§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the chair.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better and further provision for the care of Mentally Defective Persons and to amend the Law relating to Lunacy in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—
- (a) contributions towards the expenses of persons detained in certified institutions or placed under guardianship as defective, including the expense of removal, and towards the expenses which may have been incurred by any society in assisting or supervising defectives;
- (b) the salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers, and other expenses incurred in the execution of such Act."
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTAs there are no Scottish Members in the House, I think I am entitled to ask from my right hon. Friend why this Resolution is taken in this particular way. The Scottish Grand Committee, I understand, is sitting upstairs, and he has cone and moved this Resolution without comment, and he expects it to be taken in a House in which there is no Scottish Members present. I do not think that that is a respectful way to treat either the Scottish Members or the House.
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Whenever Scottish Members have said that Scottish interests were not being attended to I have never supported them in that contention. I have invariably supported Ministers. I have always had confidence in the Scottish Office, but what the feeling of Scottish Liberal Members now engaged in Committee upstairs, and many of them holding decided opinions about this proposal, will be if the Resolution is taken in their absence, I leave the House to imagine. It is most unusual for the Grand Committee to sit on a Friday, and it is most unusual on any day that the Grand Committee should sit at Question Time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Sir W. Byles) has again and again protested that he could not be in the House at Question Time and also in Grand Committee, and he has repeatedly voiced what are the views, I believe, of many private Members. I am not a Member for Scotland, but I have personal friends, as well as political associates in that country, and I do submit to the Government that if they persist in this course they will be only laying up trouble for themselves. For myself, I have no intention of speaking on the Resolution; I have not the slightest idea of interfering in a purely Scottish question; but so far as I am concerned, you cannot expect me to see this Resolution passed in the absence of Scottish Members, many of whom entertain strong opinions upon it, and who have now been sitting for two or three hours in Grand Committee. I submit that a thing like this has never been witnessed before in the history of this House. I cannot understand the mistake, for it must be a mistake. I am perfectly certain there is no purpose in bringing on this Resolution at the present time, and I freely say that.
I do not think the Scottish Secretary has ever shown the slightest unwillingness to act in a frank and straightforward manner, or that he has ever endeavoured to get any particular advantage. It is a pure accident of the situation; none the less, it is here, and I submit to the House that in the circumstances we must protect the Scottish Members. I am one of those who believe entirely in the principle of local control and the local voice. I have never been able to see my way to coming into conflict with the Members of a particular nationality. I think the Scottish Members should be present on an occasion 1626 like this. The same applies to purely Welsh questions, which deal with only Wales and Monmouthshire. But now when there is a great Scottish question to be considered the Scottish Members are not present, being engaged upstairs, and I know that no less than three Scottish Members desire to be present when the Resolution is taken, in order to offer criticism or ask for information. They cannot come to the House, because they have certain Amendments which they desire to put forward in the Committee upstairs, and to which they attach great importance, and, therefore, they are perfectly helpless. They cannot be here, and though it may be said that Scottish Members can take very good care of themselves, yet they cannot do so if they are not here. In the circumstances, which are unusual, I move that you should report Progress Sir, in the protection of those Scottish Members.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)I am very deeply indebted to my hon. Friend for defending the Scottish Members, though I really think they are well able to take care of themselves.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThere has been a very impassioned appeal to the House by the hon. Member, but really, if I may respectfully say so, his argument is entirely beside the point. What is the point? Scottish Members are to be prevented by the hon. Member from receiving a Grant of £20,000. I do not think there can be any objection to that proposal, and I think the Scottish Members would be extremely indignant, if they found while dealing with this Bill in Grand Committee upstairs, that this and the next Money Resolution dealing with Highlands, had been interfered with by an English Member.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Question before the Committee is "That I report Progress and ask leave to sit again," and I accepted that Motion on the ground that Scottish Members were not present, being engaged in Committee upstairs.
Mr. McKINNON WOODWhat is the position of Scottish Members? They were not aware of this Resolution coming on, for we could not tell when it would= 1627 be reached, and being business-like people they desired to go on with the business on which they were engaged. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Now that they have discovered that there is business in the House which concerns them, I see that they are coming to their places. There is no need for my hon. Friend to defend them. Here they are to look after their own business.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am exceedingly sorry that my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary should treat my Motion in this way. I know that you, Sir, would not have taken my Motion if I had referred to the merits of the Bill. I distinctly stated that I was not discussing them, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to get up and blame me for preventing Scotland getting some money. I know that would be a most unpopular thing to do, but that has nothing at all to do with the matter. Whether or not the money is voted for Sctoland, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that Scottish Members should be present. Now that the Scottish Members have come. I submit that it is entirely owing to my Motion, for if I had not risen at the time and moved to report Progress, the Resolution would have been taken with about six Liberal Members, and about the same number of Irish representatives in the House.
§ The CHAIRMANI thought the hon. Member had risen to make a personal explanation.
§ The CHAIRMANI did not understand it in that way. Of course I only accepted the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to report Progress, because I was informed that Scottish Members were engaged upstairs. I thought that a proper ground for allowing a Motion of the kind to be put, and it is to that matter that the discussion must be directed, and not to the merits of the Bill.
Mr. McKINNON WOODAll I wish to add is this: As soon as I heard that this business was before the House I sent a message to the Scottish Members informing them of what was happening, and the Scottish Members are present now.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTI think I may respectfully submit that the Secretary for Scotland had not at all met the point when the Chairman called him to order, 1628 for evidently he did not understand the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I submit that no effective notice was given to> Scottish Members.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTThe Secretary for Scotland says the Motion is on the Paper, but I repeat that no effective notice was given to Scottish Members, who are the persons concerned in this Bill, and I object to this way of conducting business of the House of Commons. I do complain of the fact that it was tried to snatch this Resolution whilst Scottish Members were engaged in Grand Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I withdraw any imputation whatever. No doubt the Government did not wish to behave unfairly, but I do think it is desirable that a Motion of this kind should not be taken when Scottish Members are absent, but that they ought to have an opportunity of discusing it, more especially when it is notorious that a number of them hold very strong opinions upon this subject. I did not move to report Progress myself, but it is on those grounds I desire to give my opinion that I think my hon. Friend was fully justified in doing so.
