Commons Sitting of 31 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].

Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Kingston-upon-Thames Bridge Bill,
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
Penllwyn Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Westbury Estate Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
East Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.[Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. [SOUTHPORT ORDER.]
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended [28th July], (By Order.)
  Which Amendment was in Article XI., Sub-section (2), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert:
  "For the purposes of Part XVIII. of the Act of 1900 teachers who, at the commencement of this Order, are, or hereafter shall be, permanently and exclusively employed by the Corporation as the local education authority for the borough, or are permanently and exclusively employed in, any public elementary school in the borough (whether provided by the Corporation as the local education authority or not), or are permanently and exclusively employed in any school, college, or hostel provided by the Corporation as the local education authority for the purpose of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902 (and any such teacher is in this section called 'the teacher'), shall be deemed, if the Corporation in their discretion think fit, to be persons in the employment of the Corporation whom, or some of whom (according to their qualifications or conditions of service or otherwise) the Corporation may, in their discretion, determine to be a class or classes of persons entitled to contribute to and participate in the benefit of any fund established under the provisions of the Act of 1900, and upon any such determination such provisions shall apply accordingly.
  Provided that in exercising their discretion under this section the Corporation shall not differentiate between classes of teachers on the ground alone that any such class is composed of persons employed in public elementary schools provided by them or in public elementary schools not so provided, or of persons who were, before the commencement of this Order, employed in the existing borough, or of persons employed in the added area.

  (a) In the application of the Act of 1900 to any teacher to whom the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898 (in this section called "the Act of 1898"), applies, the amount of the superannuation allowance to be made to the teacher upon retirement under the provisions of the Act of 1900 shall be complementary to the amount of the deferred annuity to which the teacher is entitled and to the superannuation allowance which may be granted to the teacher under the Act of 1898 (in this section hereinafter called "the benefits under the Act of 1898"), and the salary or wages
  4
  in respect of which he shall contribute to and receive an annual allowance from the superannuation fund under the provisions of the Act of 1900 shall be so much (if any) of the actual salary or wages for the time being receivable by him as remains after deducted from that last-named salary or wages a sum equal to one and a half times the amount of the benefits under the Act of 1898 receivable by him, provided that the total amount of the contributions to be so made by him shall be at such rate or rates per centum per annum on the salary or wages calculated as aforesaid as the corporation, acting on the advice of an actuary (being a Fellow either of the Institute of Actuaries or of the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland), shall determine to be proper, so that the total amount of the contributions made by the teacher at the time when he becomes entitled to an annual allowance from the superannuation fund shall be nearly as may be bear the same ratio to the amount of such allowance as the total amount of the contributions made at the like time by any other officer or servant admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1900 with a like service shall bear to the amount of the annual allowance receivable by that officer or servant;

  (b) For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Sub-section the Corporation shall by Resolution from time to time determine the amount of the benefits under the Act of 1898, and prescribe a scale determining the rate or rates of contribution aforesaid;

  (c) If at any time hereafter under the Act of 1898, or by reason of the passing of any general Act of Parliament, whether in this or in any subsequent Session of Parliament or otherwise, the benefits under the provisions of the Act of 1898, or otherwise, shall be materially increased, the Corporation shall by an amending resolution make such provision as shall be necessary to meet the altered circumstances, and by that Resolution shall provide for the return to the teacher or the credit to him in respect of future contributions to the superannuation fund of the amount of any payments made by him to that fund in respect of service before the date of the amending Resolution in respect of any part, proportion, or amount of his salary or wages in excess of the part, proportion, or amount in respect of which,

  5
  as determined by the said amending Resolution, he will thereafter be entitled to contribute to and receive an annual allowance from the superannuation fund;

  (d) No part of any benefit or superannuation allowance received by any teacher from the superannuation fund shall be deemed to be paid out of or received from public money within the meaning of the 1898 Act or any rules made thereunder or otherwise."—[Sir James Yoxall.]

  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is a combined Order which relates to both Cambridge and Southport. I want to deal with that portion relating to Southport only. The Southport Corporation is a body which is worthy of the greatest respect, and adjoining Southport is the urban district of Birkdale. This Amendment is made necessary in the interests of the teachers, and I want to call attention to what I consider to be a very grave position. There have been introduced into the Order a number of compensations for various interests, but the teachers, as very often is the case, have been neglected. I am in a position to tell the House that this whole scheme is at present a matter of the most acute controversy. There was formed in the urban district of Birkdale a bogus ratepayers' association to take these matters in hand—so is my information—and this bogus association was financed, so it is alleged, by people interested in the Bill from the Southport side, and they have done with them what it is proposed to do with the teachers. Immediately any interested parties appear, they try to square them. I do not say this bargain is corrupt, but I do say certain of the others, of which this is a direct consequence, are corrupt. There is a correspondence going on in the Press of that district and charges of the gravest character are made. I do ask the House, therefore, to pause before they sanction a scheme of this kind. The old Birkdale School Board obtained a considerable amount of prominence—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member was using his influence in support of the Amendment. If he opposes it the Amendment must go over.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do oppose it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I beg pardon. I thought the hon. Member was supporting it.
  Debate further adjourned till To-morrow (Tuesday) at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Portugal.
  Mr. J. WARDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any protest from the representatives of the Republic of Portugal against the use which was being made by certain aliens of the right of asylum in this country to conspire against the Portuguese Government; and, if so, would he state what action he proposed to take to prevent our shores from being used for such conduct?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon-Wood): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. J. WARD: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in "The Times," where it was stated by one of the revolutionary officers that King Manoel had been assisting in the organisation of this force, and was ready to take command of it at any time?
  Mr. McKINNON-WOOD: That is not the question I was asked. The question was
  "Whether he has received any protest from the representatives of the Republic of Portugal against the use which is being made by certain aliens of the right of asylum in this country to conspire against the Portuguese Government?"
  and my answer is "No."

  Civil Service Supply Association, Ltd.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Secretary to the. Treasury what steps, if any, have been taken by the Government to stop the practice of giving special trading facilities to the Civil Service Supply Association, Limited, for trading on Government premises and in Government time with officials and others engaged in various Government Departments?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Enquiry has been made at the following Departments: War Office, Admiralty, General Post Office, Customs and Excise, Inland

  7
  Revenue, and I am informed that all of them prefer the system which at present prevails, and which does not prevent the full and proper performance of the official duties of the officers of the respective Departments.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not see there are other interests than those of the staff at stake here, and whether he thinks it fair to the private traders who have to compete that these special privileges should be given?
  Mr. HINDS: May I ask whether the same privileges will be given to other private traders?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: This is not a system I should have originated, but finding it in force, and finding a great number of the staff are in favour of its continuation, I think probably less injustice would be done by its continuation than by its abrogation.

  New Postage Stamps.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether orders for gumming plant for the new postage stamps were placed in Germany?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already informed the hon. Member that as by an oversight in the contract no restriction was placed on the contractors as to the origin of their machinery, some of that machinery was ordered from abroad, and amongst others the gumming plant. With regard to the gumming and calendering machinery, it is understood that there is no such British made machinery available, and that Messrs. Harrison made every possible inquiry of British manufacturers, who in many cases referred them to Continental firms.

  Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, pending the issue of the Report of the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments, instructions have been issued to the Board of Customs and Excise to proceed with all necessary appointments and promotions of assistants in the Customs Service on the lines of the existing classification; have the collectors and inspectors in charge of ports recommended certain increases to the staffs; have the Board made these increases; and, if not, for what reasons?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pending amalgamation, promotions are being made in the line of the existing classification, but assistants appointed since 1st April, 1909, are liable to serve on either the Customs or the Excise side of the Department as required. Proposals in regard to staff reach the Board from time to time, and are considered on their merits.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that owing to the delay on the part of the Committee arranging the details of the amalgamation—a Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman is I believe the chairman, promotion in the Customs is at a standstill, and many junior men are performing duties of seniors?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not see how that arises out of the question. If the Noble Lord will put a question on the Paper I shall be very glad to answer it.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether since the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Services the entire Customs Department has been controlled by a chief inspector and an assistant inspector, both of exclusive Excise training; and will instructions be issued to ensure that in all purely Customs affairs the interests of the Revenue and the officers will be protected by receiving the attention and supervision of Customs-trained men of adequate experience?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the officers named formerly belonged to the Excise side of the Department, but control is vested in the Board who are advised by officers with adequate knowledge and experience of the circumstances and work of both branches.

  Irish Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the President of the Board of Trade by whom was the appointment of additional divisional officer of the Labour Exchange in Ireland made; why it was that an Englishman was appointed to the position over the heads of all the Irish staff; and whether an Irishman competent for the position could not be obtained in Ireland?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The vacancy in question was caused by the promotion of an Irishman to a higher post in London. The officer selected for the vacancy was considered to be the one best fitted for the post.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the case that the Irishman appointed to London has been placed over the heads of English clerks?
  Mr. BUXTON: We like to appoint the best men we can get.
  Mr. LYNCH: Was the vacancy advertised in the Irish newspapers, and were fully qualified Irishmen invited to apply in writing?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not quite sure whether or how it was advertised. The matter was very carefully considered, and the officer selected was considered the best fitted. If the hon. Member will put down a specific question I will try to answer it.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: If an Irishman was appointed over a staff in England is that not all the greater reason why an Irishman should be appointed in Ireland?
  Mr. BUXTON: That may be very good argument.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked how many new labour exchanges are being opened in Ireland; and whether the divisional officer there is recommending outsiders as managers for the positions in them over the heads of the existing staff, who are men of experience, and in which the others can have none, and who will receive larger salaries if such appointments be made?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is proposed to open twelve additional labour exchanges in Ireland in the near future, and in several cases members of the existing staff will be placed in charge of them. The qualifications of members of the existing staff are always considered first when appointments of this nature have to be made.
  Mr. LYNCH: But are not Irishmen better acquainted with local conditions in Ireland than Englishmen?
  Mr. BUXTON: All that is taken into account. We desire always to get the man best fitted for the post.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any lady attendants for the women's departments in each labour exchange in Ireland; if not, will he consider the appointment of female officials as better suited to look after the business of these departments than male officials; can he say why it is that they have not been appointed; and whether he will take steps to see that they be appointed in future?
  Mr. BUXTON: All but two of the Irish labour exchanges have women officers upon their permanent staff. The two smaller exchanges, which at present have no such officer, are visited by the woman supervising officer for the division. The desirability of appointing a woman to these exchanges in the event of the work justifying such a course, will not be overlooked.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not absolutely necessary to have a lady attendant appointed to all exchanges?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think my answer covers that. If there is any further point I shall be glad to answer it.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that at the small exchanges there is no lady attendant?
  Mr. BUXTON: I can only read my answer again.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there are no exchanges without lady attendants to look after the women's branch?
  Mr. BUXTON: Certainly, in the event of the work justifying such an appointment.

  British Ships (Chinese Sailors).
  Mr. HUNTasked the number of Chinese sailors employed on British ships during the year 1910?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am unable to state the number of Chinese sailors employed on British ships during the year 1910, but statistics showing the number of Chinese and British seamen engaged at ports in the United Kingdom during the years 1908, 1909, 1910 were circulated with the Votes on 18th July in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Monmouth Boroughs, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing whether Chinese sailors on British ships get the same wages as British sailors doing the same work; and whether the cost of the food of Chinese sailors employed on British ships costs the same amount of money as the food of British sailors?
  Mr. BUXTON: As regards the wages of Chinese and British seamen, I do not think I can usefully add to the information contained in the answers given to the hon.

  11
  Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool on the 18th April and the 4th May last, of which I am sending him copies. I am unable to give any reliable estimate of the cost of the food supplied to Chinese or to British seamen.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes no care at all that Chinese sailors do not supplant British sailors on British ships because they work for lower wages and undertake to do with worse food?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to presume nothing of the kind. I have given the greatest consideration to the question, and I certainly have done nothing in favour of Chinamen as against British sailors. On the contrary, as far as my statutory powers go, I certainly use my efforts in the other direction.
  Mr. HUNT: Has the right hon. Gentleman done nothing to safeguard British as against Chinese sailors?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade is acting within its statutory powers?
  Mr. HUNT: If the right hon. Gentleman has not got sufficient statutory powers it is his business to try and get them.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Do Chinamen have to undergo a medical examination to the same extent and degree as Britishers do?
  Mr. BUXTON: That depends on the shipowner; it is not a matter under the control of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. W. THORNE: If the British sailor is forced to undergo a strict medical examination why not the Chinese sailor?
  Mr. BUXTON: As far as the compulsory examination is concerned it is not under the power of the Board of Trade either as applying to the British or the Chinese. As far as the Board of Trade is concerned we do not insist on a greater medical examination for British sailors than for Chinese.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that the British shipowners insist on a stricter examination outside the Board of Trade, and one which is obnoxious to the men who have to undergo it.
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend is referring to the examination of the Shipping Federation which is not under the control of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Was any medical or language test applied to the train load of Chinamen taken right across the country to be shipped at Cardiff?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

  Diseases of Animals.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when the Report of the Diseases of Animals for 1910 will be issued?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The Report has been sent to the printers, and will, I hope, be delivered early next week.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked to what extent and by what methods the Board has succeeded in preventing the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease during the past ten days.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There has been no extension of foot-and-mouth disease outside the limits of the infected places prescribed by the Board in Middlesex and Sussex. The methods adopted have been those which were successful on previous occasions.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: How long is it proposed to continue this zone of quicklime around the infected areas?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether regulations restricting the importation of straw and hay, including that used for packing, from every country in which any cases of foot-and-mouth disease are known to exist are in fact at present in force; and, if so, why similar restrictions should not be placed upon all farm produce from such sources intended for consumption by British farm stock?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The importation of hay and straw for use as fodder or litter is prohibited by the Foreign Hay and Straw Order of 1908. The question of prohibiting the importation of other farm produce, including hay and straw used for packing merchandise, has often been considered, but infection has never been found to be attributable to such articles. The Board propose to institute further inquiries as to the means, if any, by which greater security could be obtained.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the order restricting the importation of this foreign hay and straw at present in force in regard to infected countries?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It certainly is in force.

  School Inspectors and Examiners.
  Sir JAMESYOXALL:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state, in respect of the years 1905 to 1911, both inclusive, the total number of inspectors, junior inspectors, and examiners appointed; how many in each grade were appointed by selection; how many because of success in examinations held by the Civil Service Commission; how many of those not previously sub-inspectors possess the Board's certificate or other recognised diploma in teaching; of those not previously sub-inspectors, the number engaged in inspecting public elementary schools, and in each case (indicated by reference to letters and not by name) the number of months' experience as adult teachers in such schools; the number of sub-inspectors who, having been certificated teachers in such schools, have been promoted to be junior inspectors or inspectors, or to be examiners; and, in the case of persons appointed to be examiners, and not possessing the certificate, diploma, or experience aforesaid, the particular experience or knowledge of education in schools connected with the Board of Education possessed in each case?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have already, in reply to numerous questions, given very full information as to the teaching experience of inspectors appointed during the years since the present Government took office. For the purpose of this question I propose to confine my reply to my own appointments. The term "Examiner" is applied to the junior grades of the Board's higher administrative staff. Teaching experience is not required as a qualification in their case, as their duties do not include examining or inspecting. They are required, as a rule, to have obtained high academic distinctions and are selected by virtue of these and of a variety of qualifications, administrative, legal, etc. It would not be practicable in any case to set out the qualifications of "Examiners" in any statistical form. Examiners, inspectors, and junior inspectors are appointed by the President. Their successes in examinations have not been in examinations held by the Civil Service
  14
  Commissioners. The Board's inspectorate has to be manned so as to provide for the inspection of secondary and technical and other kinds of schools, and for special subjects, such as physical exercises, and also must include men capable of setting and marking examination papers in all kinds of subjects and up to the highest grades of work. Inspectors are liable to be transferred from one branch to another as occasion may require. I have appointed sixty-four persons to be inspectors or junior inspectors, fifty of whom are at present engaged in the inspection of elementary schools. Eight of the fifty had been sub-inspectors. Forty-eight of them are known to have had practical experience in teaching; seventeen (including the eight who had formerly been sub-inspectors) had the certificate of the Board of Education, and thirteen others had diplomas for teaching. Thirty of the fifty are known to have had practical experience of teaching in elementary schools, fourteen of them for two or more years; seven others for one year and less than two years, and nine for periods of less than one year. Eighteen of these thirty had also had practical experience in teaching in other kinds of schools and colleges, some having been engaged on the staff of training colleges and pupil teacher centres, some having served their apprenticeship as pupil teachers, and some having also passed through a training college, although they had not subsequently taught in a public elementary school. As my hon. Friend asks for the exact number of months of adult experience in each case of teaching in elementary schools, I have had every case looked into, and so far as the Board's records show, the figures are as follows:—Six of three months, one of four months, one of six months, one of ten months, five of twelve months, one of eighteen months, one of twenty months, two of two years, one of two and a-half years, one of two and three-quarter years, one of three years, one of four and a-half years, one of seven years, one of nine and three-quarter years, one of eleven years, two of twelve years, one of seventeen years, one of twenty-four years, and one of uncertain period.

