agreed to follow in regard to the import of arms and munitions; and (3) to provide the Council with information when so requested, and to take into consideration any recommendations which the Council might make about Abyssinia's obligations. I am circulating the text of this declaration in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As regards the second part of the question, it would be difficult, on the information available, to express an opinion on the efficacy of the measures taken by the Ethiopian Government in regard to slavery. These measures have recently been reviewed by the Committee of Experts on Slavery appointed by the Council of the League. The Committee emphasised the importance of the supply by the Ethiopian Government to the League of particulars of the measures it was taking and the obstacles it was encountering in its action against slavery.

Is it not well known that slavery has not been abolished in Abyssinia, and that our own Colonies have actually had raids not very long ago upon them for slaves; and does not my right hon. Friend consider that Abyssinia, not having fulfilled the express conditions on which she was admitted to the membership of the League, has forfeited any right she may have as a member of the League?

My hon. Friend has raised a very wide issue, which will, no doubt, be dealt with in the Debate on Thursday, and meanwhile let me say to him that the League is seized of this question. Any complaints, if complaints are to be made, should be made to the League. Our responsibility is collective, not individual, in this respect. Moreover, there may be a difference—I am not now arguing whether it is so or not—between the raids carried out by un-authorised individuals and raids that might be suggested to have had some connection with the Abyssinian Government. These are questions the League must consider.

Is it not a fact that Abyssinia has taken, and is taking, steps to abolish slavery?

So far as my information goes, the Abyssinian Government is doing its utmost to abolish slavery, but I say again that this question is essentially one for the League of Nations to consider.

In the tentative proposals made by His Majesty's Government for the cession of territory to Abyssinia, was any statement made with regard to the slave traffic?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any report on the decisions of the League Committee of Thirteen, which has been studying measures to render the Covenant more effective in the organisation of collective security?

As my predecessor informed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 29th May, the Committee of Thirteen, at the close of its first session, appointed a sub-committee of jurists and a sub-committee on economic and financial questions. The former sub-committee has already met, and the latter is now in session. The reports of these sub-committees will be presented on 24th July to the full committee, which will then proceed to draw up its report to the Council of the League.

Would it not be more successful if an additional member were appointed?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the hardship to producers of small quantities of milk resulting from the present scale of levies charged by the Milk Marketing Board; and, whether, in view of the narrow margin upon which such producers operate, he can state whether any steps are contemplated to improve their position?

I do not think that the provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme discriminate against producers of small quantities of milk. Producer-retailers, with not more than four cows, have the alternative of contributing either at the appropriate rate per gallon of milk sold by retail, or on the basis of ten shillings per cow per annum, whichever is more favourable to them. Producers with not more than four cows who sell only by wholesale are exempt from all the provisions of the scheme. Any representations which producers may wish to make on practical difficulties experienced by them can, I think, best be made to the Milk Marketing Board, who are the representatives of the producers, or to the Milk Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain who will no doubt give careful consideration to the position of small producers of milk in formulating any recommendations for the improvement of organised milk marketing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the levy charged now to support this business is so onerous that many of the producers have been forced out of business altogether?

The best place where they can make representations is to the producers' representatives on the Milk Board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any action has been taken by the Governments of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland to insist upon the compulsory treatment of cattle against the warble-fly pest; and whether, in view of the importance of ridding this country of this pest, he will consider the desirability of making representations to these Governments to the effect that action should be taken in this matter at an early date?

I understand that a few years ago a campaign of propaganda by experiment and demonstration was begun in the Irish Free State and in Northern Ireland by the respective agricultural departments, but there are no compulsory measures in force there. I am considering the suggestion made in the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing, at the port of entry the prohibition of entry, during the months February to June, of all cattle which bear the characteristic lump of warble-fly maggots upon them?

I could not answer that question without further consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the labour conditions at the York beet-sugar factory, where members of the staff are working 12 hours a day for seven days a week during the beet-lifting period from September to January, and where Sunday labour is being largely continued during the rest of the year; and whether he will make representations to stop such unnecessary Sunday labour?