§ Sir WILLIAM BYLESI have no desire whatever to delay the decision of the Committee nor to hinder Government business for one moment, but I have been referred to personally in the Debate, and I wish to say that it is well known to a great many Members on both sides that I have always consistently protested against the Government putting upon private Members two duties to be discharged at the same time and in different parts of this building. I never will agree to a Motion that Grand Committee should go on sitting when the House is sitting, and I have always protested against it, and even divided against it whenever I got anybody to help me. It does seem to me that this is a proper moment for drawing the attention of Members of the House, now that the subject has been raised to that point, namely, that two separate duties are imposed upon Members of the House at the same time, and both of which it is impossible for them to discharge. There is a Procedure Committee sitting at this moment, and I sincerely hope that this particular point will engage their attention. I shall be obliged to support the Motion.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONI am sure the Scottish Members are very grateful to the Members of the House for having the opportunity of attending. I do not know whether I would go the length of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but it is so obviously desirable, when a Money Resolution affecting a Scottish Bill is proposed, that the Scottish Members shall be here that I entirely fail to see what justification can be offered for the course adopted. The Scottish Whip was in attendance, and a very good attendant, at the Committee upstairs on previous days, but to-day he was conspicuous by his absence. Surely he is responsible to see the Scottish Members were warned and brought down to the House when this Money Resolution was brought forward. I have been in attendance, and I was there when hardly any Scottish Members had returned, and there was no intimation whatever given, and if this is not a trick it is something uncommonly like one.
§ Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury)As my name has been mentioned I would like to say what has really happened. It was understood by the House generally that the discussion on the Money Resolution of the Insurance Bill would run for a very much longer time than it actually did. It was quite impossible to tell how long that Insurance Resolution would run. When it came to an end much sooner than was expected and without a Division, as was anticipated, when the next Order was called, at once an hon. Member went upstairs at the request of the Secretary for Scotland, and I presume that in the Scottish Committee which was sitting it was moved that the Committee adjourn in order that the Scottish Members might be here, which was the proper thing on Scottish business, and take part in the discussion on the Money Resolution. I have been in the House all the time and not upstairs, because I had business here. I would ask the Scottish Members to take my word for it that that is what has happened. I am quite sure the Secretary for Scotland is delighted that his colleagues are here, and hopes that they will take part in this Debate to get this necessary stage passed in order that this Bill and the next Order on the Paper may be proceeded with.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE(Mr. Ure)May I explain to the Committee that in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I was in charge of the Bill upstairs, and the moment this business came on here and his message reached me 1630 to the effect that this business had been reached, I instantly moved the adjournment of the Scottish Committee in order that my colleagues might be present in the House to attend to the very important business to be done here. I hope my colleagues on the Scottish Committee win bear me out in what I say as to what happened.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKI do not want at all to interfere in what is a domestic quarrel. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] But I wish to point out the grave difficulty we are placed in by the action of the Government. The notice sent up to the Scottish Committee would have been too late because this Resolution might have been passed sub silentio. That is not time enough, and' I do not think it is proper for the Government or the Secretary for Scotland to so arrange that Scottish Members who are anxious to attend to business that is going on upstairs should be unable to attend at the same time to a very important Scottish matter which arises in this House. All this comes of the extraordinary mania the, Government have for compressing all their business into a brief space of time, and then thinking that any proper consideration of the measure is only obstruction or a sort of infidelity to the whole of their plans and opposition to all their measures. I would ask Scottish Members opposite to assert themselves for once and as they have never done before. We know we have been described as beetles crushed by a steam-hammer.
§ Mr. J. HOGGEYou were not at the Committee when we adjourned.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI do not see how that affects the question in the slightest degree. What has the hon. Member to do with whether I was present or not? He does not know whether I was entering at the moment or, perhaps, because of the danger that arose with regard to the arrangement of Government business, was down here. I am not answerable to him. I am answerable to my Constituents. As it happened, it was more important that I was not in Committee upstairs. This practice is carried to extremes, and is absolutely inconvenient to the independence of Scottish Members and to the discharge of their duties by any Members of the House. Next week we are asked on this Grand Committee to meet at eleven o'clock on Monday. I am sitting on two other Grand Committees, and I cannot possibly be absent from one of them on which I am 1631 engaged in an internecine warfare with the hon. Baronet who sits below me. If I were absent from that Committee for a moment I am sure he would take advantage of it and crush me with all the power of a steamroller, such as the Scottish Secretary exercises over the obeisant Members on the other side. I asked the Scottish Members who have asserted themselves to continue that assertion and follow up into the Lobby in protesting against the action of the Government and of the Secretary for Scotland in this matter.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think all the Scottish Members are under an obligation to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) for moving to report Progress. We have had a number of explanations from the Front Bench regarding their disinterested intentions, but I think that the House is now convinced that had it not been for the action of my hon. Friend this Motion would have passed sub silentio while the Scottish Members were engaged in Committee upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I am quite willing to agree that the Secretary for Scotland did say at the adjournment that this was likely to come on shortly, but neither he nor the Lord Advocate at that time indicated that if it did come on there would be an adjournment of the Scottish Committee. We were told that the Secretary for Scotland was coming down here to attend to the Motion while the Lord Advocate conducted the business upstairs.
§ Mr. PRINGLEFrom the Lord Advocate.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI may have misunderstood the situation, but I was so concerned with the statement at the time that I came down to the House. I went to our resource in times of trouble, the hon. Member for Pontefract, and it is thanks to the hon. Member that we are here and have an opportunity of discussing the Resolution. I have no desire to delay the proceedings, but it was extremely important that we should have a discussion upon the Resolution, because one of the Clauses which has especial relation to the Financial Resolution was passed under circumstances which did not enable hon. Members who intended to move Amendments to do so. That 1632 rendered it all the more important that we should have an opportunity on the floor of the House.