  Chorley (Council School).
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked whether Chorley is now the only town in England with a population of over 30,000 inhabitants without a council school; whether a largely signed petition

  15
  of parents and ratepayers has been received in favour of a council school; and what action the education authorities propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the rest of the question, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave in this House on 20th July.

  Transfer of Children (Elementary and Secondary Schools).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked whether the question of the age of transfer of children from elementary schools to secondary schools has ever been considered by the consultative committee of the Board; and, if so, what was the nature of the recommendations made by the committee?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; the question of the age of transfer of children from elementary schools to secondary schools has not been referred to the consultative committee by the Board.
  Mr. KING: Can this question be referred to the consultative committee?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any educational subject can be referred to the committee.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman be pleased to do so?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    ARMY, NAVY AND MARINES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked (1) whether, in view of the fact that noncommissioned officers and men of the Army will each have to contribute the sum of 2d. a week under the National Insurance Bill, he will inform the House if it is proposed to abolish the system of hospital stoppages in the Army; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that petty officers, noncommissioned officers, and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marine Forces will each have to contribute the sum of 2d. a week under the National Insurance Bill, he will inform the House if it is proposed to abolish the system of hospital stoppages in those services?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The contribution of 2d. a week will be required to meet the cost of insuring soldiers and sailors after their discharge. There is no new circumstance which would justify their being given full pay during sickness while in the Service.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Do I understand that the 2d. will not be compulsory while they are serving in the Army and the Navy?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; it is in order to build up a reserve for them after they have left the Service.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is meant by the term seaman in Clause 36, page 31, line 21, of the National Insurance Bill; whether he is aware that the ratings under the term seaman only amount to twelve; whether he is aware that the men of the Royal Navy, independent of the Royal Marines, are made up of ninety-seven ratings besides what are designated as seamen in the King's regulations and Admiralty instructions; and whether all Naval ratings are included under this heading?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The intention is to include all ratings other than officers and warrant officers.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman put that in the Bill so that there shall be no mistake whatever, because the term "seaman" only includes twelve ratings?
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked, with reference to Clause 36 of the National Insurance Bill, what sums the Admiralty and Army Council propose to contribute in respect of every seaman, marine and soldier out of the moneys provided by Parliament for Army and Navy services?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The actuaries' report on this subject will be laid on the Table to-day.

    WAR OFFICE AND ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether it is intended that it shall be possible, at the discretion of Insurance Commissioners, for either the War Office or those employed in Government ordnance factories, or both, by mutual agreement, to contract out of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: All Government employés (except soldiers and sailors) who do not fall within exception (b) of Part II. of the First Schedule of the Bill will be on precisely the same footing as persons similarly employed outside the Government service.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sick benefit and medical benefit are already covered by deductions from pay?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That does not seem to me to arise out of the question?

    IRISH ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has under his consideration the desirability of carrying to an independent account the moneys to be contributed by employer and employés in Ireland under the National Insurance Bill in. order that it may be ascertained what relation the contribution of both parties will bear to the benefits granted?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The means suggested by the hon. Member would not attain the end which he desires, since the account would only show the actual receipts from contributions and the issues to the societies for the payment of benefits within the year. The relation of the contributions to the minimum benefits will be more clearly shown at the periodical valuations by the surpluses available for additional benefits or the deficiencies to be made up in the Irish societies or branches of societies as the case may be.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask whether all the contributions are to be pooled in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They are not to be pooled in Ireland except in the sense that they will be paid into the fund.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the average weekly wage earned by those employed in agriculture in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, together with the percentage of those engaged in agriculture in Great Britain as compared with Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Board of Trade census of wages in agriculture showed that in 1907 the average earnings of agricultural labourers in Ireland were 11s. 3d. weekly (ranging from an average of 10s. in Connaught to one of 12s. 1d. in Ulster), comparing with 18s. 4d. in England, 18s. in Wales and Monmouthshire, and 19s. 7d. in Scotland; the estimated value of payments in kind being included in every case. The proportion of the occupied population of Ireland which at the Census of 1901 was engaged in agriculture was
    18
    44.1 per cent., comparing with 8.4 per cent. in England and Wales, 10.3 per cent. in Scotland, and 12.4 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Do these figures show the comparative number of weeks Irish and English labourers are employed?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They have been taken as nearly as possible for a percentage of years.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what are the separate standards of earnings for agricultural labourers in different parts of England as well as in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: All this information is to be found in the admirable report compiled by Mr. Wilson Cox.

  Land Valuation.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked under what Section, and in what line of such Section in the Finance Act, is it provided that assessment for site value can be made on a minus valuation; and in what manner is it proposed to allow 10 per cent. upon a minus quantity?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The provision for deducting the capitalised value of fixed charges is contained in Section 25, Subsections 4 (a) and 3 of the Finance (1909–10) Act. The Act does not expressly provide that the site value shall necessarily be either a positive or a negative quantity. The question of the 10 per cent. allowance where the original site value is a minus quantity is a legal one which has not arisen in practice.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is not site value described in Section 25 as total value less certain deductions? If so, how can there be site value when there is no total value, or how can something be part of nothing?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have answered the question on the Paper.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is minus site valuation in the Act?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already replied to that.

  Wireless Telegraphists (Royal Navy).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if orders have been recently issued, by circular or otherwise,

  19
  to officers in command of His Majesty's ships that for the present no wireless telegraphists are to be allowed to leave His Majesty's service by purchasing their discharges in the ordinary way?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The discharge by purchase of telegraphist ratings is not prohibited altogether, but orders are in force that all applications for such discharge shall be carefully scrutinised and allowed only in really urgent cases. With the growing requirements of wireless telegraphy in the fleet, it is desirable that the expansion of this new branch of the naval service shall not be checked more than is necessary.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Lifebuoys).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the representatives of the Admiralty at Rosyth have examined the new lifebuoys provided for the rescue of workmen who may fall into the sea; and are they satisfied with the length of line supplied to each buoy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must remind the hon. Member that the contractors and not the Admiralty are responsible for the provision of lifebuoys and fittings. Arrangements have been made by the contractors for attaching fifteen fathoms of line to each buoy, and the representatives of the Admiralty are satisfied with this length.

  Dirigible Balloon (Royal Navy).
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reason for the delay in the completion of the dirigible balloon at Barrow; and if he anticipates that it will be ready for any trial trips this autumn?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is expected that the airship will be ready for trials almost immediately; the ship is experimental and no unnecessary delays have occurred.
  Mr. FELL: Was not an almost identical answer given two months ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the previous answer he will be able to perceive for himself.

  Royal Navy (Seamen and Marines).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what are the ages (in five-year groups) of marines and seamen now in the service, and how many are married?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will circulate the figures asked for with the printed papers. It is not possible, however, to state how many of the seamen are married. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Shipwrights (Royal Dockyards).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to say whether apprenticeship time from the age of sixteen years will in future be allowed to count for pension by shipwrights employed in His Majesty's dockyards?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question is still under consideration by the Treasury.

  Inspectors of Engine Fitters (H.M. Dockyards).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Civil Service examination for inspectors of engine fitters in Royal dockyards is a competitive or a qualifying examination; if competitive, whether any list is issued showing the position of the successful candidates in order of merit; whether that order is strictly observed when selecting inspectors; whether additional marks are given by officials and for what reason; and whether, if the examination is now competitive, and in view of dissatisfaction sometimes arising, he can see his way in future to make it a qualifying examination only and place the successful candidates in alphabetical order?
  Mr. McKENNA: The examination referred to is competitive as between candidates belonging to the same dockyard, and marks are assigned in respect of the personal qualification of the candidates for duties of supervision. The dockyards are informed of the position of the successful candidates in order of merit. Promotions are made according to their results of the examination, combined with the marks for personal qualifications, but the position of a candidate as determined by his marks does not imply appointment to either an acting or an established position without reference to his subsequent character and conduct. It is not proposed to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are these marks given after examination or before?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, I will inquire.

  India (Navy).
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has had under consideration the suggestions put forward for again providing India with her own Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the suggestion to which the hon. Member refers, but it has not yet come before the Board of Admiralty officially.
  Mr. W. THORNE: When will the tenders be out for the new battleships?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot say that.

  Thames Shipbuilding Company.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked whether the Thames Shipbuilding Company's shipyard is the only such private establishment south of Barrow and the Tyne; and whether, in view of the national advantage in preserving such shipyard, the Admiralty will consider its claims in assigning contracts for battleships?
  Mr. McKENNA: With the exception of the large shipbuilding yard at Birkenhead —Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co.—there is no other private shipbuilding yard south of Barrow and the Tyne capable of constructing battleships of recent design in addition to the Thames Company. Due consideration is invariably given to all firms from whom tenders for battleships are received.

  Victoria and Albert Museum (Police).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the police at the Victoria and Albert Museum have been replaced at the instigation of the Board of Education by porters; and, if so, whether he will see that the police so replaced will not be allowed to suffer any reduction in pay by their transfer to ordinary duty?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I am informed by the Board of Education that a number of uniformed warders and doorkeepers who, with a few exceptions, have served in the Army, Navy, or police, have been appointed to perform duties in the museum hitherto performed by police officers. This has led to the latter officers returning to their ordinary duties, but when and so far as it is practicable they will be given employment of a similar nature elsewhere.

  Flour (Nutritive Value).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board when his Department proposes to publish the long-promised report upon the nutritive value of flour, as at present manufactured, and other foods?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The report is now in an advanced stage of preparation, and I hope it may be issued very shortly.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that six weeks ago he indicated that this report would be forthcoming within a fortnight?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, I did, but in the intervening period I have been requested to see several very representative deputations, and I have thought it advisable to see them. I have another to see before the report will be issued.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: May it be expected within the next fourteen days?
  Mr. BURNS: If I see the two deputations before that period, yes; but I must see them. One is from Ireland.

  Darenth Asylum (Hours of Labour).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an alteration in the hours of labour worked by the stokers in the Darenth Asylum under the Metropolitan Asylums Board; whether the eight hours a day system which has obtained for twelve years has been abolished, and at the present time the men are called upon to work in 12-hour shifts, making an average of seventy-eight hours a week; and, if so, whether he will recommend the withdrawal of the regulations and the return to the old conditions?
  Mr. BURNS: I learn that there has recently been a change made in the arrangement of working hours of stokers under the Metropolitan Asylums Board. There seems to be some doubt as to the correct interpretation of the resolution of the managers on the subject, and I am in communication with them about it.

  Transvaal (Native Death Rate).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the death rate among the natives employed in the Transvaal mines in place of the repatriated Chinese and to the

  23
  death rate among such of the natives as have been recruited from British Nyassaland, Nyassa, and Zambesia; and if he proposes to take any steps to prevent such recruiting from Colonies under the Colonial Office?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The mortality among the Nyassaland natives in the Transvaal is causing me great concern, and I am in active communication with the Union Government, who hope, however, to see a material improvement in the course of a few months owing to the restriction of tropical natives to mines where proper change houses exist. Further measures may be required, but if they fail the stoppage of emigration may be necessary.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that a number of national school teachers in Ireland who have qualified for promotion to the first grade are deprived of the increments of salary to which they are entitled, owing to a limitation imposed by the Treasury upon the number of those to whom the higher salary is to be paid; if he will state the number of teachers who are affected by this limitation, and the additional charge upon the votes for the current year that would be entailed by its removal; if he will explain how the removal of the limitation would prejudice the teachers' pension fund; and if he will favourably consider the withdrawal of the regulation in question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member will find all the information asked for in the first part of his question in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member for South Cork on the 16th May last. The removal of the limitation by increasing the number of teachers who may qualify for higher grade pensions will eventually add to the liabilities and so to the estimated deficiency of the pension fund.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why in the case of teachers who have qualified for promotion, the Treasury is not prepared to carry out an alteration in Section 105A of the Regulations?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think I have already replied to that.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of answering my question without referring me to an answer he gave some months ago?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The 16th May last is not some months ago.

  Franchise and Payment of Rates.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to a recent decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that unless inhabitants of tenements were rated separately they did not comply with the terms of the Franchise Act of 1867; whether he is aware that this decision will affect other classes in addition to latchkey voters, and will be the means of disfranchising many thousands of people in all parts of the country; and whether he intends taking action in the matter.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The decision is receiving the serious consideration of the Government.

  Parliament Bill,
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say if he will suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule on the day on which the Division on the Lords' Amendments is to be taken, in order that Members on the back benches may have an opportunity of expressing their views?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not able to say anything about this at present.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether he will say something about it before the Debate comes on? [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Cecil."]
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will be in a position to say on what day the Debate will be taken?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will hon. Members give a guarantee for good behaviour?

  Duration of Session.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heat of the weather and also of political feeling in all quarters of the House, consequent upon the constitutional crisis, he will, immediately after the passing of the Parliament Bill and with a view to the exercise of a more sound and sober judgment upon other important legislation, adjourn its further consideration for two or three months, until a cooler atmosphere prevails?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make a statement shortly as to the business of the House.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it true economy of time and human energy to force the House to sit during the hottest months of the year?

  Accountant-General's Appointment.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the gentleman who has recently been appointed Accountant-General only entered the service in November, 1900, and whether during most of his service he has been employed as private secretary to Sir Robert Chalmers and other head officials; and whether he will explain why this official has gone over the head of the Deputy Accountant-General, who has had thirty-nine years' experience in the Department, and who has been acting as Accountant General for about twelve months; and whether he is aware that the next senior official who has been passed over has had thirty-four years' service; and, if so, will he say why an official who has had no experience in the department of which he has now become chief has been appointed, to the detriment of more experienced officials?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The present Accountant and Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue, who entered that Department on 15th October, 1900, and has had the advantage of being private secretary to successive chairmen of the Board for five years, was selected for his present post solely on grounds of merit, after the claims of existing officers in the Department had received the fullest consideration.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman is not a qualified accountant, whereas both of the senior officials who have been passed over are qualified accountants?
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that great dissatisfaction exists among the staff at Somerset House on the subject of promotions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware that great dissatisfaction exists.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is there nobody equally qualified in the Civil Service to whom this appointment could have been offered?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir, not in that particular Department.

  Army Horses (India).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Government sell their cavalry, artillery, and transport horses, when cast as unfit for further work, by public auction, with a reserve on them of £l 13s. 4d.; and, seeing that horses sold at these low prices are almost invariably bought by natives, and succumb within a few months owing to ill-treatment and overwork, will he say what steps he will take to prevent these sales?
  Mr. STANIERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether horses sold out of the Army in India are in most cases sold to natives who use them for hire, causing cruelty to animals?
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Geoffrey Howard): In India Government horses are cast when considered unfit to stand the strain of a campaign, and are by no means necessarily unfit for ordinary work. Those actually unfit for ordinary work are not sold, but destroyed. There is no reason to suppose that horses thus sold are specially exposed to ill-treatment.

  Indian Police.
  Mr. STANIERasked (1) whether the Government are yet able to give the reply to the petition of the Indian police for their pensions to begin at twenty-five years' service; and, if so, whether they will grant the request? and (2) whether the Government are yet able to give the reply to the petitions of the Indian police as to relief from the block in promotion, and asking for the limit of age to be made fifty-five?
  Mr. G. HOWARD: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the questions together. The Government of India, as I have already stated, are engaged in an inquiry into the question of allowing police officers to retire on full pension after twenty-five years' service. That inquiry is being accelerated. Every officer is under existing rules allowed to retire at fifty-five and may be required to do so.

  English Locomotives for India (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Undersecretary of State for India if he is aware that the Vulcan Foundry Company, of Earlestown, Lancashire, who supply loco-

  27
  motives for the Indian State Railways, are only paying their smiths 30s., smiths' strikers 23s., and milling machine hands 21s. to 27s. per week, whilst the district rate is 36s., 25s., and 32s. per week; and whether he will inquire into the matter, with the object of enforcing the Fair-Wages Clause; and whether, in making such inquiries, he will consult the representatives of the workmen?
  Mr. G. HOWARD: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but inquiries are being made.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in January, 1906, the tenants on. the estate of Mrs. Hall, county Fermanagh, signed an agreement to purchase their holdings under the Land Act of 1903; can he state the cause of delay in completing the sale; and when the Land Commission will advance the purchase money?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): If the hon. Member refers to the estate of Mrs. Sarah J. Hall, county Fermanagh, the agreements signed by the tenants on this estate for the purchase of their holdings were not lodged with the Estates Commissioners until May, 1907. The estate will be dealt with in order of priority, but having regard to the prior claims of other estates, the Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when it will be reached in its turn.
  Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of John. Scott, Esq., Hollymount, Cardonagh, county Donegal, have made application to the Congested Districts Board to purchase their holdings; whether the Congested Districts Board has refused to entertain the application; and, if so, why has this been done?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Applications have been received by the Congested Districts Board from the tenants asking the Board to purchase the estate referred to. Up to the present the property has not been offered for sale to the Board.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that 13,000 acres of untenanted land have been acquired by the Estates Commissioners in the county of Westmeath; within what
  28
  period has this land been acquired, and what was the total amount paid by the Estates Commissioners for its acquisition; and if he will state further, in respect of the same period, the amount advanced by the Commissioners to tenant occupiers in county Armagh for the purchase of their holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The area of the untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners in county Westmeath since the passing of the Act of 1903 is 7,000 acres and the purchase money is £122,875. In the same period £1,405,193 has been advanced by the Commissioners to 6,579 tenants in the county Armagh for the purchase of their holdings.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Sergeant Carroll's Case),
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a decree in an action for assault was granted by the county court judge at the June sittings against Sergeant Carroll, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Maguiresbridge, county Fermanagh, and confirmed on appeal, and is this the second time this officer has been held liable for assault; has another officer of the Maguiresbridge force been held liable also for assault; and will he suggest to the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities that the constant friction between the Royal Irish Constabulary and some of the inhabitants of the district might be terminated if these members of the force were transferred to other stations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the fact stated in the first paragraph of the question. A decree was also obtained against this sergeant in 1909 for assault, but the Lord Chief Baron, on appeal, held that the assault was merely technical, and gave only 6d. damages. Damages were also obtained against a constable for assault during an election row. Sergeant Carroll has been transferred at his own request from Maguiresbridge. It is not proposed to transfer the constable.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not a fact that the alleged assault took place when the doors of the public house had to be closed, that then the sergeant found it necessary to spit out, and that this man swore he spat at him? That is the only fault the sergeant committed.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, I think that was all very well represented by sixpence?