I am informed that, except when the day and night shifts are changed, only the salaried senior technical staff are required to work longer than eight hours a day during the beet-sugar campaign and that this is necessary to preserve continuity as between one shift of workers and the next. The beet-sugar manufacturing process is a continuous operation from the time the raw beet enters the factory at one end until it comes out as sugar at the other and during this process Sunday labour is essential. As regards the rest of the year, this factory refines raw sugar, the product not being entitled to subsidy. I understand, however, that no employé is required to work longer than eight hours a day and that only in exceptional circumstances is Sunday labour necessary.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, as it is now unnecessary to let the old Botanical Gardens area in Regent's Park to pay the upkeep of the Queen Mary Garden, he will, on the expiry of contracts, forbid this garden being prepared, used, and reconditioned all through the hottest weeks of June and July for private parties, fairs, and fetes in which the lawns are covered with booths which injure the grass and gravel paths and make the garden untidy, disturbing the general public and depriving it of free access to the garden?

Queen Mary's Gardens are used, not for two months as stated by my hon. Friend, but for two days only, for the Theatrical Garden Party and the Post Office Orphanage fetes. The rose garden itself remains open to the public. For the rest, I can only refer the hon. Member to my full answer to him on 1st July.

Has my right hon. Friend visited the Gardens in the past week? Did he see them yesterday and find two lawns covered with dismantled booths and empty bottles and crates, spread over the lawns? Did he see men working yesterday to clear the paper and litter, which made the place look like a costermonger's Bank Holiday fete?

As I have explained, for many years past these two fetes have been held at that place, and when I took over the Gardens I felt that I could not interfere with such a long user. I gave an undertaking that no other fetes would be allowed. I have visited the Gardens recently and have made efforts to ensure that us these fetes are held on a Saturday there will be a special gang employed on the Sunday to clear up the inevitable mess, and I am told that this morning the Gardens are admirably clear.

asked the Attorney-General whether and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce a further Bill to promote the revision of the Statute Law, in continuation of the Statute Law Revision Act of 1927?

I have been asked to reply. A Statute Law Revision Bill is in course of preparation and, it is hoped, will be ready for introduction next year. The Bill in course of preparation deals with the early part of the Statute Book, and therefore involves a very large amount of research.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Attorney-General of Tanganyika territory arising out of a recent case of alleged arson, and laying down that a person in that territory who lends money on a mortgage is given possession of the hypothecated property from the date of signature of the mortgage bond and that, accordingly, no application is necessary to the court before foreclosure; and whether he will arrange for favourable consideration to be given to the introduction into Tanganyika of an agricultural mortgagors' relief ordinance on the same lines as obtains in Kenya?

I have seen a reference in the Press to this matter, but I have no official information. I am asking the Acting Governor of Tanganyika to send me a report on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the rapidly increasing population employed in mines in the Gold Coast, he will consider the setting up there of a labour department?

No such proposal is before me, but I am giving the matter my consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the details of the price paid for liquid milk by the Milk Marketing Board when this milk is used for the manufacture of cheese; and whether the price paid by the Milk Marketing Board's factories is lower than the price paid by factories privately owned?

The board make monthly payments to the producers at an average price per gallon irrespective of whether their milk is used for liquid consumption or for manufacture. The price debited to the board's own factories in respect of milk for the manufacture of cheese is the same as that charged to private manufacturers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has come to any decision in regard to the marriage ceremonies performed at Gretna Green; and whether he will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of either making such unions illegal or else confirming their legality by some further machinery?

I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on this subject on the 25th June.

In view of the dubiety which exists in the minds of those who have gone through this irregular ceremony as to whether they are married or not and the distress which is frequently occasioned in later years by those who have gone through this ceremony, will the right hon. Gentleman take early steps to have the whole matter regularised?