Mr. McKINNON WOODWe postponed the Clause. We were bound to do so, because the Resolution was not passed.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe right hon. Gentleman does not understand the point to which I was referring. I was not referring to the Clause which requires the Financial Resolution. Everybody knows that that could not be passed until the Resolution had been taken. Consequently, I should have been talking nonsense if I had said that that Clause had been passed. I referred to a Clause intimately related to the Resolution—that is, the Clause providing for the appointment of additional officials. I hope now that the Secretary for Scotland will understand that I do not get up to make a foolish and ludicrous proposition, and if he thinks I am doing it, he need not interrupt me, because primâ facie there may be something in it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEUnder this Resolution we can certainly limit the amount of the salaries to be paid.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The hon. Member is now discussing the Resolution itself. He must confine his remarks to the Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI have to thank the hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Craik) for the kind and encouraging inspiration which he has given us this afternoon. He indeed has told us that we are a very slavish herd. I think, in view of what has been transpiring in the Scottish Grand Committee in the last few days, he need not have drawn that picture to the House.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIt is your own picture.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am prepared to admit that there may have been times and occasions on which his account of the situation would be true, but, undoubtedly, it bears no relation whatever to the existing state of things. If, indeed, there are any slavish, devoted, subservient supporters of the Secretary for Scotland—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must direct his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI understood that the hon. Member was in order when he referred to us personally. Of course, I accept your ruling. I can only regret that you prevented the completion of a very admirable sentence. I thank you for the latitude you have already allowed me. I again express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for Pontefract, and I think he might now withdraw his Motion.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERThis is one of the unfortunate occurrences which we must expect when a Standing Committee is sitting at the same time as the House itself. The fact that the first Order of the Day was got through more quickly than had been expected alone accounts for the situation. I am very anxious indeed that both this Resolution and the next Order on the Paper should be passed this afternoon. In taking these Orders now the Government are only carrying out a request made by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London that they should take these Resolutions in their own time and not after Eleven o'clock. Under these circumstances it practically involves a pledge on our part to consider these Resolutions if brought up in Government time. Therefore, I do not think we have any complaint to make or any right to find fault with the situation. I submit, however, that the unusual procedure of a Grand Committee sitting on a Friday when the House is sitting also, is one that ought not to be adopted except under very exceptional circumstances. I was a little late in going back to the Committee after luncheon, and then found that it had adjourned; consequently I had not the privilege of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract in moving this Motion, which I think under the circumstances was quite justified, and which has given us an opportunity of discussing the situation. The hon. Gentleman opposite is vigilant about these matters, both against his own side and against ours. I do sincerely hope that Gentlemen opposite will not carry their domestic quarrels to the extent of refusing to allow the Motion to be withdrawn. I earnestly wish to see this Resolution pass. We may have some thing to say on it. We are also most anxious to get to the next Order.
§ Mr. BOOTHIn asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I may say to the colleagues of my own who were not here that it was not a party move at all. I am just as anxious as the hon. Members for Black-friars and for the Ayr Burghs or anybody 1634 else to get on with the Business. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Mr. HOGGEOn a point of Order. Before you put this to the Vote, I do not want to divide the Committee, but I do want to say something in regard to the matter, which would not take a couple of minutes, and which, I think, I am entitled to say.
§ Sir G. YOUNGEROn a point of Order. Have you not given your decision?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think that I quite caught what the hon. Member was driving at. Perhaps he will not take very long.
§ Mr. HOGGEI will not be a minute. I only want to put this point: The Scottish Grand Committee is now being asked to meet upstairs every day, practically, from eleven to four, which means, also, a certain amount of time being spent downstairs here. Scottish Members were perfectly prepared to meet at any earlier part of the Session. We have been sitting in the House of Commons for seventy Parliamentary days and we are now asked to take up the consideration of this Bill, which, had the Government had any sense, might have been sent to us earlier in the Session.
§ Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Question is—
§ Mr. MARTIN rose—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is for the Chairman to decide whether or not the Question has been decided.
§ Mr. MARTINThe Question has already been put. I wished to reserve my right to speak!
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat observation is an unmannerly one.
§ Mr. MARTINI understood you were going to put the Question, and that I would not have a right to speak.
§ Main Question put.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order. I wish you to assure me, Mr. Chairman, that I heard the expression of the hon. Member 1635 (Mr. Martin). It was not in the least disorderly. What my hon. Friend said was: "I do not want to lose my right to speak." Those were his exact words.
§ Mr. MARTINMr. Maclean, what I started to say, when you were proposing to put the Question, was that the Question had been put by the Chairman of Committees—that is all. I thought that probably you had overlooked the fact that the proceedings started with the Question being put. Then I understood that you were going to call for the vote and cut me out. I certainly did not intend to be unmannerly. It is a pretty gross reflection upon a Member to have it stated from the Chair that he is unmannerly, and besides for that statement to be cheered by hon. Members. It is not very pleasant. I am not in favour of providing money for this Bill. I think it is a very bad Bill, and should never be proceeded with, especially as at this period of the Session Members are being overworked and anxious to get through the business. I understand that the Bill will be of very little benefit to anybody unless the money is provided, and that is the reason that I am opposing it. I suggest that the best and the kindest way to deal with this Bill would be for this Committee to refuse to pass this Money Vote. That would relieve the Scottish Members from the very hard work which they are engaged in at present. The Bill is one for dealing with a question which, of course, is very important. That is the care of the feeble-minded people of the country. I know that the majority of the House are in favour of dealing with that question in the way that is proposed by the Government in this Bill. I am not one of those. Even the small minority have a right to put forward their views in regard to a question of this kind. It does seem to me that the money which is proposed to be provided by this Resolution, is money which will be practically wasted. The Bill is a bad Bill. It approaches this serious question of the care of the feeble-minded from the wrong standpoint. It certainly also is a very wrong thing in view of the fact that money is required for very many good purposes. I should like more money for these good purposes. It is a very wrong thing that this Committee should propose to grant this large sum of money, an unlimited sum—for no limit is provided for this Resolution as I understand it. 1636 All the money that may be required for the purposes of the Bill is to be provided. I think that is a very loose system of financing. The proper procedure would be for the Government to mention the amount, which the House will then know, would not be exceeded. The Resolution practically means nothing. It is practically only a Resolution to comply to the forms of the House. It is not a Resolution to keep within the control of this Committee, the money that is to be spent by the Government.