  Cattle Disease, Kilmacow (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the mortality among calves and young stock generally at Kilmacow, county Kilkenny; whether, after considerable agitation among the local inhabitants, an inspector was sent down by the Department of Agriculture, who, with a sergeant of police, went round and saw many cattle sick and others recently dead; whether the inspector wrote voluminous notes and took blood and portions of animals away for analysis; whether, since then, an inspector has visited the place; and, if so, can he state the nature of the report submitted; and whether the Department of Agriculture have any remedy to suggest for stopping this rate of mortality?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In June of last year an inspector of the Department of Agriculture made inquiries in the Kilmacow neighbourhood regarding a wasting disease which had been reported as causing serious mortality locally among cattle. At that time the losses appeared to have ceased, and the inspector was unable satisfactorily to investigate the matter as no acute case or case of recent death in which post-mortem examination could be made was discoverable. The Department are not aware of any subsequent reappearance of the malady.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether any money has been paid to contractors for labourers' cottages in West Clare, particularly in the Querin division of the Kilrush rural district, and in Doonaghboy, in the Kilferagh division, before the satisfactory completion of the work?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is the usual practice for a rural district council to pay contractors for labourers' cottages by instalments as the works progress. The Local Government Board are informed by the clerk of the Kilrush rural district council that in none of the instances mentioned has the final instalment been paid to the contractor concerned.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the delay in completing labourers' cottages in West Clare, in Doonaghboy, in the Kilferagh electoral division, and in Doonaha in the Mogarta division, whereby inconvenience has been
  30
  caused to the persons for whom they are intended; and whether means will be taken to expedite matters?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board will communicate with the rural district council, with whom rests the carrying out of the scheme which has been sanctioned, and will point out to them the desirability of having these cottages completed with as little delay as possible.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice that in one case a cottage was left so long without slates that it is no longer possible to put the slates on?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will inquire into it.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LUNDONasked on what grounds the pension officer appealed against the decision of the local pension committee at Hospital, county Limerick, who granted a pension to Kate Baggott, of Herbertstown, on 5th July; has the appeal been heard; and, if so, what decision has been come to?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The pension officer has appealed to the Local Government Board on the ground that Kate Baggott's means exceeded the statutory limit, but the Board has not yet adjudicated upon the case.

  Disturbance at Ballyclare (County Antrim).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, on the nights of the 11th and 12th instant, crowds paraded the Doagh Road, Ballyclare, county Antrim, shouting, singing party songs, and cursing the Pope, and that, when opposite the parochial house, indulged in insulting language, and on the night of the 12th attacked a number of Catholic houses in the neighbourhood, battering the doors and throwing stones, and beating and abusing Catholics who happened to be on the streets; whether he is aware that on the night of the 12th the mob was accompanied by the Protestant curate, with his orange sash on; whether the local sergeant of police declared that the conduct of the mob was disgraceful, but that he could not do anything with them; whether the sergeant is a Methodist preacher; whether he is aware that the Catholics are only one in six of the population; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrages on the 11th and 12th; whether any report

  31
  was made by the local police; and whether steps will be taken to protect in the future the Catholics of the district from insult and attack on account of their religion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the night of the 11th July, a drumming party marched through Ballyclare, and that on the 12th a band, followed by about 100 persons, paraded the town and halted opposite the parochial house, but no insulting language was used on either occasion. On the night of the 12th, while the police were engaged in one part of the town, a large crowd assembled in another part and kicked or stoned the doors of the houses of four Roman Catholics. The Church of Ireland curate accompanied the crowd, but he had no orange sash on. The local sergeant denies that he made the statement attributed to him. He is a Methodist and has preached occasionally. The Catholics are one in seven of the population. No arrests have been made. A report of the incidents referred to was made by the local police. Special precautions will be taken in future to prevent any annoyance to the Catholic inhabitants of the town.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not part of the political creed of the Irish Nationalist party that minorities must suffer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that.

  Reinstatement Application.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners received an application from Patrick Davis for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on the estate of Major Irvine, and the decision that Davis did not come within the class of persons mentioned in Section 1 (2) (a) of The Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and that his case, therefore, could not be dealt with under that Act, he will say whether the case of Patrick Davis comes within Section 17 (1) (c) of The Irish Land Act, 1909, and whether the Estates Commissioners will deal with his case under that Section?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The application of Patrick Davis for reinstatement will be considered if the estate on which his former holding is situate comes before the Estates Commissioners to be dealt with under the Land Purchase Acts.

  Heath Fires (Aldershot).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the damage to the uniforms of the officers and men of the Regular Army engaged in putting out the heath fires in the Aldershot district has to be made good out of their own pockets; and whether there exists some public fund to make good the loss incurred by these men in doing a public service?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The general officer commanding concerned is empowered by the regulations to investigate claims of this kind and to approve them within the prescribed limits. In exceptional cases reference to the Army Council is necessary, but no such application has been received in this case.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it the fact that men who do get their clothes burned do not get paid for them, but have to pay themselves?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope not. Any case brought to my notice will be investigated at once.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman not do a little more than hope?
  Mr. FLEMING: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the only way is to report to the officer commanding?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes. Whenever anything of the kind occurs in the ordinary way the commanding officer of the unit, if appealed to, can address the Commander-in-Chief. If it was within the prescribed limits of compensation it would be at once paid. If not within those limits, appeal would be made to the Army Council. We have had no such appeal.

  Army Employés Ratings.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Undersecretary for War whether, owing to slackness of employment, a number of employés whose rating had for a period of, in some cases, twenty years stood at 34s., have had recently to suffer a reduction of rating to 27s.; and, if so, whether he will insure that by reason of such change the men so affected shall not suffer a consequent reduction in sick pay, holiday pay, or gratuity on discharge?
  Colonel SEELY: There have been some reductions of rating at the Small Arms Factory, Enfield, owing to slackness of

  33
  employment, but in no case did the length of service at the higher rate approximate to twenty years. The only alternative to these reductions would have been to discharge the men affected. I cannot undertake that these alterations in day work ratings may not affect sick pay or holiday pay or gratuities on discharge, as it is not possible to give vested rights to a certain rate of sick or holiday pay, and as gratuities on discharge are regulated by Statute.

  Army Ordnance Wages (Colchester).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the inquiry into the rate of wages paid at the Army Ordnance Department at Colchester, promised by the Secretary of State for War on 21st June, 1910, which was continuing on the 6th July, 1910, and still continuing on 21st February, 1911, has now been completed; and when the statement on the subject generally, which was promised on 21st February shortly and very shortly at a later date, may be expected?
  Colonel SEELY: As I informed the House last week, I hope to be able shortly to make a general statement on the subject of the minimum rate of wages for War Department employés at out-stations. A very considerable number of stations and rates are affected, but I hope to be able to issue the statement this week.

  Invalided Soldiers (Pensions).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the pensions granted to the 317 men invalided from the Service in 1910 were life pensions, and what was the average duration of the temporary pensions granted to the 876 men invalided in the same year; and why the 899 men also invalided in that year got no pension, and what was the average length of service of such 899 men?
  Colonel SEELY: The pensions granted to the 317 men were life pensions. As regards the 876 temporary pensions no figures showing the average duration are readily available. They are very rarely granted for less than twelve months. As regards the 899 men who got no pensions, they were men whose disabilities were not due to service or climate and the circumstances of whose cases did not, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, entitle them to any award under the Royal Warrant. No figures as to their average length of service are readily available.

  Army (Ages, etc., of Men).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state the ages (in five-year groups) of the non-commissioned officers and men now in the Army, and how many are married, distinguishing between those on the British and the Indian Establishments?
  Colonel SEELY: The latest available information as to the ages will be found on page 84 of the General Annual Report for 1st October 1910 (Cd. 5481 of 1911). There are no statistics available to show how many of these non-commissioned officers and men are married, but the average number of women on the married establishment for 1910 amounted to 16,062 for those on the British and 4,137 for those on the Indian Establishment.

  Leicestershire Horse Artillery.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked whether the Leicestershire Battery of Horse Artillery now in camp on Salisbury Plain have yet been provided with sights with clinometers attached; whether, if they have not yet received them, they will receive them before Monday, 31st July; and how, if such sights are not received by that date, the battery will be able to carry out firing practice from behind cover?
  Colonel SEELY: This battery has already got the sights. The telescopes and clinometers were despatched on Saturday to Salisbury Plain for this battery.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it will be convenient to give the House any information as to the course of business this week?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall proceed with the National Insurance Bill tomorrow and on Wednesday.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: Every Member of the House, in whatever quarter of the House he sits, is aware that you, Mr. Speaker, are the freely chosen Speaker of this House, and as such are the guardian of its honour and its privileges, and that you are always ready to guard that honour and those privileges when called upon.

35
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to a letter purporting to have been written by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Pointer) to the "Sheffield Guardian." I took the first possible means of communicating with the hon. Member by sending him a telegram to this House, telling him I was going to raise this question, and trusting that it would be convenient for him to be present. The letter is as follows:—
"Where was the Speaker? He was there all right; but, to his shame be it said, he utterly failed to curb the wild spirits of the neurotic Tories responsible for the uproar. To fail, of course, docs not necessarily mean disgrace: but in this case it does, because his failure was the outcome of a violent party leaning. Had the Labour members, or the Irish members, or even the Liberal members started the row it would not have developed. Before we had proceeded far one or more of those responsible would have been named, and the Serjeant-at-Arms would have been asked to remove them from the House. It was a pitiable fall. For the most part he seems to have been a great success as a Speaker, and in the main has upheld the dignity of debate. But that circumstance only made his failure on Monday the more miserable and pitiable. I am sorry to have to say this of the genial Speaker, but truth and fairness demand I shall say so, and truth will out though the devil says 'No.'"
Therefore, in accordance with Parliamentary procedure, I beg to move:—"That the letter of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield constitutes a libel on Mr. Speaker, and is a gross breach of the privileges of this House."
Mr. SPEAKER: Before I put this to the House, as I see the hon. Member present, I will give him an opportunity, if he wishes, to say anything with regard to the matter.
Mr. POINTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down announced to the House in his statement that he had sent me word at the earliest possible moment. I received that word five minutes' ago. Consequently I have not had time to consider what my action should be in the event of such a Motion being brought forward. As far as I am concerned, I perhaps ought to explain one thing which may put me right with the House, before I approach the gravamen of the charge made against me. What I meant to explain is this: I have not either in this case or any other gone deliberately out of my way to make an attack upon you, Mr. Speaker. But the words complained of formed part and parcel of a letter which was one of my usual weekly letters to my constituents. The main part of the letter dealt with the affairs and the incidents which happened
36
here on Monday last. In the course of my statement I had a good deal to say, and it appeared to me that I ought to give my constituents my views on what I saw and heard, and on the part played by yourself, Sir. I may legitimately claim that what the Speaker does in this House in regard to the course of public business ought to be matter of fair comment by a Member of this House in making statements to his constituents. Therefore, what I meant to emphasise is this, that the main part of the letter to which objection has been taken relates to the uproar which took place last Monday, and the references to yourself, Sir, are only incidental thereto; but, in so far as I characterised them, my words, which were strong, conveyed my meaning emphatically. I have nothing to add, and nothing to explain away in connection with the fact that certain hon. Members opposite repeatedly and persistently shouted at the top of their voices certain words which were disorderly and insulting, and I felt very strongly at the time that Mr. Speaker ought to have taken action. When I wrote the letter in question I attributed your inaction to party partiality. I ought not to have done so. In the whole of my experience in this House I had been impressed by your impartiality, Sir, and when I sent my letter I ought to have allowed that experience to weigh more with me before coming to the conclusion I did. Without withdrawing any other part of the letter, I unreservedly withdraw-that and that alone which charges you, Sir, with having taken a partisan view of the matter, which, after all, was one of judgment, and I apologise to you and to the House for having written it.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I sent the hon. Member a telegram.
Mr. POINTER: That apology, Mr. Speaker, I offer to you, and I want to make that apology as fully and as freely as I possibly can in so far as relates to my statement that your action had reference to party partiality. Certain facts, I may say, have been brought to my notice since, which, if I had known them before, would have made it perfectly impossible for me to have written the statement. I may say that when I saw by the papers that this question was likely to be brought up, I fully intended to stick to my guns until these further facts came to my knowledge and altered my position. Therefore, I ask you, Sir, to accept my apology with regard to the words complained of.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am very ready to accept the apology so frankly and freely made. I am sure that I am the last person in the world to complain of any fair comment, and I do not complain of any fail-comment; but I did feel that the imputation of motive which the hon. Member had cast upon me did not quite come within that category. I think the hon. Member has been long enough in the House to see what a very difficult position the Speaker has at times to fill. I use the best of my judgment in dealing with circumstances as they arise. I do not say I may not have been wrong. Very likely I may have been wrong many times in judgments I have given; hut I am perfectly confident that my judgment has never for one instant been biassed by any sense of partiality. Under the circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not desire me to put the Motion.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Charles Frederick Gurney Masterman, esquire, for the Borough of Bethnal Green (South-West Division).

BILL PRESENTED.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  "To give jurisdiction under Section seventy-six and Part VIII. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to certain British Courts in foreign countries," presented by Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Further Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 12.—(Provisions in the case of contributors who are inmates of hospitals, etc.).
  (1) No payment shall be made in respect of sickness disablement or maternity benefit to any insured person during any period when he is an inmate of any workhouse, hospital, asylum, or infirmary, supported by any public authority or out of any public funds or by a charity, or of a sanatorium or similar institution established under this Part of this Act.

  38

  (2) During such period as aforesaid any such benefit which would otherwise have been payable to such person—

  (a) shall be paid to or applied in whole or in part for the relief or maintenance of his dependants (if any) in such manner as the society or committee by which the benefit is administered think fit; or

  (b) if such person is an inmate of a sanatorium or similar institution in which he is receiving treatment in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, and has no dependants, shall be paid to the local Health Committee towards the general purposes thereof.

  (3) For the purpose of this section, the expression "dependants" shall include such of the following members of the insured person's family as are wholly or in part dependant upon the earnings of such person at the time when he became an inmate of any such institution as aforesaid, that is to say, his or her wife or husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister.

  (4) The society or committee by which the sickness disablement or maternity benefit of any insured persons is administered, may enter into any agreement with the proper officers or authorities of any convalescent home or sanatorium, admission to which is conditional on the payment of the whole or any part not less than one half of the cost of maintenance, for the payment thereto of any sickness disablement or maternity benefit which would, apart from this section, be payable to or in respect of any such person who becomes an inmate of such home, during any period for which he remains an inmate.