As I have told the hon. and gallant Member, I hope to have an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Church of Scotland and other bodies, and I can assure him that there will be no undue delay.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons under the means test who have been unemployed for one year, for two years, for three years, for four years, and for five years and over, up to the latest available date, in the county of Durham, including the boroughs?

As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember this when making the draft regulations?

I will remember all relevant facts.

asked the Minister of Labour the amount paid per week in the county of Durham, including the boroughs, by the present administration of the means test; and the amount which would be paid if the recipients received unemployment standard benefit?

The amount of unemployment assistance allowances paid at local offices of the Ministry in the County of Durham, including the boroughs, in the week ended 28th June, 1935, was about £97,000. The amount which would have been paid to the recipients by way of unemployment benefit is not known and could not be ascertained without an examination as to eligibility and a computation in each individual case, which I should not feel justified in undertaking.

Have not the Ministry of Labour given an estimate before of what has been paid under the means test. If they have done it before, why cannot they do it now?

I could not answer that question without notice.

Did not the late Minister of Labour give an answer to the effect that £15,000,000 a year had been saved, £45,000,000 in three years. If the late Minister of Labour could give an answer like that, why cannot an answer be given now?

I do not think that I can be expected to answer that question without notice.

You will have to answer it.

asked the Minister of Labour the weekly cost for the present administration of the means test in the county of Durham, including the boroughs; and the estimated weekly cost for administration if standard benefit was being paid?

Separate accounts to show the cost of the administration of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit by areas are not kept. I regret, therefore, that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Is it not necessary to keep separate statements on this matter in view of its importance, in order that proper conclusions may be drawn?

When the Commissioners were in Durham we were told what they cost. Why cannot we be told the cost to-day when they are occupying the Commissioners' office?

I have told the hon. Member that the information for which he asks is not available.

It was available then. Why is it not available now?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured workers in the general engineering, marine engineering, and building industries registered as unemployed at the Sunderland, Pallion, and Southwick-on-Wear Employment Exchanges at the latest convenient date; and what percentage these figures represent of the insured workers in these industries registered at those exchanges?

I am having the figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the complaint by the Council of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce against foreign sea captains treating with impunity the loading regulations with regard to grain cargoes; and is he prepared to bring in, at an early date, an amending Bill to increase the penalties?

I have received representations from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, but my information does not support the contention that the regulations are being broken with impunity. As regards the introduction of amending legislation, I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 4th June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the comments of the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce in regard to overloading and the question of the fines which are being paid for not taking any notice of the regulations?

I know that the matter was discussed, and I have said so in my answer.

But what steps is the right hon. Gentleman going to take, knowing that these things are being done? What is he going to do?

I cannot say whether they are being broken, but, if there is any evidence to show that they are being broken, we will certainly take action.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these illegalities are being committed by the nationals of countries which have not yet ratified the Load Line Convention, and will he bring pressure to bear on these countries to ratify this Convention?

If those details can be brought to my attention, I will certainly look into them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the principal commercial countries of the world show an increase in exports this year compared with the same months in 1933 and which show a decrease?

Of the 24 principal commercial countries, 13 show an increase and 11 a decrease. I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said that this country was the only one to show an increase?

Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the countries which he quotes as showing an increase are all high wage paying countries?

I have not quoted them yet. They are to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that these countries are all high wage paying countries?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the intimation which was given that the last ballot on the cotton spinning redundancy question was a ballot on general principles only, and that a further ballot would be taken on the details of the scheme before the Government would proceed to pass the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill into law, whether he will give an undertaking not to proceed with the Second Reading until a further ballot has taken place?

On 19th December last I said, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) that, if the scheme for the elimination of surplus spindles received the support of a sufficiently influential proportion of the trade, I should be prepared to ask Parliament for statutory sanction for the collection of the necessary levy. The draft scheme drawn up by the Colwyn Committee has received that support, and, accordingly, the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill has been introduced. I am doubtful of the practical utility of a ballot of the industry on the details of the Bill, and I fear I cannot promise to await such a ballot.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill was in progress Mr. Adamson the liaison officer between the industry and the Government, wrote a letter to the effect that they must vote on the details before they were finally committed to it; and is he aware that they have never voted on the details but only on the general principles?