§ Mr. HOGGEI think a word or two of explanation will be required before we agree to pass this money. I am interested in seeing the Leader of the Opposition in his place in connection with this particular Resolution, because here is a Resolution asking for money, and which is going to set up more officials in Scotland. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself once called for a Return asking for the number of officials that had been appointed under Acts passed by this Government. We, who sit on this side of the House, have suffered indefinitely from charges made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, in regard to appointments of this kind. I think before we pass this Resolution that those of us who want money for these purposes—and every Scotsman does as a matter of fact—we should have from the Leader of the Opposition some statement in which he will guarantee that the party which he leads approves of these appointments that are going to be made under this Act. I do not think it is fair the right hon. Gentleman should come down to the House representing his party and agree to this Money Resolution being passed this afternoon, and then indiscriminately accuse us of being parties to securing these appointments for friends of our party. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition of this fact that this afternoon in Grand Committee we were trying to put a limitation upon the numbers that should be appointed. For instance, we tried to have it laid down that no Member of Parliament should be appointed to any one of those posts, and I appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) to say on behalf of his party what was their position with regard to these appointments. He did not say much. All he said was that this was a small matter, and because of the smallness of it he was not concerned. I would 1637 like to place the suggestion before the Leader of the Opposition and ask him if that is the policy of the party opposite? The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs said if we thought that principle should be put into a Statute he would be prepared to support us.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNo, I did not say that at all. I said it was a ridiculous thing by a side wind on a small and trivial matter to introduce a principle of that kind. But I said that if it was intended to put additional disabilities upon Members of Parliament, it should be done by Statute.
§ Mr. HOGGEI thought that when a,great principle was at stake the hon. Gentleman would be very glad to have it raised on the floor of this House. The party with which he is associated is always glad by any side wind to raise any number of side issues, and I think the hon. Gentleman has avoided an excellent opportunity of placing in a Statute a principle that might prevent his party when it comes into office, if it ever comes into office, and that might prevent this party while in office, from distributing patronage amongst their political friends. This Resolution deals with a Bill which we as Scotsmen get primarily because it is necessary to deal with mental defectives in England. Immediately that it was necessary to deal with the question of mental deficiency in England, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is very keen to try and secure this Bill for Scotland. He seems to think that some kind of reproach would lie upon him when he goes down to Scotland if it was said England has a Mental Deficiency Bill and Scotland has not.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat mint is not germane to the Resolution before us.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am very glad to be able to reserve that point for Third Reading. What I am asking is, Is it necessary in the interests of Scotland to secure this particular measure? There are a great many other measures dealing with Scotland for which we want money, and we would rather have the money reserved for them.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANThese arguments are not relevant to the Money Resolution. The hon. Member should confine his remarks to the purposes to which this money is to be applied. The hon. Member is now making general observations which are not relevant.
§ Mr. HOGGEThen I will try and make particular remarks with regard to this Motion. This Motion is to finance the creation of a great number of new officials. I object on principle to the Liberal party appointing any new officials. It throws unnecessary expense upon the Treasury, and here I am certain the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will agree with me. If we appoint these new officials, the Leader of his party is certain to move for a Return, and these Returns impose great expense upon the Treasury. I have the last Return in my library, where it is being used for other purposes than those for which it was originally intended. If these Returns could serve any useful purpose—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is obviously going beyond the purposes of the Resolution.
§ Mr. HOGGEThen I will conclude my remarks by entering this protest: I am willing to have this particular Bill, but, if it had run on certain lines, it would be much better than the lines upon which it is run. If we are to have these officials, let us have them, but let us not have further charges made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to them.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think the hon. Member has been dealing with a very small point. I think there are only five officials added by this Bill. Is it impossible that the same men who worked the Lunacy Acts should do all the work under this Bill as well. I think only one additional Lunacy Commissioner is appointed. I think I can answer for the Leader of the Opposition that he will not object to that. He has taken objection to certain appointments of a scandalous kind, and I think that he has done so quite justly. But in this case he will be the first as a businessman to realise that if you are going to put very heavy work upon the existing Boards, it is by no means exceptional to ask for an additional Commissioner and three or four deputies. I hope the Resolution is sufficiently wide to cover any rearrangements that may be necessary for the better financing of the Bill. I may tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we do not think, on either side, that Scotland is fairly or generously treated in this matter. England is much more generously treated than we are, and there ought to be some provision in the Bill that would make it certain that its objects will be carried out by allowing the 1639 authorities to have half the contributions from the State as in the case of the English Bill. In addition to that we had a Bill brought in the other day, giving to England more than £155,000, and that again is an extra reason for extending more generous treatment to Scotland. If the Resolution is so widely drafted to cover any Amendment made in that way for the extension of the Grant by the Treasury, I personally should be glad to see it pass.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am anxious to deal with one particular point, and it is a question of principle which applies as much to England as to Scotland. In the Resolution there is provision for money to be voted to any society which undertakes the care of mentally defective persons outside Government institutions. These societies are privately run, and I protest against giving carte blanche to any department to subsidise private societies over which the Government have no sort of control whatever. I think it is not advisable that any department should have power to make grants of public money without any check upon its expenditure by this House or the Treasury. You are here granting power to subsidise certain religious societies who carry on more or less philanthropic work among mentally defective persons. This is a new feature in the Bill since last year. When these societies are primarily religious societies of different denominations, I think it is extremely unwise to subsidise them out of State funds. We know that this Bill, just as the English Bill, has been brought forward by the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), and hon. Members opposite have formed a very strong Committee to force it through this House against the wishes of Liberal Members. I think when this Bill is being pressed forward by the hon. Member for East Birmingham we have a right to claim that he should be here when this measure is being debated—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now dealing with the merits of the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI was trying to show that when dealing with a question of the money to be voted for mental deficiency in Scotland we ought to have here the hon. Member for East Birmingham, who is intimately connected with this Bill, and I believe is responsible for this Clause which votes money for these- religious societies.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERWhat has the hon. Member for East Birmingham to do with this matter?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODHe offered to the Prime Minister—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is elaborating the point which I have already ruled out of order, and I must ask him to confine himself to the Money Resolution.