  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras is an alternative Clause, and cannot be moved unless the Clause in the Bill is left out. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire to leave out Sub-section (1) seems to me to raise the question of the whole Clause, and, if so, is not in order. I may also add that I think that the discussion of this Clause will be conducted more conveniently on specific Amendments than on the Motion to leave out Subsections.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I gather from what you said, Sir, that it is out of order to move the omission of Subsection (1) for the purpose of raising a discussion on the whole position of hospitals in regard to this Bill, but I should have thought that it would perhaps be the more convenient course before we go to particular Amendments.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I suggest that the point which I think the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise can be raised much more conveniently on his own Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be much better raised on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: On the point of Order. What is the position of the Member who wants to have Sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) omitted, and Sub-section (4) to stand? I should like to know the proper time to raise that point.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member does not propose to leave out Subsections (1), (2), and (3), but proposes to insert something in their place which is an alternative Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: My position is that I should like Sub-section (4) alone to remain. I have moved alternatively to omit each of those Sub-sections, and, assuming that they stand, to amend them. If you look through the Paper you will see my Amendments. I am quite ready to take up the matter at any time or at any point it would be convenient.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment as to Sub-section (1) practically raises the question of the whole Clause. The hon. and learned Member has put down an enormous variety of Amendments to this Clause which makes it impossible to make out what he desires. I have to take the matter as it stands, and his Amendment did seem to me to amount to a new Clause altogether, and that is the reason I say it is not in order.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "in respect" ["in respect of sickness"], and insert instead thereof the words "on account."
  After the word "to" ["benefit to any insured person"] insert the words "or in respect of."
  Leave out the word "insured" ["any insured person"].
  Leave out the word "he" ["when he is an inmate"] and insert instead thereof the words, "the person to or in respect of whom the benefit is payable."—[Mr. Sherwell]
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "or by a charity."
  I desire to move this Amendment in order that we may have further information given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not easy, as the matter stands at present, to understand why these words should be in the first Sub-section which provides
  "No payment should be made in respect of sickness, disablement or maternity benefit to any insured person during any period when he is an inmate of any workhouse, hospital, asylum or infirmary, supported by any public authority or out of any public funds …."
  That obviously appeals to one's common sense, but the question that is raised is somewhat different when we come to the words, "or by a charity," because if the insured person is fortunate enough to secure the support of a charity during the time when he is, or ought to be, enjoying the benefits which his payment of his insurance premium earned for him, then it is not quite easy to see when public funds are not being used for his maintenance, and when he is not in any asylum, or infirmary, or sanatorium, or any institution which is carried on by public funds, why he should lose the benefit which he has contracted to receive for the contributions he has paid. The words "or by a charity," I submit to the Committee ought to be left out unless some justification is given for them. I know that Sub-section (2) provides
  "during such period as aforesaid any such benefit which would otherwise have been payable to such person (a) shall be paid to or applied in whole or in part for the relief or maintenance of his dependents (if any) in such manner as the society or committee by which the benefit is administered think fit, or (b) if such person is an inmate of a sanatorium or similar institution in which he is receiving treatment in accordance with the provisions of this part of this Act and has no dependents, shall be paid to the Local Health Committee towards the general purposes thereof."

  41
  4.0 P.M.
  I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to submit some Amendments to deal with this position, and that he is prepared and intends to make it possible that during the time the insured person is in receipt of the benefits of a charity that some of the money which would otherwise go to dependents would go to the charity. If that be the arrangement then the charity is to a large extent in the same position as other institutions in which an employed person may be for the time being an inmate, and if so, it may be that harm would be done to the charity or to the employed person. If that is so the vast charitable resources of this country which are expressed in the form of hospitals and other institutions, and the employed persons are suffering. Many of us are anxious on all sides of the House as to what the position of the hospitals would be when the Bill is passed. All of us must realise that a great many of those noble and charitable institutions are carried on upon small funds which are received from persons who are in the category of the employed persons who would be receiving benefits under this Bill. If these sources of income were taken from them they would be in a very perilous position. What we fear is that the position of the charitable hospitals might be undermined, and if we do not see what the future of the hospitals is to be, I think we shall deservedly raise the point in this House in order that it may be dealt with by the Members of the Committee, many of whom are deeply interested in hospitals and their management, and all of whom, I am sure, are deeply concerned with their welfare. I move the Amendment in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make plain what he intends by not only the first Clause but by the whole Clause after his Amendments have been incorporated. I think I have said enough to show the importance of the matter and the importance of having a clear indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will prefer to have the Debate developed before he replies. In very few cases have I put down Amendments in addition to those appearing in the names of hon. Members, but in this case I felt so strongly that I took that course, this being one of the points to which I called the attention of the House when the Bill came up for Second Reading, and one, I think, to which
  42
  the House should give its serious consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on that occasion, I think, and certainly he has said since in reply to a deputation, that we should be encouraged by the example of Germany, which had dispelled our fears that any misfortune or injury will happen to the hospitals in consequence of the passage of this Bill. I have to admit I have no knowledge about the German hospitals, and I have not even known where to go in order to get it, and therefore I am not at all prepared to deal with the point as regards that country. But I was under the impression that the great bulk of the German hospitals were rate-supported hospitals, largely maintained by public funds, and only partly, and to a small extent, dependent upon private subscriptions and donations, Whether that be so or not, I really do not think that in a matter of this kind the example of Germany gives us either light or guidance as to what would happen in this country. Our voluntary hospital system is an old-established one, it has been of slow growth, it has gradually developed, and it has been largely encouraged by private effort in recent years, whether taking the form of Hospital Saturday and Sunday collections, or in the case of London, King Edward's Hospital Fund, which has done so much for the institutions in the Metropolis.
  I think it must be clear to anyone that these institutions, which have been largely dependent upon the voluntary subscriptions of the workers and employers and the like, cannot expect to receive, at any rate, to the same extent, that class of help in future, when the State steps in and taxes both the workman and the employer in order to provide that which hitherto the workman has had to provide for himself, or to receive from these voluntary institutions. I think it must be clear that, not only they cannot expect to receive the same amount of support from the public in future, but that individual hospitals will be very differently hit by the results. Where they are in the main supported by endowments they will have much less to fear. In those places where the Hospital Saturday collections have been largest they may expect to lose more, for when you have compulsory levied a charge of 4d. per week upon every workman it is hardly to be expected that he will voluntarily devote an additional 1d. per week, as he has been accustomed to do in the works of many of our large towns, to the support of institutions of the character

  43
  which we are now discussing. I have received information showing that the probable effect of the Bill will differ in the case of different institutions, and very likely in different parts of the country. I have received some information from a meeting which represented, I think, forty-four hospitals in the Midland counties. They calculated, averaging out the whole of these institutions, that over 50 per cent., I think I might put it at 60 per cent. —I am sorry I left the exact figures behind me—but, at any rate, over 50 per cent. of their entire income was liable to be adversely affected by the Bill, and in many individual cases of hospitals, within that area, the proportion so affected rose up to 75, 80, and even 90 per cent. If you take the average it is already sufficiently serious. All these institutions have difficulty in maintaining their activity and keeping the number of beds open to the public, which are required by the communities whom they serve. There is a difficulty of getting subscribers, especially new subscribers as the old ones pass away, and that has undoubtedly increased of late the tendency under the imposition of other burdens, for both subscriptions and legacies to fall off.
  In these circumstances it is not to be surprised at if the managers of these institutions view their prospects under the Bill with something like dismay. But I want to remind the Committee that, quite apart from the immediate beneficent work done by the hospitals for people who have gone there to be treated by the careful nursing and surgical skill and the services which they receive, there is another great service to the public which these institutions fulfil and which cannot be fulfilled by anything but them, and that is the training of the whole medical profession of the country. They are dependent upon the experience which they get in the hospitals for their training, and we are dependent on the experience they get in the hospitals for the progress of medical and surgical science. If anything goes wrong with the hospitals in consequence of the passing of this Bill and the resources at their disposal are insufficient for their work, it is not merely individual institutions or a great number of institutions that will suffer, it will be the whole community, directly or indirectly, that will be losers by the loss to the hospitals. I had suggested, and, in fact, proposed by an
  44
  Amendment of mine, that where an insured person became an inmate of one of these institutions supported by voluntary contributions—by which, of course, I intended to mean supported partly by voluntary contributions, and not necessarily wholly, because most of them have some little endowment or other resources— where an insured person became an inmate of one of these charitable institutions that if he had no dependent the whole of the money due to him as sick pay should go towards his maintenance in the hospital, and if he had dependents the money which was due to him as sick pay should be divided between the hospital and the dependents. I think that that is the very least it is possible to contemplate if we are to maintain those hospitals in their present position. I am sure also it would be natural to suggest that the medical benefit due to the insured person should be payable to the hospital. But, as I understand the scheme of the Bill, the medical payment would be due to the doctor who first certifies him as ill, and will not be available for the hospital to which he may be sent by that doctor.
  Without a very large alteration in the scheme and without knowing what arrangements are involved in the remuneration of the doctors by the patients out of hospital it is quite impossible to put down Amendments dealing with the medical benefit. But there is another alternative. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reserved a large lump sum from the contributions of the insured which he proposes to pay for treatment in sanatoria. Though it may eventually develop so as to include treatment for other diseases it is quite obvious that in the framing of the Bill it was intended to be treatment of consumption and tuberculosis only. I had expressed before now a strong doubt whether that is the best way of spending such a large amount of money. I believe a much less sum spent in close connection with the local authorities in home work would go a great deal further than this vast sum lavished on sanatoria, and, in any case, I think it would be a fair thing, if the Chancellor is unable to find more money for this purpose, to take a portion of the money which is now allocated for sanatoria and allow it to be allotted to hospitals whose need is proved and whose efficiency is proved, by some impartial central authority. What I had in my mind in making a suggestion of that kind was some such committee and some such regulations as were framed for the

  45
  administration of grants to university colleges. I was extremely sorry to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to hand over these grants from the Treasury, which had administered them extremely well, to the Board of Education, in which I have not the same confidence as I have in the Treasury.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE expressed dissent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You have not. I am very glad to hear that. I read it in the papers, and rashly concluded it was a fact. The manner in which that fund was administered by the Treasury was primarily on the advice of a committee which was appointed to see that these university colleges are doing work of a university character, looking to their needs and looking to the extent of the local effort which is being made in support of them. The grant from the Treasury is awarded and allocated among them having regard to these facts. I think it would be possible to do something of the same kind for the hospitals, and to take a lump sum out of the money which is at present allocated to sanatoria and entrust that lump sum to a committee for allocation amongst the hospitals, a small committee which would allocate it on certain definite lines, taking into account the need of the institution and the value set upon that institution in the locality in which it was placed, as evidenced by the contributions which are locally paid to its support. That would, I think, help to encourage local support, instead of stifling it, and would put these institutions on a secure basis. If that be not done, and done on a generous scale, the only other plan is that for each man sent to a hospital for hospital treatment, there should be a payment out of the National Insurance Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken as if the hospitals would be relieved of much of their expenditure. I do not think that that will be so. You may possibly, and I hope you will—though many good hospital authorities do not share that feeling very profoundly—eliminate from hospital cases a certain number of out-patients who never ought to go to hospitals at all, who are competent to find for themselves the kind of treatment they require and are not fit objects of the charity of hospitals. But you will leave the hospitals with a vast amount of work, and you will probably have under the medical system to be established by the Bill not fewer, but more,
  46
  cases sent by the doctors to the hospitals for treatment. The moment you insure all these millions of people, and have a small per capita contribution for the payment of the medical officer who has to give medical treatment, the tendency in any case of a serious or prolonged kind will necessarily be to send that case to a hospital. In any event, the more serious cases will still go to hospitals. The resources of the hospitals under these circumstances will be taxed quite as heavily in the future as they have been in the past, and they will not be able to expect to discharge their duties on less funds than they have hitherto had.
  I submit to the Committee and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Hospital Saturday Fund, mainly contributed by working men, producing in the City of Birmingham something like £20,000 a year, not all of which goes to the hospitals, some going to sanatoria and convalescent homes, but of which something like £10,000 goes to hospitals; the Hospital Sunday Fund, contributed largely by employers; the subscription lists, again in the main the result of contributions from employers, will all be adversely affected when you compulsorily tax both employers and employed in order to secure medical treatment. You cannot expect these people, if they are compulsorily taxed for these purposes, to maintain their voluntary subscriptions at the same rate as in the past. I have made certain inquiries and I find that hospitals are already receiving letters announcing a diminution of the support they have hitherto had I have spoken to several people connected with hospitals in the difficult and thankless task of bogging for them, a task which has always to be renewed, because old subscribers fall off and new subscribers have to be found to take their places, and all have told me that it has been increasingly difficult to fill up the places of old subscribers within the last few years, and that under this Bill they think it will be absolutely impossible to do so.
  There appeared on Saturday in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer an Amendment dealing with this subject. I do not renew my protest against the late hour at which the Amendment has appeared on the Paper. It is better to have an Amendment on the Paper on Saturday for discussion on Monday, than to have it only on Monday or to hear it for the first time when it is read from the Chair. But between Saturday and now there has been

  47
  no opportunity for most of us to confer with those with whom we have hitherto been in. correspondence on these subjects, or to take their advice. I only say for myself, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal seems to me absolutely inadequate for the protection of the hospitals. Whether they are to get anything or not depends, under the Chancellor's proposal on whether the persons have any dependents of any kind—not merely whether they have a wife and children of their own, but whether they have any dependents however remote. If they have any dependents, however remote, they are to get nothing out of the insurance fund. It is only if they have no dependents at all that they will get any payment from the insurance fund. I think that that is wholly inadequate, even when coupled with the proviso which appears in Clause 17 that an approved society may make a voluntary contribution to such hospitals. You cannot leave this matter to the voluntary action of the societies. You are disturbing an arrangement which has worked well, thanks to the ceaseless efforts of the men who, as governors of the hospitals or as medical officers, or consultants of the hospitals, have given a vast amount of unpaid and unrewarded public service to their fellows, in this particular form. You upset that arrangement, you jeopardise the fund on which they have already drawn, and I think you are bound in the interests of the institutions, in the interests of the medical profession, and in the interests of the progress of medical science, to make adequate provision in the place of the funds which are now to be withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made a very valuable contribution to the discussion of a very important part of the great problem of national health. It is quite obvious that no system which has for its object the promotion of the national health can possibly be complete if it impairs the vitality or the efficiency of the great hospitals of the country, and it is of the first consequence that in carrying through a scheme of national insurance we should do nothing that would have that effect. I think I shall be able to satisfy the Committee not merely that in the Bill as it is there is no real justification for the fear in the minds of a great many of those who are engaged in hospital work, but that by the Amend-
  48
  ments of which we have given notice the slightest shadow of fear has been dispelled. I will give the Committee, first of all, the reason why I think the alarm generally and naturally felt by those who are engaged in hospital work has no foundation in fact.
  What will happen under the Bill? The first thing that will happen is that hundreds of thousands—I am not sure I should not be right in saying millions—of outpatients will be transferred from the charge of the hospitals to the charge of the Insurance Fund. I had an important deputation last week from the hospitals of this country, and Mr. Holland, who has done a vast amount of excellent work in this sphere, who has really devoted his life to it in the most self-sacrificing way, was telling me that there were about a quarter of a million of out-patients in connection with the London Hospital alone—I think the number was 220,000. I asked him as to the class from which they were drawn. He told me that they never took them from the class who would naturally resort to Poor Law relief to begin with. Therefore they were not undertaking the work of the medical officers of health, the workhouse infirmaries, and the parish doctors. On the other hand, they were not undertaking the work of those who, in the judgment of the hospital authorities, are so well off that they could well afford to pay a doctor themselves. Therefore, the out-patients are drawn either from low paid or very moderately paid labour, or from well paid labour with a heavy family charge, who in the judgment of the hospital authorities could not pay the ordinary medical charges. That is the very class affected by this insurance. It is just the class outside the six million friendly society and trade union members who make provision for themselves now, and who consequently would never become hospital out-patients, and the pauper class. What would happen under this Bill? Every one of these would be entitled to a doctor. It is true that they may prefer the hospitals. I was told that they go to the hospitals very often because they prefer the hospital doctor. But in that case I think the hospital authorities would be entitled to say, "Are you insured? Have you not got provision for medical attendance under the Bill"? I think they would be entitled to rule them out. Where there is a free choice of doctors they cannot complain. That will relieve the hospitals of a very heavy charge which is now cast upon them.