I think that a vote on that subject must be regarded as decisive.

Is it the case that the Bill will not be proceeded with?

When will the Second Reading of the Bill take place?

That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men, in the various categories of personnel, have joined the Royal Air Force since the recent decision to expand that service; and how these figures compare with requirements?

Between the 22nd May (the date on which the decision of His Majesty's Government regarding the expansion of the Royal Air Force was announced) and the 6th July, the numbers finally accepted are as follow:

Officer and airman pilots	95
Airmen for training in fitter and rigger duties	646
Airmen for training as armourers, photographers and wireless operators	201
Other airmen	731

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

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what provision is made for obsolescence and renewals in the latest accounts of the Central Electricity Board;

(2) what is the actuarial basis, including the anticipated sales and revenue, underlying the financial provisions which are being made to meet out of revenue as they become due the interest and sinking fund on the capital of the Central Electricity Board?

I will circulate such information as I have in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the average revenue per unit sold in each area of general trading under the Central Electricity Board?

The Board is a national undertaking for the country as a whole, and they do not publish figures relating to individual areas. I understand that the average gross revenue per unit sold by the Board in 1934 was approximately 0.4 of a penny.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that as the Act lays a responsibility on the Minister this information should be available?

I have given the hon. Member such information as we have; that is the average for the whole country. We have not figures for separate areas of the country.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early date on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered an application from the South Wales Coal Owners' and Coke Owners' Association, on 1st June, 1935, for an inquiry to be set up to investigate dock charges at South Wales ports; and what action has been taken?

Yes, Sir. In accordance with the terms of the Act under which the application was made my right hon. Friend has required the Great Western Railway Company, as the owners of the docks to which it relates, to show cause why the charges in question should not be submitted for revision to the Rates Advisory Committee.

Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Great Western Railway Company have shown cause, and if not, when will the Rates Advisory Committee consider the matter?

I shall require notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will submit to the House of Commons for approval the Naval Agreement made by the executive with Germany, instead of leaving a matter of such magnitude to be discussed on a Supply day?

As I informed my hon. Friend on the 3rd July last, it is understood that the Opposition desire to raise this matter on one of the allotted Supply days, which I consider to be an appropriate occasion.

May I ask, in view of that reply, whether this House is precluded from effectively reviewing the treaty-making activities of the executive?

The position is that the ratification of such agreements is effected by the exchange of notes. The House is at perfect liberty, as always, to debate these matters, and, if the House is not satisfied with the agreement come to, it is always open to it to move a Vote of Censure. A Vote of Censure is usually moved by the leader of the Opposition.

Would not the appropriate occasion to discuss this matter, not in technical detail, be when the Foreign Office Vote is debated on Thursday next?

I believe that is so, but I should not like to prejudge any reply that may be given to the limitation or extension of the Debate by Mr. Speaker.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the only people who can move a Vote of Censure are the Opposition?

No, I think I safeguarded myself by using the word "usually." It is open to anybody to move one.

Was not a precedent established some years ago by which international instruments were submitted to this House for its approval?

I should like notice of that question, but I think that what I have said is perfectly correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the proposed meeting of the Disarmament Commission in the autumn, His Majesty's Government will make known its proposals on the matter of the reduction of military aircraft and the international control of civilian aircraft?

No further meeting of the Disarmament Conference has so far been arranged, and on this matter I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 5th June last. The proposals of His Majesty's Government in regard to air disarmament are contained in the documents referred to in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs to a question put by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 5th June.

May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the key of European security is to be found in the Commission mentioned in the question, the Government will through their representative in Geneva take some steps to hasten the calling of this Commission?

There is no such Commission. I imagine that the hon. Member is referring to the Disarmament Conference. If that be so, I dealt with the question on the 5th June and last week, and I pointed out the difficulty of summoning a conference to which at any rate one of the chief participants was not prepared to come.

Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) to answer these questions?

I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "an employed contributor or a voluntary contributor and."

This is a drafting Amendment, these words being regarded by the draftsman as superfluous. Perhaps the Committee will allow me at this stage to say something about a number of the other Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. It may be convenient that hon. Members should know that a large number of these are drafting Amendments and are being made with a view to the ultimate presentation to the House of a consolidating Measure which is urgently necessary in connection with National Health Insurance. It is the intention of the Government, if time permits, to bring in a consolidating Measure which, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. J. Davies) knows, will be of great value to approved societies in their administrative work throughout the country. We have endeavoured in a number of these Amendments to anticipate such a consolidation. The first Amendment which I now move is purely drafting in character.

I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it is intended to introduce into the House a consolidating Measure in connection with National Health Insurance. I notice, however, that the right hon. Gentleman who is an astute politician was very careful to use the words "if time permits," and I rather thought that he underlined those words with undue emphasis. I would like him to answer a question which arises on this Amend- ment. When I first looked at these words which it is proposed to omit, I thought they were intended to distinguish between the employed contributor or voluntary contributor on the one hand and the deposit contributor on the other. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the deposit contributor falls into a different category from those other contributors and is not a member of an approved society. Does not the omission of these words destroy the distinction usually made between the two categories of contributors?

I can best answer the hon. Member's question by reading the Clause as it will be if this Amendment is made. The Clause will read:

"Subject as hereinafter provided where an insured person being a member of an approved society ceases to be employed, etc."

The words, "an employed contributor or a voluntary contributor," in this connection are superfluous so far as legal phraseology is concerned. The question of the deposit contributor will be dealt with by regulation.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "two," and to insert "four."

I am grateful to be able to say that the present Minister of Health certainly understands his job. His knowledge of insurance matters is very well known in this House, and he will be able to see exactly what is meant by my Amendment. Special opportunity for preferential treatment is given in regard to the question of 10 years' insurance. In the case of any person insured for 10 years, a society has the power, year by year, to grant the concession of keeping him in, providing he can give alternative evidence and bring proof to the society that he was unemployed. With regard to those insured under four years, they are in a very belated category indeed, and while a society had the opportunity of keeping all classes in insurance under the prolongation provisions, without any question of whether they had been insured for four years, with 160 contributions paid, or whether they had been insured for 10 years, now, by this Bill, we find that the 10 years, from the point of view of the valuation of a society, will be a determining factor with regard to the next quinquennial valuation, and some of us feel that an injustice is being done to those members who have not been in more than four years or who come under the 10 years.

When one remembers the great amount of unemployment and the many thousands of people who have been out of work, and realises that they may lose their contributions and not get an opportunity of establishing themselves unless they start employment again and reenter in the ordinary course of joining an approved society, it appears to me, who have been managing the affairs of an approved society since 1912, that a great injustice is being done. The Minister must remember that they are giving a concession to those with 10 years' insurance and over, and they are giving optional power to the society to make certain concessions, and it appears, from the equity of the case, that these other people are not being fairly treated. With regard to differentiation, who can say that 10 years must definitely be the starting point? If we are not going to allow any concession to be given by the societies under that period, the State ought to step in and make it possible to take the middle course. The middle course will not do the Minister or the Government any harm, but it will certainly give an opportunity to many people to be retained in the membership of their societies. When all is said and done, a work of such great national importance, catering for many millions of people, is a real benefit conceded to the people, and the protection given under the national health insurance scheme is essentially beneficial. It is a great institution, and I do not think any of these benefits ought to be taken away from the people.

I do not think we ought to consider the question of conceding one or two years as being detrimental to the finances of the societies. I know that the approved societies look after the money, but any society that is administering the Act is not a vested interest, but is being worked for the interests of the State, and although the State has conceded the right to the societies of governing themselves in the main, it must not be thought that they are given a vested interest to manipulate and administer simply for their own advantage. It may be that some societies can give greater advantages than others, but that does not mean that the State has not the right to step in and to see that what crept in as a national institution in 1912 does not now become monopolised, with great injustice to a number of people as a result. I am not concerned about what my own approved society may say, but I am concerned about members of my own society getting the advantage of an extra two years' insurance. This Amendment will not cost the State anything, but it will leave to a society the power of giving an opportunity for the extension of insurance.