§ 3.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODOver and over again, when we have had Money Resolutions before the House, a limit has been inserted to the amount of money voted. It is of vital importance that we should retain control over the expenditure, and I do think that before this Resolution is passed we ought to have inserted some limit fixing the maximum amount which ought to be voted for mental deficiency in Scotland. In the English Bill there was a limit inserted so far as one part of the Resolution was concerned, and I think it is eminently unsatisfactory, when we are dealing with Scotland—and the Scottish Members are of a fairly grasping tendency when money is required for their country—[HON, MEMBERS: "No, no."] I will withdraw that, and say that they desire to get all the money there is going, and if we have a maximum limit in the English Bill I think we should have a maximum in the Scottish Bill. I wish to ask the representatives of the Government whether the voting of this money to Scotland and England involves the granting of an equivalent amount to Ireland. The Irish Members have managed to get Ireland excluded from this measure, but are they going to get an equivalent Grant for the money we are voting under this Bill? We ought to be fair all round to all parts of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Members have a right to claim an equivalent Grant for this money. It is all the more necessary that we should know the total amount that is likely to be voted for mental deficiency in Scotland. We ought to have some estimate given to us as to what the expenditure under this Bill is likely to amount to in the long run.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI am not going to object to this Resolution on the grounds which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I do not see why if this work is carried out efficiently by religious 1641 societies they should be deprived of a fair share of aid from the State. Whether they earn it or not will be a question to be decided afterwards. The hon. Member asked why is there a fixed sum for England and not for Scotland. I wish to raise the point why is there an unlimited sum for England and a fixed sum for Scotland? On this matter I appeal to the Scottish Members, and I wish to have a distinct statement why it is that you have limited this sum to £75,000 as regards England, whilst you are giving half of the expenditure to Scotland.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is not so. In the case of England the amount is limited to £150,000, and in Scotland £20,000.
§ Sir H. CRAIKHalf the cost is to be paid in the case of England.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI wish to know whether hitherto education Grants have not been given in proportion to the work done. You have not limited your education Grants under the Code and why should you limit Scotland to a sum of £20,000 in this case? If a special locality is placed under heavy burdens, why should we limit the amount in a way which it has never been limited before by fixing the sum at £20,000?
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONThe hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) is always lecturing Scottish Liberal Members about their duty, but perhaps it would be as well if he attended to his own duty and the interests of the peculiar constituency which sent him here. He happens to be a good judge of not getting enough money for Scotland, because for many years during which he was the Secretary to a public Department Scotland rarely got her fair share of public money. As regards the question we are now discussing, it seems that what we require is some definite information as to how the sum allowed to Scotland will work out as compared with the sum given to England, and upon that point we remain absolutely in the dark. I gather that this new responsibility will entail a very heavy additional burden, and that far larger provision has been made by the Treasury for the children to be dealt with under this Bill in England than the Treasury is being asked now to make for 1642 Scotland. I am glad that the hon. Baronet opposite drew attention to this matter. I do think that before this Resolution is accepted by the House we ought to know what the respective values of the Grants given to England and to Scotland will be in connection with the finances of the local authorities. That surely is information which we ought to have, and I wonder it did not occur to the Secretary for Scotland to give it to the Committee before he tried to get the Resolution.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI think that the request of the hon. Member is a very fair one, but I really have hardly had an opportunity of speaking in this Debate before. The provision is a very simple one. The Grant to England under this Bill is £150,000. According to the calculations of the Treasury, the proportion for Scotland is approximately about one-eighth of that amount, and we therefore take the exact equivalent of the English Grant, namely, £20,000. The point raised by my hon. Friend is one altogether apart from this Grant; he is dealing with defective children under the care of the school boards. In that case England has got an. increase of Grant. At the present time I have an application before the Treasury for an equivalent increase of Grant, to which, as I told my right hon. Friend in Committee, I see no answer, and which I am hopeful of getting, but it has nothing whatever to do with this Resolution; it is quite a separate matter. The whole point of this Resolution is this: England has got a sum of £150,000 for the purposes of their Act, and for the similar Act for Scotland we are offered the sum of £20,000 which is our equivalent. Do we accept it or do we reject it? That is the simple case before the Committee.
Mr. CATHCART WASONI would be very glad if my right hon. Friend would explain this point. When the English Bill was going through Committee, the Home Secretary who was in charge of it stated that a, full half of the expenses would be paid.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI have seen my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on that point. He told me that the newspaper report was entirely misleading and that he did not say what my hon. Friend thinks he said, though I quite agree that he may have created that impression. As my right hon. Friend stated, England gets no more money than the £150,000. Of 1643 course, if she did, I should apply for more for Scotland, but he assures me that she does not get more money. He was speaking merely about a question arising between what we call in Scotland the maintaining and the providing rate. That was all. It was purely a point affecting England and had nothing to do with the total sum of the Grant.
Mr. CATHCART WASONI am not going by the newspaper report at all. I was present at the time, and he assured the Committee that half of all the expenses that were incurred by the local authorities under this Act would be paid, and he went on to specify interest and sinking fund.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat explains the whole point. Formerly, it was understood that only half of the maintenance was to be paid, and the Home Secretary agreed that half of the interest and sinking fund should also fall upon the fund. It does not increase the total of the fund; it merely means that it is to be devoted to both services.
Mr. CATHCART WASONWhat we want to know is whether we shall have the same advantage in Scotland as they have in England, and whether we shall have the maintenance and interest and sinking fund.
§ Mr. WHYTEI think that we should make some protest against the method by which the money is arrived at. I know that it is time-honoured, but I do not think that it is any the less deserving of criticism on that account. It simply comes to this, that the financial provisions made for Scotland depends entirely in a case like this: first of all, on the estimate made by the Home Secretary as regards the needs of England, and, secondly, on the power of the Home Secretary to convince the Treasury of the validity of his claim. I do not think that it is fair, especially having in view the present financial position of the Scottish local authorities, that their present and especially their future burdens should depend very largely upon the Home Secretary's power to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think Scottish Members are always entitled to make a claim for handsome provision for Scotland, seeing what has been done for education in Scotland by private individuals in the old days, by private corporations, and, later on, by the local authorities. I am sure that our constituents and 1644 the local authorities would be disappointed if this Debate passed without a very firm protest being made against the present financial arrangements of this Bill. Not that these local authorities are not prepared to carry out the Bill. I do not know of one single authority which has not expressed itself as in favour of the Bill, and as prepared to work it, but, suffering already under financial grievances, the local authorities naturally wish to see every effort made by private Members, and by the Secretary for Scotland to persuade the Treasury that more generous provision should be made.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTI do not think that my hon. Friend who spoke last would be accused by anyone as being one of those Members who desire in any way to obstruct or delay the passage of this Bill. My right hon. Friend must have been under some misapprehension—or possibly I am—when he said that he had not had an opportunity of speaking before on this Resolution. It was precisely owing to the fact that, as I understood, he rose without offering any explanation that I objected at the time, but I desire now sincerely to thank him for his statement. We have had an admirable, lucid, and cogent explanation of a very important financial point connected with the Bill. While the local authorities of Scotland do not object to this social reform, they naturally give the closest examination to the measure and require certain assurances and, more particularly, financial assurances. I will just read to the Committee, as an illustration, a letter I received on the 15th July from the Town Council of Montrose, the main burgh of my Constituency. They allude to various points in the Bill which they are considering, and, summarising the points we have been discussing, they say:—
Objection was raised to the Treasury contributions being by means of a stereotyped Grant instead of a Grant equal to one half of the expenditure.Then they go on in a general way to say:—It was, generally felt that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of so complex and so far-reaching a measure, and I was instructed to communicate the Council's view to you that they would welcome postponement of the Bill meantime, and to express the hope that you will be enabled to support such an attitude.I honestly do not desire to obstruct or delay the passage of this Bill or to prevent its passing this Session, but we think this Bill is being forced through by rather unusual methods of forcible-feeding upstairs—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member would not be in order in going into that matter.