  49
  The second thing I would point out is that a very heavy charge is incurred by hospitals in connection with the cure of tuberculosis in various forms—not merely consumption, but other forms of tubercular disease. That represents a very heavy charge. The hospitals have to keep these patients a very long time, and the charge is out of proportion to the number of patients. Under the Bill you have, first of all, £1,000,000 provided for that specific purpose—a purpose which at the present moment is very largely a charge on hospital funds. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) says very properly, "I hope you will not confine that provision to sanatoria." As he knows, in a recent debate—one of the most useful debates we have had in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill—the measure was altered in such a fashion as to apply to the cure of tuberculosis, not merely by sanatorium treatment, but by other methods of treatment as well. That makes it still more useful as a relief of the charge on the hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman himself made a very significant and interesting statement. He said that out of £20,000 collected by the friendly societies in Birmingham—I understand that they undertake the organisation of the collection, but the point does not really matter—only one-half went to the hospitals, the rest going to sanatoria. That shows what a very important relief this provision must be in the future to the charge at present borne by funds of that kind.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that when I spoke of sanatoria in connection with the Birmingham fund I misled the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not mean merely consumption sanatoria, but convalescent homes and institutions of that sort.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To that extent at any rate, it would be a considerable relief; and even in regard to the other part, there is a provision for convalescent homes in the Bill as well. Really, I think the hospitals, if I may say so, are taking rather too one-sided a view of the matter. They are looking only at the increased charges and the possible diminution of subscriptions; they are not looking, on the other hand, at the diminution of charges and the new sources of revenue that will be opened up. The treatment of consumption will undoubtedly represent a great diminution of charge. I will come to the other point. I do not see why the work-
  50
  men should subscribe less in future. The subscriptions in the main come from those who are members either of friendly societies or of works clubs, because although friendly societies do give a man some sort of medical treatment they do not make any provision or hospital treatment. Accident treatment is outside the ordinary medical treatment provided by the friendly societies. Therefore friendly societies have got to make some effort to provide hospital treatment in addition to ordinary medical treatment. That is exactly what happens —with this exception—and the same thing applies to works. Take an ordinary works' club. The men pay 3d. or 4d. a week for the family doctor, but they collect an extra penny for the hospital. What happens in the future under this Bill? The man who is paying 6d. will in future pay 4d. for benefits. Sometimes those who pay 7d. and 8d. will pay 4d. At any rate, they pay less in the future.
  What I want to point out is this: that at any rate there is no reason why the man who is now paying the extra 1d. towards the hospitals when he is paying 6d. for medical treatment should pay less in future towards the hospitals because he is a member of a friendly society. On the contrary, there is every reason in the world why he should pay more. As a matter of fact I do not think he will pay less, but that he will pay more. The same thing applies to those who are in work, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain). In most of those works they have a works doctor, and this in addition to helping to keep up the hospitals. There is a reason for that. When you come to accidents you have to resort to hospitals. Therefore they have to make provision for accidents, and for operations, which cannot very well be performed in a man's own house. They are also paying that now in addition to medical treatment. The same thing will happen in the future —with this difference: that the man will have to pay less for his friendly society, and therefore will have more to give to the hospital.
  When you come to the employer, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, that the employer is paying something for the first time that he was not paying before. "Therefore," ho says, "he will subscribe less." He will not! That is the very thing which is always put forward in this connection, but it is one which never works out like that. I will take the case of a Bill piloted through the House by the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished

  51
  relative, that of Workmen's Compensation. I was a firm supporter of that Bill. I voted for it. I never made a single speech on it. I considered it a very valuable measure. What happened under that Bill? There were enormous charges cast on the employers, especially those who owned collieries. Many colliery owners at one time really firmly believed that that measure meant ruin to them. They believed it. They said so. Many Radical Members thought so, and if they thought so what on earth did the others think? I can well understand their feelings, because it increased for the moment their charges very considerably. They said: It will damage the infirmaries. I do not believe there is a single colliery infirmary throughout the kingdom which received a smaller contribution from a colliery proprietor since that Bill became law than before, although since that time colliery owners have paid hundreds or thousands a year in respect of the working of that measure. So that really there is no danger that the employers this time will not discharge what they regard as a very fair obligation to their workmen by subscribing in the future to hospitals.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton) is very anxious that I should refer to what he said as to pointing out new sources of revenue. I will tell hum what the new sources of revenue are. But first of all, there is consumption. I do not rule out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that there might be some sort of committee to dispense that sum of money in some sort of way. I think the Local Government Board will see to that. I do not express any opinion as to whether their protection will be adequate. I will come to the other sources of revenue. The first is the subscriptions by the approved societies. I think that should extend to the local health committees as well. I think they also should be in part subscribers. Of course there is no power of compulsory levy. Still the power of subscription in itself will be a valuable one. If the hospital funds are going down, and if there is a danger of that hospital being closed, or any number of beds being closed, or not being used, I think it will be in the interests of the societies in that district to subscribe. I know it is said they generally subscribe very liberally; that perhaps, on the whole, we should not depend too much on the
  52
  number and volume of these subscriptions. But I attach much greater importance to the Amendment of the Government than the right hon. Gentleman does with regard to the payment of sick pay to the hospital of those who have no dependents. It means that in the case of the vast majority of bachelors who happen to go to a hospital 10s. a week will be paid for the first three months. It means in respect of others who go that there will be a considerable contribution to the funds of the hospital, and this is a perfectly new source of revenue which the hospitals have never been able to look to before. The right hon. Gentleman says: "Well, but in the case of those who have got dependents you ought to levy a certain contribution on those as well." I have got quite an open mind upon that subject, and I would rather express no opinion upon it until we come to the Amendment. For the moment, at any rate, I may tell him what is in the mind of the Government, which will just bear out what is said upon the subject. In Germany that is the arrangement. Whenever a man goes to the hospital there a certain contribution goes from the sick fund.
  Mr. O'GRADY: When is the agreement fixed up?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The agreement?
  Mr. O'GRADY: I understand it is by agreement. Is that agreement fixed up when the man is ill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the arrangement made, I think, with the approved society. I have not got that in my mind at the present moment. I am on another point now. I am on the point of something being paid when a man has dependents. In Germany they have divided the contribution, and half goes to the hospital. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has not got the German plan in his Amendment. All I want to say is this: I think those who are in charge of the hospitals are exaggerating the danger. Certainly they are overlooking very considerably the diminution of the charges. They are at the same time overlooking the possible new sources of revenue. Therefore, there is no real reason to suppose that the hospitals will be worse off. On the contrary, I think the hospitals will be very much better off than in the past. Above all, for this reason: everything is to be gained by exciting a new interest in national health. For the first time you organise national health;

  53
  you get fifteen or sixteen millions of people who join societies for considering the best method of promoting national health. Hospitals, which are an essential part of any system for promoting national health, must necessarily improve their position by this new interest which is thus excited.
  Mr. LAWSON: As I have been somewhat concerned in hospital management in London for many years, and am the treasurer of the Hospital Saturday Fund, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will forgive me if I say that he is very greatly under-rating the hospital grievance. The State is not only knocking at the door of the hospital. The State is entering the door, and is forcing far more work upon the voluntary hospitals, for which it refuses to pay. In fact, under this Bill as it stands our voluntary system of hospitals, I verily believe, becomes impossible to work. I will take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments one by one. He says that there is no reason to believe that the subscriptions and resources of hospitals will be diminished. That is not the opinion of the King's Fund. It says in the report—the right hon. Gentleman has had it in his hand— most distinctly that the governors of that fund, representing the whole of the hospitals, and, to a certain extent, controlling them in the Metropolitan area, believe that the resources will be considerably diminished. It is not the opinion of those who actually work the hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Sydney Holland. He might also have referred to officials of the hospital who have not been quoted, and who come to one conclusion. As he wants facts, perhaps he will allow me to read the copy of a letter received by one of the London hospitals from one of the larger employers at the East End. In reply to an application for a subscription, they say:—
  "We have this morning received your letter asking for a subscription to the London Hospital. We are sorry to say that we are considerably reducing our subscription list, and we are unable to undertake fresh burdens in this way."
  After referring to the Income Tax and the rates, the letter proceeds:—
  "We are now faced with further burdens under the proposed Insurance Bill. We regret we are unable to help you. We think other manufacturers will feel as we feel."
  That is only one out of many letters received, and the truth is——
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Did they subscribe before?
  Mr. LAWSON: Yes. This application was for a continued subscription, and this letter was supplied to me by the secretary of the hospital. That is only one example, and there are others I could quote; but I will not weary the Committee with them. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that this is not only a question of the subscriptions of employers, but, as he has mentioned, the subscriptions of workmen. In London the working classes do not bear a large proportion of the expense for the upkeep of the hospitals. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes."] No, not in the Metropolitan area. They only bear, perhaps, 12 per cent. of the whole. Outside London it is different; the figures, the proportion, are reversed. It is utterly impossible to imagine that the same amount that is coming to the Hospital Saturday Fund out of the urban districts round about, which is now collected and forwarded to the hospitals, will be the same as in the past. The hospitals do not believe that there is going to be any great relief in one way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The King's Fund say that the sanatoria benefits will not relieve the hospitals to a large extent. The London hospitals are of that opinion too. They do not think that the means of dealing with consumption under the Bill will have much say in reducing hospital expenses. In fact, all the authorities who are able to judge are of opinion that the funds are bound to fall.
  I quite admit that the London hospitals have other resources. There are large endowments and landed estates which make the subscriptions of the majority of them of less importance than in the provinces. The London Hospital, which is the greatest of all, and which ministers not only to the whole of the East End of London, but to the contiguous counties, and is really a national hospital for the eastern part of the country, draws as much as two-thirds of its income from voluntary subscriptions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates that something substantial will be gained from the permission given to the friendly societies and to other bodies under the Bill to subscribe. But there the proof is against him. Those powers, of course, exist now. Out of £85,000 sent every year to the London Hospital only £50 came from the friendly societies. That is a fact worth a great deal of theory in the matter; and it shows how little the mere permission given to approved societies under the Bill

  55
  will come to. The right hon. Gentleman very much underrates the amount of the work which will be put upon the hospitals under the Bill. He says: "You are going to relieve the out-patients' department of a vast amount of expense." He knows very well that the out-patients cost comparatively little compared with the in-patients; that the amount is something like 2s. 2d. compared with £5 10s. That is about the proportion, and therefore it is not a very great significance, but even then the figures given by the London Hospital, which is the biggest, shows that only 36 per cent. of those who come as out-patients are within the four corners of the Bill. The rest are women, children and persons out of employment who are not brought in under the Bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered these figures. Only 36 per cent. come under the Bill at all. If that is so, we have only that margin to draw on. Then you must allow for those who prefer to go to the hospital because of the superior treatment given there, and it is doubtful whether even in regard to the out-patients department there will be a very great saving. In late years hospitals have appointed almoners, who make it their business to go into each department and see that persons who have the means to pay and who ought not to claim sick relief, do not have the advantage of public charity. Those almoners have not been at work very long but they have achieved good results, and in that respect they are doing a great deal to make it unlikely that the burden will be very much lighter in respect of outpatients.
  When you come to the in-patients and serious cases, I am convinced that the work of the hospitals will be enormously increased under this Bill. My opinion is worth very little, but that is the opinion of the King's Fund and the Central Hospital Board. You are proposing to doctor the whole community. You are going to treat the whole people for the first time, and for the first time you are going to recommend women to have the sort of operations that have been only possible, or at any rate have mostly been attempted, in the case of the well-to-do as a rule. And there is no doubt that the number of serious operations will vastly increase in consequence of the increased care and solicitude given to the health of the people. I am all with the right hon. Gentleman; it is a great thing that it should be, but why should you behave in
  56
  so stingy a way; and it is not so much a question of stinginess. Why should you diminish the help to the hospitals when you increase the amount of work placed upon them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that the general practitioner will hasten to refer all serious and doubtful cases to the hospital. If he has a case of any difficulty he will send it to the nearest hospital for treatment, and the fact that you are going to increase the area of medical attendance to such an extent and the fact that you are going to see so much more closely after the health of the people makes it certain that the expenditure thrown upon the hospitals will be increased, and you provide no means whatever to meet that.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told us that in Germany that matter is dealt with by clubs and associations formed under their scheme; they make, so far as I understand, their own arrangements with the hospitals and pay for the work done, and that is what I recommend with great diffidence to this Committee—that for work done payment should be made to the hospitals. This is not a Bill to subsidise doctors or any other class; it is a Bill to secure national efficiency, and if you are going to use the hospitals to a greater extent for that purpose why refuse payment? I quite admit it is not a question whether you behave with generosity. That hardly matters. The question is: Are you not going to diminish the means of the hospitals while you are making a greater call upon the devoted skill of the surgeons and the doctors? Are you not going to make it more difficult for people to be treated? The diseases that afflict mankind are not fought in the homes but in the hospitals, and the experience gained in the hospitals goes to abolish them.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be the last to underrate the work of the medical schools. That work has to be maintained. There never was better work done than is being done now; inquiry was never so fruitful as to-day, and there never was a time when we were so close to the threshold of great discoveries for the benefit of mankind as now—and (hat now should be the last moment to choose for crippling hospitals in their work. The doctor deals with the individual man, the hospital deal with mankind and the diseases of mankind at large. The right hon. Gentleman may say that is rhetoric, and he will want to know what practical proposals I have to lay before the Committee for deal-

  57
  ing with the matter. I say you should make it obligatory on the Health Committee to pay for the work done in the hospitals, and if you like, of course, to adjust the burden as between them and the general practitioner. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman has great difficulties with the general practitioner.
  There is a well-founded belief that hospitals do take away a good deal of the work that might be done by the general practitioner and that would bring well-deserved earnings into his pocket. The hospitals have dealt with that themselves. The fact that they are employing these almoners of whom I have spoken has diminished the undeserved relief given by hospitals at the expense of the general practitioner, but even though the general practitioners do object—and I have nothing to say against those who labour with such zeal and such sacrifice among the poor in the East End of London and in the working-class districts—I do not think you ought to sacrific the public advantage and benefits to the interest of any particular class of people. I believe the difficulties are capable of adjustment, but if the voluntary system of hospital management and hospital relief is to go on and to increase and fructify, and I believe on the whole it is the best ever devised from the point of view of public health and scientific research, then you are bound to make some other arrangement than that under this Clause of the Bill. I venture to lay these arguments before the Committee because they are founded upon facts and are known to every Member who has studied the problem, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not say he has given a final answer in the words he used in his reply just now. I trust that the principle may be payment by results for work done by the hospitals as it is to others concerned with the public health.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand from the Chancellor's speech that he would be favourably disposed to consider an Amendment of mine on line 37, page 28, of the White Paper. I want to know if it will be possible for me to move that Amendment if the Amendment now before us is negatived?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it will be quite possible. I should think it would be quite in order for the right hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment providing that half the money should go to the hospitals.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment should not be moved, even if this was negatived.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I do not know whether the present Amendment is to be withdrawn, but it raises a very important matter which ought to be considered before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) moves his Amendment. I listened very attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I think he is under a misapprehension with regard to our hospitals. I am not speaking now of London, because if we are going to legislate for London we must have a separate Clause in the Bill for London. I am speaking more on behalf of the provinces. Practically speaking, we have three classes of hospitals in the provinces. We have a fever hospital and a small-pox hospital dealing with infectious cases, and we have a surgical hospital. With regard to the first two they are maintained out of the rates, and they are for insured persons as subscribers for the maintenance of those hospitals, and if such subscribers become an inmate of these hospitals for typhoid fever, scarlet fever, small-pox or anything of that kind they are entitled to benefit under the Bill. I contend, therefore, that nothing should be deducted from their benefits towards the maintenance of these hospitals. Such deductions cannot apply to a person suffering from infectious diseases.
  With regard to surgical hospitals it does not apply to that, for this reason. I have the honour of representing a town where, unlike London, the workpeople for thirty-five years have contributed to the maintenance of the surgical hospital by subscriptions out of their wages. The employers also subscribe, but the bulk of the subscriptions come out of the wages of the workers. These people have a right to go into the surgical hospitals in cases of accident or of operation. They will not get any benefit under this Bill in cases of accidents; that has been decided; and, if they do not get any benefit under the Bill in cases of accidents, why is it suggested, as is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, that half of the benefits derived by the workpeople under this Bill should go towards the upkeep of the hospital when they are in it. The fact is that hon. Members upon the other side of the House have exaggerated very much the probability of any reductions in the subscriptions towards the hospitals. The

  59
  only hospital that could possibly suffer is the surgical hospital; the fever hospital, the smallpox hospital and the sanatorium cannot suffer. With regard to the surgical hospital, it is bound to be maintained in the future as in the past, because it is there to meet accidents incurred in the works. They are contributed to by the workmen, and therefore they do not come within the province of this Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What about the general hospital?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: So far as the north of England is concerned we know of no such thing as a general hospital in a sense apart for ordinary operations. The hospital is one where people go for ordinary operations, and in that case if a person is a subscriber to the hospital he is maintained free of charge.
  Dr. HILLIER: There are also medical wards in these hospitals.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: In the case of medical wards in a hospital to which a person is not a subscriber he has to pay for maintenance. I know that is so. I know there are a large number of cases where private patients have paid. The people who go there can afford to pay, and I contend there is no necessity for the alarm which is created by the right hon. Member for East Worcester with regard to these hospitals. I believe the workmen will continue, especially in the provinces, to contribute their mite and their share towards the maintenance of the hospital, and I do think it is a cruel thing to suggest, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested, that 5s. a week of the benefit should be deducted from these people towards the maintenance of the patient when ho is in that institution. I hope the Committee will not think of accepting such an Amendment as the Ron. Member has suggested.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: As the Amendment I have on the Paper was framed after consultation with those connected with hospitals, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on this question. The point upon which the difference has really arisen is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to go so far as to say that where a person has no dependents the sick pay shall be paid to the hospital, therefore the difference between us really only applies to the case of a person who has got de-
  60
  pendents. We have to remember that the insured person is the person entitled to sick pay. He has paid his contribution, and he is entitled to his pay as a matter of right. That is a proposition which ought not to be lost sight of. Whether the person has dependents or no dependents, he is the person who is entitled to the sick pay as a matter of right, and at least there ought to be a power to make a contract between the sick person, the society, or the health committee and the hospitals to meet the expenditure actually incurred by the hospital authorities for maintenance and treatment. The hospital should be paid, either the whole or part of the man's sick pay, for providing him with maintenance or nursing care. The effect of this Bill is to deprive a man of the right of making that contribution, and it is in this respect an injustice to the man entitled to the sick pay.
  If the hospital says, "You must pay 5s. per week," you have not the right to do it because the money must go to the dependents. It does not go as the man himself determines, but to those whom the health committee or the society determine for him. In a case where there are no dependents, I think it should be open to the man or to his society to contract with the hospital that part of his benefit may be, not shall be, paid to the hospital, and I think it may be left to the hospital to act fairly, leaving it open for contracts to be made that either the whole or the part of the sick pay should go to refunding the hospital the expenditure it has incurred. I do not think that arrangement would be unfair at all, let us assume the man is in his own home. The first charge upon the fund would be his own maintenance, and the dependents would only come in after the maintenance of the bread-winner and the cost of his sickness had been dealt with. The result of the Bill is that the dependents score at the expense of the hospital, and the dependents get the benefit of the expenditure which the hospital incurs.
  I do not see why, if a man who is entitled to the 10s. a week benefit, if he likes to have certain extra comforts, should not have them before the dependents come in. What I object to in this proposal is that the Bill makes it absolutely compulsory for the man to pay his sick benefit to his dependents and no one else. There is no opportunity of having for himself any extra comforts, and actually the Bill leaves the selection of the particular dependents who are to have this privilege not to the man