I think the right hon. Gentleman might grant this concession. I know that it is of no use trying to tell the Minister fairy stories. He has been in this business from the very commencement, and I know he knows, and because I know he knows, I am telling him, in case some Members do not know. My observations are for those who do not know, because I am aware that in this House there are plenty of Members who do not know anything about this subject. This concession for which I am asking is for the benefit of the nation. It is not a benefit for which we are asking from the Labour benches only. It is a benefit that will deal with the whole mass of the unemployed, whether they belong to one party or another. Therefore, it cannot be said that in putting this plea forward from these benches we are advocating only the policy of the Labour party. We are advocating the welfare of those insured who will possibly otherwise go out of insurance, whereas if they are retained for the extra two years, I feel that an opportunity will be given of bringing these people back into one fold, especially if we have the great rise in national prosperity under this National Government which is talked about.

It is not possible for me to place before the Committee such knowledge and experience as that of my hon. Friend, but, coming from one of the distressed areas, I Can assure the Minister that this is an Amendment which he should consider with sympathy. There are many thousands of young men who have been idle for four years who may be able to obtain employment again. They are comparatively young in the insurance sense, and they ought not to be deprived of the free period up to four years because they may obtain employment some time in the future. The National Government are now proclaiming that prosperity has returned, that it is not just round the corner, but here. If it is here, we ought to have a restoration of the status quo.

I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) for his kind references to myself. I wish that I had a little clearer recollection of a good many of the matters about which I used to know long ago, but I am endeavouring to renew my acquaintance with this interesting subject. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is an experienced administrator of an approved society, and he spoke with a good deal of courage and conviction. I would like to point out one or two considerations which the Committee ought to bear in mind and which I am afraid destroy a number of the arguments which have been used. The provision that every insured person on ceasing work has a free insurance period of, on the average, some 21 months has been on the statute book since 1928. Therefore, there is no question of restoring the status quo. The effect of the Amendment would be to extend that free period from 21 months to three and three-quarter years. I want the Committee to realise that cover for cash benefits, medical benefits and pensions goes to every person on ceasing insurable employment, irrespective of the reason for giving up work; and the man who passes out of insurance for one reason or another is as entitled to this free period as a man who loses his employment. One of the effects of the Amendment would be to extend the period, not only to the men who have been referred to, for whom we have every sympathy, but to a large number of others who have not that claim.

The reason I cannot accept the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made in all good faith is that the cost of the extension would fall upon the balances of the approved societies. I must say, with some knowledge of approved societies, that I very much doubt whether they would be prepared to agree to the suggestion that they should shoulder this considerable burden. In fact, I go further and say that I am advised that at the present moment, with the considerable contribution that the societies have to make towards the proposals of this Bill, it would not be a reasonable or a safe thing for them to contemplate carrying it further. Of the cost of the proposals in this Bill, one-half is being borne by the Government and one-half by the approved societies. The approved societies have met the situation very fairly and in a statesmanlike way, and I do not think that they could be expected, nor would it be right to ask them, further to deplete their funds by this proposal. If they did, it might seriously affect some of the benefits which some of the societies give. In order to do the generous thing to a certain body of people, they might very well do serious injury to their members.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered allowing the societies to grant this prolonged period where their funds will allow them to do it? That could be done without applying the principle all round.

I should have to be satisfied about the views of the approved societies before I made any observations about that. The hon. Gentleman was very careful to say that he was not speaking for his society but for himself, and that this was his own idea. I think he will realise that I cannot impair the funds of the approved societies in this way, how-every much we may desire to benefit a further number of people. I appreciate the hon. Member's intention, but I feel, on behalf of the approved societies, that it would be unwise to press the matter further.