§ Mr. MARTINI have followed this Bill very closely, and it is quite true that the amount is limited to £150,000 in one Clause, but the Home Secretary said, and he put it in another Clause, that every £1 spent by the local authority would be supplemented by another £1 by the Imperial authority.
§ Mr. WHYTEDoes it mean that the Home Secretary is undertaking that the Treasury will give more than £150,0007 It is exceedingly important.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI can only assure the hon. Member that I asked the Home Secretary did he mean that the limit of £150,000 remained, and he said it did. I think that may be taken as an authoritative statement.
§ Mr. MARTINI accept that, but I am trying to show that it makes no difference whatever to the point now being discussed. It is provided by the Bill that for every pound the local authorities spend, the Treasury will provide another pound. It is quite true that this estimate of £150,000 has been put in the Bill. But we were told it was only an estimate, and that it really comes to this, that whatever the local authorities spend the Government are bound by their own legislation to provide an equivalent sum. That will mean an increase on the £150,000. That was loosely explained to us by the Home Secretary. I quite admit that £150,000 is the sum mentioned in the Bill, but there is an encouragement to the local authorities to spend money on the understanding that a similar amount will be provided by the Treasury. If the amount mentioned in the Bill is exceeded, are we going to get the extra sum, or will it be refused on the ground that the appropriation has already been made. Everyone knows that the Government can come down and get an additional appropriation, and, surely, in the face of the promise made by the Home Secretary, and in face of the fact that an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman himself was inserted to that effect in the Bill, they will be bound to do it. The position is that the Government promised to provide half of the money spent, leaving it to the local authorities to determine how much should be expended.
§ Mr. WATTI have taken the liberty to hand in an Amendment to this Resolution, 1646 and it will have a limiting effect on the amount of money to be taken from the ratepayer. I therefore expect it will have the support of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is to the effect that a parish council shall not be called upon to raise, upon the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Rate, more money than a sum equal to the amount provided by the Treasury. This Mental Deficiency Bill is a good measure in many ways, and what we are opposed to are not the provisons for dealing with those who are mentally defective, but the financial part of the scheme—that part which puts upon the local authorities, already heavily overburdened by rates, the task of putting into operation the provisions of the Bill. There are, it is estimated, 11,600 people who may be described as mentally deficient in Scotland, and the average cost of maintaining each is estimated to be £25 per head per annum. What is the Treasury going to contribute towards that? A sum of something like £20,000, out of a total expenditure of £290,000, and the remainder of the burden will fall on the local authorities throughout Scotland. A great deal of it will have to be paid by the city of Glasgow, a Division of which I have the honour to represent. I object strongly to that, and I venture to think there should be some limitation of the burden which the local authorities are to be called upon to bear. My Amendment provides such a limitation, because it says that no local authority shall be called upon to raise by rates a single penny more than the Government are prepared to give, namely, the paltry £20,000 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is good enough to give to Scotland. Therefore, the local authorities will not have to raise more than another £20,000 unless the Government increase their contribution. The principle of a penny for a penny was first introduced into the measure for England, and in introducing it the Home Secretary said there was no compulsion to exercise the power given in the Bill to provide for the feeble-minded if the means at the disposal of the local authority did not admit of it. But the principle adopted by the Treasury was to advance as much per head as was expended by the local authorities out of the rates.
Mr. McKINNON WOODIs a Motion limiting the amount of money to be raised by rates, and not to be contributed by the Treasury, in order on this Resolution?
§ Sir H. CRAIKMay I point out that as there is an obligation to raise a rate, this is a vital and important matter? You introduce, when you changed the figure from one-half to £150,000, a limitation of the rate, and you have at present no such limitation for Scotland. If it is to be a fixed sum, you must introduce the limitations, and the question, therefore, is of vital interest with regard to the point we are discussing.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have scarcely had time to consider the Amendment moved by the hon. Member—or, rather, which he has suggested he proposes to move—but I will give my ruling upon it. I cannot take it as an Amendment to the Resolution before the Committee. It might quite properly come as an Amendment to some portion of the Bill, but the Resolution before the Committee simply deals with the sum to be given by the Treasury, while the suggested Amendment of the hon. Member affects the question of rates to be made by the parish council, and is not relevant to the Motion before the Committee.
§ Mr. WATTI handed in the Amendment at a quarter-past two and it is not half-past three. It is a simple Amendment, and I thought perhaps it could have been considered before this. I also thought that the Deputy-Chairman would have considered it without the assistance of the Secretary for Scotland. But as it has been ruled out of order, of course I shall not move it. I shall simply say that we ought not to pass this Financial Resolution until some sort of limitation is added to it. The financial aspect of this measure is a fraud. The sum which the central authority, the Exchequer, is giving towards the carrying out of this measure is £20,000, which will only provide half the cost of 1,600 defectives and the whole cost of 800, and the Government is putting upon the local authorities this enormous burden. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Whyte), and several other Members, have indicated that the local authorities as a rule are in favour of this measure. Of course they are, because it gives more power to their elbows. But what of the ratepayers who elect these authorities? There is not a single constituent of mine who is desirous of having the local rates raised in order to carry out this scheme, which I admit is in itself useful. Local authorities are tremendously over-burdened with rates at the present time. In the City of Glasgow the cost of education this year has gone up by 1648 3d. in the £ from 1s. 8d. to 1s. 11¼d. Again and again this Government has put duties upon the local authorities, and the giving of only this paltry sum will not go any length. I am sorry my Amendment was ruled out of order, because it would have given rise to a very interesting discussion.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI cannot accept the explanation of the Secretary for Scotland as satisfactory. The old-fashioned plan of one-eighth or eleven-eightieths for Scotland was instituted twenty-five years ago. I was well acquainted with it, and I always fought it. It was abandoned by the Treasury, but now the Treasury have come back to it, and it is a very evil omen that they should do so, because, if it is once adopted for this measure, it may be adopted in regard to all education Grants. Scotland earns for work done more than one-eighth of the money for education Grants as compared with England. If you go back to a fixed limitation of one-eighth or eleven-eightieths it may be extended to the whole of the education Grants, and I beseech hon. Members from Scotland on both sides to fight for this as a very vital principle.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy intervention in this Debate is in the nature of an. appeal. I think my hon. Friends from Scotland have discussed the question very satisfactorily, and that the Secretary for Scotland has dealt with all the points raised, and has given us the only answer possible in the circumstances. I, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friends to allow this Resolution to go through.