  61
  himself, who is the person insured, but to the society or the health committee. On those grounds I submit that in cases even where there are no dependents—and as I submit where there are dependents—it ought to be possible to make a contract for some portion of the benefit to go to the hospital. Although my main Amendment has been ruled out, I think later on I shall be able to give effect to my views in another way. My Amendment does not prejudge this question. It may be found that the hospital revenues will be seriously affected, but I think it should be left open to them to make such a contract as I have mentioned, and the insured person should not be prevented from entering into such a contract.
  Captain CLIVE: I wish to ask whether it would not be possible, no matter what Amendment the right hon. Gentleman puts in later, to accept this Amendment. I do not think the workman who is made to contribute under this Bill should be deprived of all benefits under certain circumstances if he goes into the hospital. This Bill is one to provide for the cure of sickness, and the ordinary place for the cure of sickness is the hospital. Why should it be declared when a beneficiary goes into the hospital that he should be deprived of all benefits? Many of our hospitals are largely supported by the contributions of working men themselves. In my own county our hospital was at one time at a very low ebb, and it was only put on a sound basis by the establishment of a penny-a-month fund from the workmen, which raised £800 a year, and that amount has been practically maintained ever since. The men receive hospital tickets in proportion to the amounts collected, and there is always a ticket available for those who have occasion to go into the hospital. Under this Bill the working men are going to contribute, not one penny a month, but Yd. a week, and in spite of that large contribution the workman, if he goes into the hospital, is to have no means of paying his way when he is in the hospital.
  The ordinary hospital ticket does not cover the cost of the man in the hospital. One of the objects of this Bill is to make a man independent, and if he has his benefits under the Bill he will feel in a much more independent position. He will be able to contribute to the hospital, and instead of being an object of charity, he will be able practically to pay his way. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot put down an
  62
  Amendment in a less detailed manner as to the conditions under which this benefit is to be obtained? One of the conditions put down is that if one man has no dependents and another has, an agreement may be made for the purpose with the hospital or with the infirmary. Why cannot all be left to the friendly society to arrange with the hospital, because the conditions are different all over the country. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desirous of interfering as little as possible with the independence of friendly societies, and I think he might allow them to draw up rules for dividing the benefits between the dependents and the hospital, and permit them to give it all either to the hospital or the dependents, as they think fit. In the meantime I urge upon the hon. Member now representing the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Masterman), whom I congratulate upon his return to the House, to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the views I have expressed in favour of this Amendment being accepted.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to call attention to the case of infectious hospitals which are affected under this Clause. At the present time in the Metropolis a man or woman, whether single or whether they have dependents or no dependents, can go to these hospitals perfectly freely, and they are not expected to pay, whether they are rich or poor, or whatever their position. I think it will be an injustice if, under this Bill, you levy a contribution on a man merely because he has no dependents. I hope that in any amended Clause, at any rate in the case of services now given at the hands of the community, payment will not be insisted upon. If you take the case of a woman earning very low wages indeed, she will need her money after she has been to the hospital to get herself back to health and strength again. Even fever hospitals do not keep patients too long, and very often they come back and have to have more convalescent treatment. If it is stipulated that a man or a woman shall pay for treatment in a fever or infectious hospital, I think that will be a retrograde step, and that is something which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared this Bill does not do. With regard to hospitals, I think their maintenance should be a public charge, but until we get that, all of us who have to do with people who are sick are bound to acknowledge the very splendid work done by voluntary hospitals up and down the country, especially in the metro-

  63
  politan area. I wish to point out to hon. Members opposite that we ought not to grant public money to these institutions unless we have some sort of public control I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are acting with him will stick to the old-fashioned principle that wherever there is a grant of public money, there must be public control as to how it is spent. I am in favour of something of this kind being done so long as there is public control to see that the money is spent in the most efficient manner. I am not at all sure all the conflicting and competing appeals made to us in London is quite the best method of running public health in the Metropolis; in fact, I know it is not, but I am looking at things as they are and as they will be if this Bill becomes law, and I am perfectly certain men belonging to the society of which the hon. Member for Mile End and I are members will not contribute twice over, and the hospitals will lose a considerable amount of money. Personally, I am willing that should be made up in some kind of way, but not without the safeguard of some public control as to how the money is spent. We hear so much of Germany in this House that I wonder we do not bring their laws and plant them down here for good and all; but very often we have them misreported. I consider Hamburg provides one of the finest examples as to how the public health should be dealt with, and there the hospitals are under State control. There is no question of voluntary hospitals, in the sense of the London hospital, and there is an elaborate system of payment from the Poor Law authority right up to the Insurance authority. There is, however, at the bottom State control, and I hope the Government, when they draft this Amendment, will not draft it in such a way that they will be giving public money to the hospitals to spend as they please, but that they will put them either under the control of the Public Health Committee of the district in which they are situated or under the control of the Central Health Authority of the whole country.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that as long as things remain as they are at present it is desirable the hospitals, supported as they are by voluntary contributions, should freely give their services to those who enter their walls; but we are initiating an entirely new condition of things. The
  64
  hospitals at present are intended for, and provide their services mainly to, the very poor, and they are supported by voluntary contribution in order that they may take in time of sickness those who have not the means of providing for themselves. You are altering all that. You are providing that in future a person who is sick shall have made some provision for his own sickness. You are providing that the doctor who attends him outside hospital is to be paid for the services he renders. By what logical process can you arrive at the conclusion that a doctor attending a patient outside the hospital is to be paid and the doctor attending him inside the hospital is to give his services free? I do think, and in this I am in entire agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this is a question of supreme importance, because it touches the lives of the very poor people. It is desirable in the interests of those of whom I speak, that you should do your very utmost to increase the scope of the hospitals. I do not think I am putting the percentage too high when I suggest that in not less than six cases out of ten where sickness occurs among the poor and among the working classes the chances of recovery are much better in the hospital than in the private home. The conditions of sanitation are better. They have at their disposal the highest skill in the land, for our great surgeons very often nobly devote their services to the poor. Antiseptic conditions prevail in the hospital, and they have every appliance required. It is therefore desirable that as far as possible the scope and utility of the hospitals should be improved.
  I confess I share the fear put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first on this side of the House. The employers and workpeople are going to have compulsorily placed upon them that which they have hitherto done voluntarily. The employer subscribes to the hospital because it is there his people may go when they are sick, and the workpeople subscribe because it is there his friends go, and it is there he may go himself one day when he is sick. The moment you put compulsion upon them to provide for sickness it is only human nature they should say, "Why should I subscribe?" I fear the employer will say to himself, "If I have got to pay this large subscription to provide for the sickness of the people whom I employ, at any rate, I cannot afford to do it twice over." A fact came to my knowledge only this morning concerning a large hospital

  65
  in the North of England. An official of one of the large railway companies said to my informant, "This Bill will place an additional burden upon my company to provide for our working people of about £35,000 a year, and all we shall save is £5,000 which at present we give to the hospitals." If that is a condition which prevails, and if that is a justifiable sentiment, it is indeed a painful outlook for the hospitals.
  I was not myself convinced by the obviously bonâ fide, and indeed, enthusiastic attempts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the hospitals in future, because I cannot see what the new sources of income provided by this Bill are to be. He relies chiefly upon the fact that those suffering from tubercular complaints are in future to be provided for elsewhere. I think I speak that which is common knowledge when I say that excepting a few special hospitals provided for that complaint our hospitals are not filled now with those suffering from tuberculosis. There is not room for them, unfortunately. Then he says, the sick pay which will be received by the insurer will largely diminish the number of people who go as out-patients to the hospital. The attendance and medicine provided for the out-patients of the hospital are but a small portion of the expenditure incurred and the duty performed. What they are fighting for is the maintenance of the beds in the hospital and the enlargement of the hospital to meet the ever increasing needs of the sick poor of the community. This Bill gives to that class of hospital no relief whatever. On the contrary, if the suggestion of the hon. Member, or something of the same kind is not accepted, it will place upon the hospitals the burden of giving for nothing that for which the person they are attending is receiving payment. He has insured to meet that specific thing which has occurred, namely, his treatment in sickness. He is receiving it, and he is not paying for it. I submit that is not common sense, and is an injustice. I have put down Amendments suggesting that when a man receives sick pay and is in hospital the contribution should go to the hospital. I should be quite content to withdraw that Amendment if some reasonable assurance were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is going to provide that, at any rate some of the contributions should go to the hospital. It appears to me to be common sense, and I hope, as the result of this discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way at any rate
  66
  to accept in some form an Amendment which will not leave the hospitals to do all the work and to receive none of the pay.
  Mr. O'GRADY: The hon. Member for St. Pancras suggested that a certain amount should be paid by those who receive treatment in a hospital.
  Mr. CASSEL: I suggested there should be power to make some agreement.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I know the Bill provides for sick pay, but the workman joins for the purpose of having some income during the time he is sick. It provides 10s. per week during the time the man is sick, plus medical attendance. It seems to me if that is so outside the hospital you ought to provide for the case inside the hospital as well. There are other points also to be considered. Some kind of hospitals are maintained out of the rates, and the workmen contribute as ratepayers. That being so, it seems to me very hard to have an agreement by which a man will be compelled out of his 10s. per week to pay a certain amount towards the hospital. Personally, I do not think the contributions of the workmen to the hospitals will be diminished to any great degree as a result of this Bill. They have always risen to the occasion hitherto. I know in Birmingham over and over again we have not only paid contributions out of our weekly wages, but on the usual Hospital Saturday paid extra. I think that system will go on still. I feel the workman—I want to put this point as strongly and as clearly as I can—if there is the slightest possibility of danger that the treatment in the hospitals will depreciate because of loss of revenue will rise to the occasion and see to it that the hospitals are made effective again. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not listen to the suggestion that agreements may be made whereby a man who goes into the hospital shall give a certain proportion of his 10s. a week to the hospital. I urge it on the ground that for the first time in the history of this question we are now considering the matter of national health as a national asset. We are dealing with the thing from a broad national point of view, and I do not think we ought to do anything in the way of decreasing the amount of money a man gets under the Bill. I feel that would do harm to the Bill. It would harm the individual, and I believe it would also harm the dependents a man might leave at home. We ought in this matter to be generous. If the hospitals them-

  67
  selves are in danger, and if my prophecy respecting the make - up of revenue is not fulfilled, then, taking into consideration the point of view of the utility of the work done at the hospitals on behalf of national health, the policy of the Members with whom I am associated on these benches must be to urge in season and out of season that if the income of the hospitals should be endangered those institutions should be municipalised. That seems to be the logic of the position if there is to be a decrease of revenue as a result of the passing of this Act.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I do not propose to make any reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken beyond pointing out to him that it is not the scheme of this Bill to municipalise hospitals, I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he thinks the words as they now stand are a sufficient safeguard for the hospitals, and whether they meet what I take to be, in different degree, the opinion of the entire House. If the words "or by a charity" are left out the clause will read:—
  "No payment shall be made in respect of sickness disablement or maternity benefit to any insured person during any period when he is an inmate of any workhouse, hospital, asylum, or infirmary, supported by any public authority or out of any public funds, or of a sanatorium or similar institution established under this Part of this Act."
  Is it not desirable to add the words "or supported by voluntary subscription" in order to bring hospitals within the purview of the Amendment which we all desire to pass in some form or other? If that is agreed then we come to the question of to what extent and in what way a subsidy will be made for the services that may be rendered by the hospitals. I take it that the general opinion of the House is that nothing shall be done to diminish the efficiency or position of the voluntary hospitals. We all start from the same principle. It is only a question of method. The Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates there will be great relief to the service which hospitals hare to render by reason of the operation of the tubercular and sanatorium provisions and by the relief he anticipates will be given in the matter of out-patients. In one large hospital alone we are told no fewer than 220,000 out-patients are
  68
  treated in the course of a year. But on the other hand only 36 per cent. of these 220,000 will be dealt with by this national insurance scheme at all, and, therefore, it is extremly doubtful whether, as regards out-patients at any rate, there will be much substantial relief. Next there is a question which I myself cannot answer, and on which contrary opinions are expressed by hospital authorities, namely, whether the sanatorium provisions of this Bill will relieve these institutions to any considerable extent.
  Hospital experts who have been consulted say that the finances of these institutions will be seriously depleted by the operation of this Act. I do not think, if I may respectfully say so, that the anticipation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that employers will continue to subscribe as much as ever is really going to be justified. The right hon. Gentleman told us that because employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act anticipated a great burden and their anticipation was not generally fulfilled, therefore they are not likely to decrease their hospital subscription in anticipation of the effects of this insurance legislation. Personally, I do not think the effect of the Workmen's Compensation Act can have much bearing on the argument. In this case you have to consider not colliery owners or other very large employers, but you must bear in mind the position of the small employers who have in the past been willing to make a contribution to the hospital, but who, in my opinion, in view of the burden placed upon them by this measure. may not be so inclined in the future. Therefore, the possibility is that in days to come hospital revenues from that source will diminish.
  With regard to the doctors they have a magnificent record in the past for the non-remunerated services they have rendered with such wonderful generosity. But if you place on a man the duty of attending for a small payment relatively more patients that he can fairly be expected to attend to, the natural and inevitable tendency will be for him to send to the hospital patients who otherwise would continue to receive attention in their own homes. My general impression is, therefore, that the hospital revenues will be diminished and that an increased burden may be cast upon these institutions in regard to the services they will be called upon to render. On both sides of the account, in fact, there will be something adverse to the hospital. The Chancellor

  69
  of the Exchequer made a very sympathetic speech, and intimated some intentions of giving way on subsequent Amendments, and of making certain concessions. We have to consider which of the three schemes before the Committee is the more desirable. There is the scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), the scheme of the Government, and the scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The Government propose to make the subscription to the hospital contingent entirely upon a man having any dependents; therefore, if a man who is in hospital, say, for a period of six weeks should have any single person—say a nephew—dependent upon him, he would have to be gratuitously treated by the institution, and would not be required to make any contribution. I do not think anyone can say that that is just. On the other hand my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) proposes in his Amendment to place it in the hands of the local authorities to decide in what proportion the subscriptions shall be allocated between the hospital and the patient.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Would you do that in the case where a workman subscribes to the hospital regularly? Would you in that case deduct halt his benefit?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I am inclined to think it would be very difficult to prescribe arbitrarily on the face of the Bill what sums should be paid. The ideal thing is that there should be some contribution. I do not think the House is yet in a position to say what that proportion should be, but possibly the best and most sensible arrangement we could make would be to submit the case to some impartial authority to decide what amount the hospital should receive, and how much should go to the patient. I think it will be impossible, without some agreement of that kind, to come to a satisfactory arrangement. Between the different plans I rather like that of my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cassel). His proposal is to leave it to the hospital to agree with the man or his society what the proportion should be. That seems to be a reasonable suggestion. I think the hospital might fairly be left to settle the matter with the man. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to deal with this Amendment in a spirit of concession, and I certainly hope we may approach it with a
  70
  fair amount of justifiable hope that he will recognise the undisputed claims of the hospitals.
  Mr. HARWOOD: This discussion has brought us face to face with the very great and pressing national problem. I hardly think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in what he said about the subscriptions not being diminished and in the analogy which ho drew with what has occurred under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman pressed that point a little too far, because employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act almost invariably were liable for the damage done. That consideration will not arise under this Act. I hope the Committee will realise that in the country generally —it is the case in the town which I have the honour to represent—our hospitals are not endowed, and are really supported by the community, the workmen's subscriptions being a very important element. Another point which was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the work of the hospital would be diminished, because people will not go to the hospital, but will prefer to be treated by the doctor at home, especially as they are not called upon to pay his fees. I think that any relief which may be gained in one direction will be much more than counterbalanced by the increase of work which will be thrown upon the hospitals in other directions, because the tendency will be on the part of the doctors to send patients for treatment in the hospitals who are now usually treated at home. I am quite convinced the Government will have placed on it the duty of putting the hospitals on a sound basis in regard to national requirements. The position is ridiculous as it is now. There is a growing tendency on the part of the public to believe that they can get better treatment in the hospitals than at home. People more and more are learning that you are better doctored in hospitals than at home, therefore it would be a cruel thing to say to people, "You see, so much is paid for you for doctoring, go back home and call in your medical man." The public will not accept that. More and more the tendency is quite in the opposite direction, therefore the Government must face that. The present position, that these hospitals should have to be maintained out of private sources, is really quite unreasonable. They are frequented more and more by all kinds of people, and it is a few people who have to carry them