§ Mr. WATT made an observation which was inaudible.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend has hit the mark. I make this appeal because there is a very important measure dealing with the medical service in the Highlands and Islands coming on after this, and I urge my hon. Friends to let this Resolution go through in order that we may deal with that matter, which is of vital importance.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI object to the appeal just made to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty. When we were discussing the subject in Committee upstairs it was always urged that we should get on because we should never get the money for the Highlands and Islands. Because we are taking a few moments to discuss this very important matter, which affects not only one small 1649 area in Scotland, but all the ratepayers of Scotland, the hon. Member asks us to desist and to proceed to the Grant for the Highlands and Islands in order that he may be able to distribute a dole among his constituents. He appeals to us to refrain from protecting the interests of our constituents. Under this Bill very heavy duties are being placed on the local authorities of Scotland. New responsibilities, which in the past were undreamt of, are now being laid upon them, and in order to assist them in carrying out those duties the paltry sum of £20,000 is being placed at their disposal by the Treasury. That is the account of the matter given by the Secretary for Scotland. No ratepayer in Scotland at the present time appreciates the very heavy burden which is being placed indirectly upon him. Although the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has been unsuccessful in bringing forward his Amendment, which would have prevented this outrageous state of things, we are entitled to protest all the more because the great majority of the local authorities are not aware of their position. I venture to say there are many local authorities in Scotland who do not know anything about this Bill. I doubt whether the local authority of Ross and Cromarty know anything about it.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes, they do.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI do not know whether my hon. Friend has sent them any notice of it, or whether, if they get the £40,000 for the Highlands and Islands, he thinks they will be willing to take this liability without any demur. We who have no doles for our constituents from the Treasury are entitled to enter our protest. When a Bill of this kind is proposed which imposes new obligations, we, as representing the local ratepayers, should insist that Parliament should not pass it without seeing that a sufficient Grant is made to the local authorities, enabling them efficiently to carry out these duties. This £20,000 will only provide half the cost of 1,600 defectives. The Bill of last year, which was introduced by the Home Secretary, applied to England and Scotland alike, and the financial basis of that Bill was the equal sharing of the cost between the Treasury and the local authorities. If that is still to be the basis of the legislation of this Session, this Bill does not provide for it. It cannot be expected to do what its authors profess it 1650 will do—in other words, it is a complete fraud. We are placing upon the Statute Book a Bill of sixty-five Clauses which is, in the main, merely wastepaper. The Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland are getting credit for being philanthropic people because they are passing an Act of Parliament, but what is the use of an Act of Parliament unless those who are responsible for it are providing sufficient means to enable it to be effective for any practical purposes?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir G. Younger)The hon. Member has already been told by the Chair that it is not in order. He can easily put it in order by moving it upstairs.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy hon. Friend is much obliged to you for the hint which you have given him, and on the basis of that hint I have no doubt he will model his conduct upstairs. I am equally certain he will expect to see some tangible sign of appreciation from you when he adopts that course. We are, I believe, to some extent indebted to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) for this opportunity of discussing this in daylight. It is due to some extent to his opposition that this measure is being brought on in Government time and before eleven o'clock. When a matter is brought up after eleven o'clock very little is seen of it in the Scottish papers. Now we have an opportunity of having the matter clearly stated in Scotland, because in to-morrow's papers, which, in a Sabbatarian country like Scotland, will be certainly read, the report of this Debate will bring home to all the local authorities in Scotland what is being imposed upon them by the Government, and I have no doubt now that in the period that intervenes before this Bill can leave the floor of the House of Commons we shall have many representations from the local authorities of Scotland, and that it will be indeed a very different thing for the Government to proceed with this Bill unless more ample provision is made for the immediate purpose which it has in view.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONI much regret that under the ruling that has been given we cannot decide the proportion payable by the central and the local authority, but I am sure your ruling will be fully followed upstairs in Committee. We have had an 1651 explanation as to how far the proportion of Grant to Scotland and England from the Exchequer is fairly allocated. What we have not the slightest idea of is the incidence of the burden placed on the local authority, and we really have not got any clear estimate of what that burden will be. In the case of pensions to school teachers, we were assured it would be one sum. It turned out to be a very much larger sum, and has formed a burden which is rapidly disposing of the Education (Scotland) Fund. This is one of those occasions when, without any due consideration on the part of the Government, heavy additional burdens are being put upon local authorities as to which they have no say and over which they have no control. The only security we can take for that point is to assert the principle of half and half, and if we cannot do it here it will have to be done upstairs.
§ Mr. HOGGEWould it be in order to move, after the word "effect," to add the words" to the extent of one-half," so that in the Financial Resolution it will be made perfectly plain that we are not to get this stereotyped sum, but one-half of the cost.
§ The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)A limiting Amendment to this Resolution is in order, but I do not quite gather yet whether the hon. Member is proposing any specific Amendment.