  71
  on, and when a greater work is thrown, upon them it will really be necessary that they should be put upon a logical basis. For example, the very doctors who doctor in the hospitals doctor your patients outside, and you say to them, "If you doctor them outside you get so many shillings a year, but if you doctor them inside there is nothing to pay." That is evidently illogical, and therefore I hope the Government, if they are going to shape an Amendment, will realise that we are really brought up against a very serious proposition as we shall have, whether we like it or not, to face the fact that we must put the hospitals upon a logical basis and to make them national institutions in some way or other is the sound line to take.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: It seems that the Clause as drawn would enable a man who is being treated voluntarily in a hospital to receive some sickness benefit at the same time. If that is the effect of the Clause what becomes of the second Subsection, which proposes Amendments with regard to applying the money for the benefit of hospitals? The second Subsection says:—
  "During such period as aforesaid any such benefit which would otherwise have been payable to such person."
  And it is proposed to amend it by saying it shall be applied in whole or in part for the benefit of the hospital. Surely it is obvious that you ought to put in words in the first Sub-section which shall make it clear that if a man is being treated in a hospital maintained by voluntary subscription he shall not be entitled to receive the sickness benefit. The words as they stand I do not think will have that effect: "Maintained by a public authority or out of public funds or by charity." Those words are not adequate to denote the case of a hospital which is maintained by voluntary subscription. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the necessity of amending the first Sub-section in the sense which I have indicated. There is one aspect of the necessity of seeing that hospitals are not damaged by this Bill, which I should desire to emphasise. Not only do hospitals supported by voluntary subscriptions bring the highest possible medical and surgical care to the service of the very poorest class who can be brought to the hospital, but in doing that they achieve inestimable benefits for the cause of medicine, surgery, and science. Our hospitals are great medical and sur-
  72
  gical schools, and anything that diminishes their efficiency would inflict a severe blow upon medical science in this country. It is the unanimous opinion of those who are familiar with the working of hospitals that this Bill as it stands would most seriously prejudice them.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): It is not unanimous.
  Sir R. FINLAY: It is very nearly unanimous. The apprehension is very widespread, and I think the reason given for it is very sufficient; it is believed that, while the work of the hospitals will be augmented, their subscriptions will be diminished. That is a state of things which no one can contemplate without dismay, and which must lead to the consideration of the question whether it is not necessary to subside these great institutions out of public funds. I was somewhat struck by the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a certain optimistic tone about them. He seemed to think all would come right, and those interested in hospitals need not be alarmed. I wish he had been able to say something more solid for the purpose of removing these apprehensions than he did say, and I feel very sure those who have given a great deal of work to hospitals will not have their minds very seriously relieved when they read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the subject. The matter is of such vast importance that I hope it will receive the attention of those in charge of the Bill, and that the Committee will see that such Amendments are made as will secure that adequate contribution shall be made to hospitals which will have increased work thrown upon them under the operation of the Bill.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I think while we are formally discussing the Amendment to leave out the words "by charity" we are really discussing the merits of the Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and the alternative Clause to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I rise to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). In the first place, a person who insures under this Bill insures for certain specific benefits set out in the Fourth Schedule, and generally they are sick benefits, disablement benefits, medical benefits, and, in case of necessity, sanitorium benefits. No-insured person insures for a hospital up to the present. He pays his premium, his

  73
  employer pays his, and the State pays its contribution, but not for hospitals at all, In a normal case it is presumed that the insured person is taken sick in his own house and is attended by a medical man, and gets his 10s. for the first period and 5s. for the subsequent period and keeps himself and his dependents out of that money in so far as he can. If he goes into a hospital he gets medical attendance, he gets his food supplied, and he gets his 10s. and 5s. a week just the same. The amending Clause of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) throws the responsibility as to whether or not those who go into hospitals and who have dependents outside will contribute towards the support of those hospitals on the health committee. This committee is the best judge as to whether or not the money should be given to dependents outside the hospital, or whether there should be a fair and just payment to the hospital. That is an extra benefit given to a man who may, or may not, be financially able to pay for it, and, as there is doubt as between the dependents of the insured person who takes advantage of a hospital for which he has never paid, the amending Clause should apply, and the responsibility should be thrown upon the health committee. But that Clause should be further amended, so that in the case of those, like the vast majority of working men in the constituency which I represent, who now subscribe, and I believe will continue to subscribe 1d. a week, in spite of all this pessimism about the hard-heartedness of the working man, the health committee should take cognisance of the subscriptions of these working men, and, of course, if they subscribe for the hospital while they are well, they are entitled to the benefit of a hospital while they are ill, independent of any National Insurance Bill whatever. We are all agreed that hospitals must be supported at all costs, and it is no use for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call out that hospitals in the future are to be supported by the weekly allowance of those who are dependents. He seems to suggest that we are a nation of orphans or bachelors without anyone dependent upon them. The number of that class who go into hospitals is an infinitesimally small portion of those who receive the generous benefits now given by hospitals. I shall certainly support the Amendment if amended as I suggest.
  Dr. HILLIER: I should like to ask you, Sir, on what lines this debate is going
  74
  to be continued. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Greenwood) has made an admirable speech in support of an Amendment later in the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I desire to ask whether we are at liberty to discuss that Amendment now, and if so, whether we shall discuss it again when the Amendment is before the House?
  The CHAIRMAN: A good deal has been said about subsequent Amendments which are connected with this question. It may be a general convenience to the Committee that they should be able to refer to those Amendments. When we come to the individual Amendments we shall have to take some one and deal with it, but I hope we shall not have a lengthy discussion on the Amendment. Therefore, I do not propose, after the discussion that has taken place, to prevent hon. Members from saying something about these Amendments.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: The discussion has wandered over a very wide area, I have no doubt with advantage, but I think it has somewhat obscured the actual Amendments before the Committee. I think the range of discussion was really largely due to the misapprehension of the effect of this Amendment in the mind of the hon. Member (Mr. Jonathan Samuel) and the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury). Let us see exactly what this Clause ordains at present. The first Sub-section of Clause 12 does not give anything, but takes away what might otherwise have been given. The Sub-section as it stands prevents a contributor from receiving any sickness or disablement benefit if he is in a hospital. What we are seeking to establish is that if he receives such treatment in a charitable hospital he shall have re-established for himself all the rights that ho would otherwise take, but there is nothing to be taken away from him. The money is to be there disposed of in respect of him by some means or other.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Which Amendment are you referring to?
  6.0. P.M.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The Amendment that we are now discussing, moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Pollock) which we have wandered very widely away from. We say that where a man is in a hospital supported by the rates or out of public funds the money that he would otherwise receive

  75
  might fairly pass into the credit side of the insurance fund. That is a benefit he has been providing for by a payment of public rates. It may be that the stability of the fund will be guaranteed all the more by this sum, which would otherwise go to him, passing into the fund. But if he is dealt with, not by a public fund, but by a public charity and by the voluntary labours of the medical men who attend the hospital and who are absolutely unpaid by the charity or by those who are subscribers to the hospital, is it not reasonable, I would ask, to say that we must make a clear distinction between that case and the case of the man who is dealt with by public funds, and that we should say in that case the money shall not pass into the Insurance Fund, but shall be the property of the man, and shall be disposed of in fairness between him and those to whose kindness he has been indebted for his treatment in a voluntary hospital? That is all we are seeking to do by the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. We can do no more until we strike out these words in the first Subsection of the Clause. If we leave charity institutions exactly on the same footing as institutions supported by public funds, then the subsequent Sub-section assigning sickness or disablement allowance either to the man himself or to his dependents will be absolutely useless, and we shall have to slump together the charity and the public funds in one Clause. It would be absurd to try to go back upon that. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will take his Amendment to a Division if that should be necessary. I trust the Government will accept the Amendment as a preliminary to any further alterations in Clause 12. Unless we separate charity institutions from other institutions which are kept up by public funds, we cannot introduce the Amendments of which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice, but I may say here that in my opinion these Amendments do not go far enough in justice to voluntary institutions.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: There is a small point which has been lost sight of in the course of this discussion. The Clause appears on the face of it to apply to the allocation of sickness, disablement, or maternity benefit. It does not refer to ordinary medical benefit. That is to say, the benefit to which it does refer is the benefit which represents the cost of maintenance of the individual in these institu-
  76
  tions. But surely we ought to consider the matter in reference to the question of the allocation of medical benefit to those persons housed for the time being in these institutions, because it appears to me that unless the equivalent of medical benefit goes to some extent to the hospitals—I think that it should all go to the hospitals —the hospitals will have to do a large amount of work which would otherwise fall on local practitioners and friendly societies. That being so, the medical benefit which would in the ordinary course go into the pockets of the ordinary medical practitioner will go to the State, to swell the unapplied balance, because that work is being done for them. Surely that is an additional reason for making a considerable allowance to the hospitals, because they will be doing a great deal of the work proposed to be done under this Bill by the independent practitioners outside the-hospitals.
  Mr. BAIRD: I think there is one more reason why this Amendment should be supported. In his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say he was going to oppose this Amendment, but he seemed to think it was unneessary. He did not use the one argument he is in the habit of using—namely, that the State could not afford the money. Even if funds were not available, that would not be an argument for resisting this Amendment. An hon. Member below the Gangway said that medical attendance was provided under the Bill, and he contended that whether a man got it in a hospital or in his own home, did not make much difference. I would point out that a man gets a very great deal more in a hospital than in his own home. He gets sickness benefit which is designed to pay for what is required at home. If it is defrayed out of the rates, it is reasonable that that should make it unnecessary for any further contribution to be given. If he is going to benefit through a hospital supported by charitable subscriptions, and which is not supported by the public rates, it is right that he should contribute according to his own means to the funds of that institution. I do not think it is possible to resist this Amendment on logical grounds. The right hon. Gentleman did not advance any argument in support of his view to show that those who think otherwise than himself are wrong.
  Nothing could be more regrettable than the suggestion that hospitals which axe at present supported by voluntary subscriptions could be put under the municipalities.

  77
  That would be doing a thing which has been found undesirable in other countries. It would take away the distinctive character which our hospitals possess as compared with the hospitals in other countries. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) referred to the hospital at Hamburg. I have very little doubt that if the officials of the hospital at Hamburg were here to-day they would tell us that they are unable to conduct there the experiments and researches which are necessary for the advancement of medical and surgical knowledge in the same manner as can be done in the voluntary institutions of this country. I think it would be an unfortunate thing to take away the voluntary character of our hospitals, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman. What is the alternative? What do we propose to do by the Bill, supposing this Amendment is not accepted? In the first place this Amendment is desired by every one of the hospitals. It has the support also of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, one of the societies best entitled to speak on the subject. If you turn to the only other section that deals with hospitals, namely, Section 17, you find it provides:
  "It shall be lawful for an approved society to grant such subscriptions or donations as it may think fit to hospitals and other charitable institutions, or for the support of district nurses, and to appoint nurses for the purpose of visiting insured persons who are members of the society, and any sums so expended shall be treated as expenditure on such benefits under this Part of this Act as may be prescribed."
  That is a Clause which all the hospitals desire to see excised from the Bill. They find it quite unsatisfactory because they think it most undesirable that they should be called upon to deal with cases on a contract basis. They desire to be paid pro rata as cases come into the hospital, and unless the words which this Amendment seeks to omit are omitted, it will be impossible to move Amendments subsequently to meet the case. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed Amendment meets the case at all. Why draw a distinction between a man who has dependents and one who has no dependents? There is no reason why a man who has a grandmother dependent upon him should have his expenses paid, while another who has not a grandmother dependent upon him should not have his expenses paid. That cannot be affected
  78
  by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman did not offer any very determined resistance, or say that the Government would not accept this Amendment. In view of the very small amount of opposition which the Amendment has produced, and of the very strong arguments adduced in its favour, I hope the Government will see their way to delete these words from the Bill.
  Mr. PETO: There is no doubt that what we are concerned with at present is the question to what extent the cutting out of these words would cause voluntary contributions to fall off in future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took the usual rosy and optimistic view, and seemed to think it would be all right for the hospitals in future. An hon. Member stated that in a case he knew the amount of a railway company's subscriptions to the hospitals along the line amounted to £5,000. I should like to give the Committee an illustration on a smaller scale. I would remind the Committee that companies and firms throughout the country contribute to hospitals, convalescent homes, and institutions of a kindred nature in their neighbourhood, and it is perfectly well understood that the contributions of the employers are to be used for the benefit of their employés. In the case of a company in which I am concerned, I have just ascertained that the annual subscriptions amount to £130 a year. The company has only 500 to 600 workers, and that sum works out at just under 5s. a year, or a penny per week per worker. It is one-third of what will be asked as the employer's contribution under the scheme. It is only a little adjunct of the sickness benefit scheme which has been in existence since 1859, and which practically costs the workmen nothing, for the employer's contribution is placed at ½d., which pays for the sickness benefit. We go on the system of sharing out what remains at the end of November. I quite agree with several hon. Members who have touched on the subject that sanatorium benefit is hardly going to affect this question of convalescent homes and other institutions at all. It is perfectly true that among many of the institutions which have been subscribed to we may have occasionally to send one of our workmen. One hon. Member referred to the fact that when a workman is in a hospital he gets a great deal more than medical treatment. That still more

  79
  applies to convalescent homes. It is not quite clear to me whether convalescent homes are intended to be included or not. The words are: "Workhouse, hospital, asylum, or infirmary, supported by a public authority or out of any public funds, or by a charity, or of a sanatorium or similar institution established under this part of this Act."
  When the Government have introduced a great scheme of national insurance, which, is absolutely obligatory not only on workmen, but on employers, is it reasonable, especially when you exclude from the benefit of the Act any workman while he is in hospital, in addition to putting a large compulsory weekly levy on every workman and on every employer in the whole country to expect confidently charitable contributions, certainly voluntary contributions, as I have shown in what I consider a fair average case, amounting to a penny per week per man to continue on exactly the same scale as before? If you are going to give the workman in time of sickness a sum which I cannot regard as excessive, 10s. a week as a maximum, if you are going to make him support as best he can his dependents out of that, when he is in his own house, and he has got to provide all his own maintenance during his time of sickness, then, why, if he is subject to some illness which makes him a suitable applicant for admission into a hospital or similar institution, do you suddenly decide to pay nothing at all to the hospital and to pay to his dependents the entire sum which in another case would have had to keep him as well as his dependents? I think that there ought to be some more equitable treatment. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), that the first thing you have got to do is to cut out those institutions supported by charity altogether and settle how you are going to deal with such cases in future. You will not be able to deal with their case under the old system. I hope sincerely for myself that it will not result in putting all these great institutions on a basis of being supported out of the rates, as was suggested by the hon. Member for East Leeds. He said, in addition to that, that we must be generous and that we must not take any part of the payment that would otherwise be made to the workman and pay it to the hospital. Then he went on to say there would be no need to do so, for he was sure that the working classes of this country would see
  80
  that the subscriptions to the hospital were kept up.
  I have endeavoured to show that there is an enormous amount of money paid to these institutions every year on behalf of the working classes, and I ask is it reasonable to say that, because we must be generous and take nothing back out of the sickness pay, we are going to put the working class to the loss of not only keeping up their own penny a week subscription, but of keeping up the whole of these enormous contributions to maintain these institutions which are provided by the employers? I do not think that that would be generous to the working classes. I think it would be infinitely better to recognise the fact that a man has better treatment and attendance in hospital than out of it, and that it is only reasonable if he gets the whole of that for nothing that he should not receive the whole of his sickness benefit for his dependents. I think that a more equitable scheme will have to be found. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman will make an investigation, as could easily be done by asking a certain number of employers, he will find that my figure is not very far wrong. They do it now quite voluntarily, without taking any special credit for it, simply as part of the arrangements made, resulting from the good understanding between the employers and employed, and because it is in the interests of the employers to look after the health of the workmen in times of sickness. In many cases it would be found that more than a penny a week per man is paid as a voluntary contribution into these institutions. Under the provisions of this Clause how is that going to be made good? I am quite sure it is not by asking the working classes to take the whole burden upon themselves. A reasonable, arrangement might be if some portion of the money were paid for the maintenance of the man while he is in the hospital. I would also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me quite clearly whether this Clause as printed will apply to convalescent homes or will not?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think we are all agreed that if the insured person is in an institution supported out of public funds, he should not get all the money for his dependents. That is, he should come under Sub-section (1) of Clause 12. If, on the other hand, he is in an institution which is not supported out of public funds, I think that we are all agreed that the private institution should have some part; of this money. If we are all agreed about