§ Mr. HOGGEI have not a copy of the Resolution. It is an unfortunate method of discussing these things in the House. It is one of the things which I hope the Procedure Committee will make a note of. It is difficult to move an Amendment to the Resolution which is only in the hands of the Chair. Perhaps you, Sir, can suggest words. What we want is that half the cost of administering this Act in Scotland shall be borne by the Treasury. If it costs £15,000, then the Treasury will be £5,000 in pocket, but if it costs £40,000 we shall have the advantage in Scotland. If I could have a copy of the Resolution and move this Amendment, we could come to a speedy end. We are limiting it to a half, although we do not think that is enough. There are Amendments already on the Paper upstairs suggesting that one-fourth only shall be borne by the parish councils and three-fourths by the Treasury. If we could compromise to the extent of one-half the Government would not 1652 only get the Resolution and their money, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) need not worry about the Bill. We are all prepared to give him that without discussion. This question would be out of the way and it would facilitate things upstairs very much. I appeal, therefore, to someone else to continue the discussion until one gets a copy of the Resolution to see if one can put in these words.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think I could accept the Amendment the hon. Member suggests. The proper place to deal with it is the Committee upstairs, as I have already indicated. There are Amendments on the Paper. I do not think an Amendment such as has been foreshadowed is one that I could accept. Beyond that I cannot say anything.
§ Mr. HOGGEWould you get us out of this difficulty? Supposing we agreed to that upstairs and it turns out that the people in Scotland really want to deal with the question of mental deficiency, and they spend more than £20,000, which is given by the Treasury, assuming we could get a half by an Amendment upstairs, the work that is done in Scotland could not be paid for, because we would only be giving £20,000. That would mean that you would put on local authorities a premium for doing the work under this Bill.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a matter which refers to the merits.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEIf the Bill is not altered upstairs, it will be possible for the local authorities in Scotland to be put to greater expense than the local authorities in England for similar work. There is a provision in the English Act which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, and to which he gave too wide a meaning. It limits the amount that can be spent by any local authority in England to one-half, that is to say, it limits the obligation to spend. There is no similar limitation in Scotland. The provision is this:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on any local authority to perform—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat really is a point for the Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONIt seems to me essential that we should see the Resolution to understand it, and unless we can 1653 have copies of it, I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a Motion I shall accept, for this reason: The procedure adopted in regard to the Resolution is the one that is always adopted by the House. It has been made a matter of complaint by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that hon. Members are not in possession of the Resolution. I have read it twice, and if it will facilitate the bringing of the discussion to a conclusion, I will read it again.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONIt has been ruled out of order to discuss the principle of half and half, which is the general principle on which we have acted in the past. That is the only clear issue on which we can give an indication of opinion. If we cannot do that, we should consider whether the Resolution cannot be amended in the House. That appears to be a common sense proposal.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat raises the point which I have ruled out of order with respect to the proposal of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). That is a matter proper to the Committee upstairs, and not one to be discussed on the Resolution now before this Committee. The Resolution simply authorises payments by the Treasury, and hon. Members cannot mix up that Resolution with matters directly concerned with payments in Scotland. That is a matter that can be dealt with upstairs, even more practically than here.
§ Dr. CHAPPLECould the Secretary for Scotland give an undertaking that no obligation will be put on local authorities to spend more than half the amount contributed by the Treasury? Such a provision exists in the English Act. We want to know if we can get an assurance from the Secretary for Scotland that a similar provision will be put in the Scottish Act.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEThat must be done upstairs. We must take the money here or leave it. If we take it, we can discuss the other points upstairs. Would it not be better to agree to the Resolution now, and get on to a subject which we all want?
Mr. F. WHITEThis is equally something which we all want, if we can get it in the right way. If it is out of order to move that the burden on the local authori- 1654 ties shall be limited to a certain amount, cannot we, when discussing the liability to be imposed on the Treasury, define that liability a little more definitely—would such an Amendment be in order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is rather hard on the Chair to ask for a ruling on a particular statement of that kind. I made it perfectly clear that the question of the contribution by the local authorities in Scotland is one which should be dealt with by the Committee upstairs.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEIt would facilitate matters if the Secretary for Scotland would tell us that he would consider favourably the suggestion to put in the Scottish Act the limitation that exists in the English Act.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not think that is fair. I think the Noble Lord opposite is perfectly right in saying that this is a matter that can be raised by Amendment in the Committee upstairs. It is for the Committee to consider the matter. I do not think they should be prejudiced one way or another by my giving such an undertaking.
§ Mr. WATTHave we any guarantee that the Committee upstairs would take the same view as we do here?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAn Amendment has been received on the lines foreshadowed.
§ Colonel GREIGIs it competent to move the adjournment of the Debate?
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONThe proposal to adjourn the Debate was not accepted by the Deputy-Chairman. The Secretary for Scotland, having refused to give any undertaking as regards the limitation of the burdens to be placed upon the local authorities, the practical question which really arises now is as to the general attitude that will be adopted by Members towards the Bill. I have been anxious to see the Bill passed, but I should like to intimate that unless some limitation is put upon the burdens to which local authorities will be liable under the Bill, I should think it better that the Bill should not be passed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 30.
1655| Division No. 204.] | AYES. | [3.55 P.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Grady, James |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hazleton, Richard | I O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shee, James John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Alden, Percy | Hewart, Gordon | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Higham, John Sharp | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Hinds, John | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Holt, Richard Durning | Pointer, Joseph |
| Barnes, George N. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Barton, William | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Radford, George Heynes |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Reddy, Michael |
| Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Boland, John P[...]us | Keating, Matthew | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, Mayo) | Kelly, Edward | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Kilbride, Denis | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Lardner, James C. R. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Rowlands, James |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Lundon, Thomas | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Sheehy, David |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Shortt, Edward |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Clough, William | McGhee, Richard | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Mackinder, Halford J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Cempton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Macpherson, James Ian | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Crumley, Patrick | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Cullinan, John | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Sutherland, John E. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sutton, John E. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) | M'Laren. Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Delany, William | Meagher, Michael | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Devlin, Joseph | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Millar, James Duncan | Tuilibardine, Marquess of |
| Doris, William | Molloy, Michael | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Duffy, William J. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Morgan, George Hay | Webb, H. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Morrell, Philip | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Falconer, James | Morison, Hector | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Muldoon. John | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Ginnell, Laurence | Munro, Robert | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Neilson, Francis | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Nolan, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Hackett, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Doherty, Philip | |
| Warmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | O'Donnell. Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Dowd, John | |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| NOES. | ||
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Fell, Arthur | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, John Samuel | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Barrie, H. T. | Gibbs, George Abraham | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Goldsmith, Frank | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Boyton, James | Greene, W. R. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Campion, W. R. | Gretton, John | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Hail, Frederick (Dulwich) | |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watt and Mr. Hogge. |
| Denniss, E. R. B, | Martin, Joseph |
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 21st July.