  81
  that, there should not be very much difficulty in arriving at some form of words that would embody in the Bill the general conclusion at which we have arrived. But I would point this out. I am afraid that the result of omitting these words "or by a charity" would have an effect the opposite to that intended by hon. Members, because if you omit these words the man will get the money himself. You really want these words in so that you will not have the money paid to the individual himself, in order to get a contribution to the hospitals. I think that the Attorney-General might tell us what is his opinion about this form of words? My own opinion is that is does not matter much whether you keep these words in or take them out. If we keep them in and amend the Bill, we arrive at the conclusion I have just stated. If we keep them out we can arrive at the same conclusion. In order to get the subsequent Amendment these words "or by charity" would have to be knocked, but if that be so Sub-section (2) with this Amendment will not secure the case at all, because Sub-section (2) does not apply to hospitals, if you once strike these words out, because it is limited to Sub-section (1), which is limited to institutions which are of a public character.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think if perhaps the hon. Member had been here at the beginning of the procedings before this Amendment was moved——
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I was here.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then I am afraid that the hon. Member, like a good many others of us, did not know exactly what we were doing at that moment. As the hon. Member is generally pretty quick in matters of drafting, he might have perceived, had he been here, the effect of the Amendments which were accepted by the Government as mere drafting Amendments. Had they not been put in I think there would be a great deal to be said for the argument of the hon. Member, but as they are put in we ought now to leave out these words, because we have altered the Sub-section, and it now reads— I am omitting unnecessary words—"that no payment shall be made on account of sickness to or in respect of any person who is an inmate of a workhouse hospital, asylum, infirmary, etc." I do not want the whole contribution to go to the hospital. My Amendment proposes that part of it should go to the dependents and part of it to the hospital.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: With regard to the Clause which we are at present discussing, there are only two points of criticism that have been directed against these words. One was, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities suggested, that the words "or by a charity" could not apply to convey what is meant, which was the case of a hospital or institution supported by voluntary subscription. The further criticism is that by the uncertainty of the words in the early part of the Clause it was made necessary to bring in other words in order to give effect to what is the general view of the House as to what is the particular way the proposed Amendment should be carried out. By the general view of the House something should be done with regard to hospitals, and that would be precluded if these words "or by a charity" were left in. With regard to the first point which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not quite agree with the criticism which he addressed, but I do in part, probably in a way which would meet his view. When you take the words "or by a charity" to cover the case of a hospital which is being supported not out of voluntary subscriptions, but in some other way out of charity, which may not be public funds, I do think that there is justice in the comment that "or by a charity" are words which leave a doubt as to whether the hospital is supported by voluntary subscriptions. We met that by having after the words "or by a charity" (if these words are kept in) the words "or by voluntary subscriptions." I think that meets the criticism as regards the first point. With regard to the second, I think we are in no difficulty as to taking a technical view of the words "or by a charity," and of the sub-sequent words which follow under this Sub-section (2), because, as I submit to the Committee, there is no difficulty at all in discussing the general question which we are all specially discussing under Sub-section (2) either under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire or the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Notwithstanding any alteration made in the earlier words there would be no difficulty in dealing with this Amendment under Sub-section (2). The words "or in respect of any person," in the earlier part, were merely required so that we might deal with the case of a woman who is the wife of an insured person, but not herself

  83
  an insured person, and who received maternity benefit. For drafting purposes it became necessary to introduce those words, which in no way alter what has been already decided. When you come to Sub-section (2) there are the words "which would otherwise have been payable." What you say first of all is that the payment shall be made under certain circumstances; then "during such period as aforesaid," any payment that would otherwise have been made shall be dealt with in a particular way. In that way, I submit, you can deal with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, or the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Amendment which deals with a proposal of this character. We are not in any way estopped by the earlier words, and therefore I suggest to the Committee that it would be better to keep in the words "or by a charity," and add the words I have suggested to carry out the views of hon. Members opposite, namely, "or by voluntary subscriptions." Then you can deal with specific Amendments raised hereafter, and no one will be prejudiced.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Would the words proposed by the Attorney-General cover all the cases? In my constituency there is a hospital which is partly supported by voluntary subscriptions. It combines the two things—it is a charily, but it is also supported by voluntary subscriptions. I wish to know whether the words proposed cover that instance.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the words would cover that case. "Charity" would cover endowments, and "voluntary subscriptions" would cover the funds from other sources. I can assure the hon. Gentleman I am quite clear that there is no difficulty or ambiguity in these words, but if there should be any doubt, though I cannot see why there should be any, I will certainly consider the introduction of words which will clear up the matter.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask whether, under Clause 12, the word "hospital" includes hospitals which are under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board? Is the Attorney-General aware that the treatment of persons in those hospitals is absolutely free, and, seeing that the insured person is rated for their upkeep, is it intended to make him pay twice over for the same benefit?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is quite clear that the words, "Supported by a public
  84
  authority out of public funds" would include the hospitals mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member has put to me a question which I have answered, but it arises on an Amendment which is to be brought forward later for decision. The hon. Member will bear in mind, in receiving my answer, that we have not yet carried the Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: Would a convalescent home be included in those words? It would not be a workhouse, a hospital, an asylum nor an infirmary. The words are "Sanatoria or similar institutions" established under this part of the Act.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree that the words "Sanatoria or similar institutions" would cover convalescent homes of a similar character to Sanatoria, but I do not know whether the words are wide enough to meet the point my hon. Friend makes. I understand him to mean a convalescent home supported in some way by public subscription or out of public funds. I will consider whether words can be introduced in order to clear the point up.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The word "approved" might be substituted for "established," making it any institution "approved."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In connection with an Amendment of that kind I am not quite sure whether the other point could be raised.
  Dr. ADDISON: The discussion has ranged over a very wide field with respect to hospitals, and the point of Order on which I ask the ruling of the Chair is this; Will the Committee be quite in order on Clause 15, for example, or Clause 17, to discuss the general position of hospitals and institutions in relation to this scheme, or would that discussion not be in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: I could not possibly answer a question of that kind. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a general discussion on the position of hospitals. We could not a second time, traverse ground already covered. Anything relevant to the Clauses which the hon. Member has mentioned unquestionably would be allowed.
  Mr. JOWETT: The discussion on the Amendment has gone far outside the particular terms of that Amendment, and, therefore, I consider I shall be as much in. order as any other member of the Committee in following the lines laid down by

  85
  other speakers in the discussion. The Amendment, with its consequential Amendment proposed later on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, becomes more and more hateful. The fact of the matter is, when stripped of its verbiage, it is a further plan, in addition to all that has been done in times gone by, to put working men compulsorily under contribution for hospitals which are not under public management, and over which they have no real control. These so-called voluntary hospitals are most of them voluntary only in name, so far as a large part of the country, at any rate, is concerned. Already they have lost their voluntary character to the extent that the foremen in factories collect week by week contributions. How, in the name of Heaven, can they be called voluntary hospitals? But on the top of all past experience of these outrages on the so called voluntary principle, it is now sought to give power to the local health committee in certain circumstances to deprive insured persons who have paid for their insurance of the benefit to which they have acquired a title. The hospital system of this country is in a transition stage, and the question is rapidly forcing itself upon the public as to what is ultimately to be the position of hospitals. Voluntary subscriptions tend to diminish rather than increase. Sooner or later some Member of a Government, sitting on that Bench, will have to face the question of the hospitals of the country, in order to put them on a sound basis, by frankly making them a public charge and placing them on the public funds. If it is insisted upon that contribution shall be forced from insured persons, and from working people, I for one will go into the Lobby against the proposal if a Division be taken.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I wish to explain the position I take upon this Amendment, which was moved in order to obtain further information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what was intended by the Clause. I said it was quite impossible to understand the Clause unless we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was his intention as to the Sub-section before the Committee. The question has now been fully debated, and it has now been made clear that what I said seemed possible is not so-namely, that during a certain period a man who was entitled to benefit under this Act would lose the money to which he was entitled by contract, and that it would go into the scheme
  86
  for the benefit of the Insurance Fund. As that is not so, a supplementary scheme will be provided in later Sub-sections which are to be moved which will enable the money to be applied to the many purposes to which it is important that it should be applied. The words the Attorney-General has suggested do not seem to cover the case where an infirmary or hospital is supported by endowments. Some of my hon. and learned Friends around me have some doubts whether the words which the Attorney-General proposes are sufficient. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let us have the opportunity of considering the words he proposes to insert, having regard to the very wide alteration that has been made in the first Sub-section. On the grounds I have indicated, and feeling that the Clause does not in any way deal with the point that has been suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, and also feeling that the point I brought forward has been fully dealt with, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "charity" ["or by a charity"], to insert the words, "or voluntary subscriptions."
  Mr. CAVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point put by the hon. Member for Gravesend?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to put a case to the Attorney-General as to an hospital with which I am connected. It is a case where a large portion of the fund that supports the hospital is not raised either by charity or voluntary subscription. At the time the hospital was built, as I believe is rather common in various districts, a fund was raised by the employer and the employed, and the people in the district subscribed over a thousand pounds, which was invested, but is not subject to any charitable trust. The interest upon it forms the nucleus for the annual contribution which supplements it. I do not think that the words of the Attorney-General include a case like that, where there is no real endowment, but where there is a fund out of which the hospital is supported other than by annual contributions.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not quite easy when the Clause is amended to see the exact effect, but the words seem to mo to cover all the cases. My mind, however,

  87
  is quite open on the matter. What I am anxious to do is to carry out the intention of the Committee. I shall consider any other form of words which may be suggested, or any other case which hon. Members put before me.
  Mr. W. THORNE: If this Amendment is carried, will any of the insured persons who will be compelled to go to a hospital kept up by voluntary subscription lose their benefits?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That question arises on a later Amendment. I do not think that this commits the Committee to anything.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "established" ["similar institutions established"], and to insert instead thereof, the word "approved." This is a drafting Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I accept it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the Attorney-General will be good enough to tell us what is the exact effect of describing an institution or putting in the words "approved" under this part of this Act?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 15, Subsection (1), he will see that there is provision made for the purpose of administering sanatorium benefit, and that the Local Government Board have power to approve of sanatoria or other similar institutions. Therefore it is better to use the word "approved" rather than "established."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is doing the very thing that I was anxious to prevent, and I understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed sympathy with me, that is confining the proposal and the consequent benefit to institutions, either existing or established in the future for the purpose of sanatorium benefit. Sanatorium benefit is consumption benefit, tuberculosis benefit, and we do not want at all to confine this to treatment in institutions which are set up for tuberculosis diseases alone.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And similar institutions.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If it is similar it must be an institution for the treatment of the same kind of disease and subject to the same limitations. That is my whole point. I read the word "similar" as saying for the same purpose as sanatoria, which will be established for consumption only.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that on Clause 15 we deal with the specific point in order to meet the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I point out to the Attorney-General that nearly all the great hospitals in London have convalescent homes. They are, of course, of a general character, and are not limited to phthisis. It is quite clear that this Clause does not touch them.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not think that this alteration meets the point which I raised.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not suggest that it does. The point that was raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras was a point I thought well worthy of consideration. That has nothing whatever to do with what I just said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. This is a criticism really directed to Clause 15, as to which we have Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. FORSTER: I only want to make sure that we are proceeding on safe lines. The approval which may be given under Clause 15 by the Local Government Board is, I understand, limited to those institutions which are designed to give to insured persons sanatorium benefit.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the widest sense.
  Mr. FORSTER: Then the Amendment which the Attorney-General has foreshadowed really will have the effect of extending the area of approval which the Local Government Board can give. We on this side do not want to limit the benefits to those persons who are deriving sanatorium benefit only.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find that we have dealt with that in the Amendments we propose to Clause 15 on which this point will come up for consideration.
  Mr. FORSTER: I only want to make sure that there will be no misunderstanding, and that the Local Government

  89
  Board will be enabled to approve of institutions for the treatment of persons in addition to those receiving sanatorium benefit. If that is the object of the Amendment I see no objection to it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I had no intention in moving the word "approved" to limit it in the sense suggested. I really want to extend it, and I move the Amendment because it seemed to me that the word "established" did seem to limit it.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: If we adopt the word "approved" we do certainly seem to limit the matter to a greater degree than by the word "established." I would venture to suggest that in the meantime it might be better to leave out the words until we come to discuss the matter afterwards.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is a complete misconception with regard to this Amendment. Whatever is desired in the way of extension or the approval of the Local Government Board is not being dealt with in this Clause and is unaffected by this Clause. It will be affected by Clause 15, where the specific point comes up for discussion. Here all the Committee is asked to do is to accept the word "approved," which is a better word than "established," and the matter comes up afterwards on Clause 15.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I take it that the word "approved" will not be limiting what is proposed in Clause 15.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That must entirely depend on what is done in Clause 15. We do not really change anything now except that it is better drafting to have the word "approved."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hon. Members will see Clause 8, paragraph (b), that treatment is not limited to treatment in sanatoria, but also includes "such other diseases as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint." So I think the point some of my friends are afraid of does not arise here, and it seems to me that "approved" is better than "established."
  Mr. RAWLINSON Mr. RAWLINSON made some observations which were inaudible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "any such benefit" ["as aforesaid any such benefit"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the sum."
  90
  This is the first of a couple of drafting Amendments. When they have been accepted the Sub-section will read: "During such period as aforesaid the sum which would otherwise have been payable on account of any such benefit to such person." This would agree with what was done earlier, and would enable us to discuss the various questions as we make progress.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "payable" ["payable to such person"], to insert the words "on account of any such benefit."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "to" ["to such person"], to insert the words "or in respect of."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I accept that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "shall" ["(a) shall be paid"] to insert the words "if he be an inmate or patient of a hospital or institution supported wholly or partly by voluntary subscriptions be divided between that hospital or institution and his dependents (if any) in such proportions as the local health committee may determine, and in all other eases shall be."
  This Amendment to a great extent expresses the general opinion of the House, as was gathered by the Government in the previous discussion. It is quite true that one or two hon. Members objected. The Member for Stockton (Mr. Samuel) raised a decided objection, and the Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett), and one or two-others, also objected. As summarising the discussion we have just heard, as collected by the Attorney-General and expressed by other speakers on that side, there was a general consensus of opinion that where a man was in an institution which was wholly or partly supported by voluntary contributions and was an insured person, part of the money due to him, if he had dependents, and the whole if he had no dependents, should go to the institution which gave him not only treatment but board and lodging as well. The hon. Member for Stockton opposing this idea in the earlier stage of the proceedings, spoke of hospitals in a way in which I am quite unable to follow him from my experience. He said there was no such

  91
  thing in his part of the country as a general hospital, that they were always surgical hospitals.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I say they included operations, and that, generally speaking, they were surgical.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should doubt very much whether the number of beds for surgical cases exceeded the number of beds for general cases. In particular cases situated in places where accidents, owing to the nature of the trade, happened to be peculiarly numerous and where hospitals were especially provided for the purpose, there might be such cases, but in ordinary cases of the great hospitals in the towns they are general hospitals with a general side and a medical side, and the treatment of the surgical side covers accidents which are brought into them and which could not be treated at home, but they do certainly the same thing for medical cases. The hon. Gentleman seemed to talk almost as if working men had no need for hospital treatment unless a man who had broken a leg or had to undergo a surgical operation, but there is an enormous number of medical cases where the prospects of recovery depend absolutely upon the conditions under which he is nursed and the skill and care with which he is nursed, and he could not get that in his own home. He could not get either the proper physician or the skilled nursing which is necessary. Certainly there are cases in which the medical side of the hospitals is not less necessary to the working man than it is in those cases which go to the surgical side. The Member for Bradford put forward a different view. He said that in this country now there was no such thing as voluntary hospitals. I think he went as far as that. At least, he said they were considered voluntary but had ceased to be voluntary, and why? Because you make the working man contribute to their maintenance.
  Mr. JOWETT: Hon. Members know that the influences under which they are given deprive them of their voluntary character.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I decline to accept that on behalf of the working men of Birmingham, that they have not independence enough to express their own opinion even though they are canvassed. The hon. Gentleman said the
  92
  working man was canvassed by the foreman to subscribe, and therefore his contributions ceased to be voluntary.
  Mr. JOWETT: Absolutely.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What if he were canvassed by the same foreman for his vote? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] Some of these gentlemen would not be sitting where they are.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Better speak for yourself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] You know more about it than we do.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do know something about it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: You do not know anything about us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] He should not make offensive remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN: Do let us conduct this Debate in a proper manner.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY rose to a point of Order.
  Hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am dealing with the point of Order. We cannot all speak at once. Hon. Members had better speak in their turn.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friends they would not be in their places but for certain considerations. Remarks of that kind are of a personal and offensive character.
  The CHAIRMAN: What was the remark that was personally offensive?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Foremen canvassing for votes.
  Mr. LANSBURY: That we got here by intimidation. That is the only meaning of the imputation.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Member for Bradford said that if a working man was canvassed by a foreman for a contribution to an hospital it ceased to be voluntary.
  Mr. JOWETT: That is so.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And then I inquired what happened if he was canvassed for his vote by a foreman. Did it cease to be voluntary then?
  Mr. LANSBURY: By the foreman, yes.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did hon. Gentlemen opposite ever discourage canvassing in their interests by a foreman?
  Mr. LANSBURY: We do not; not by foremen.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I asked the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. LANSBURY: You said that was why we were here. Speak for yourself.
  Mr. JOWETT: Foremen do not canvass for those representatives who sit on these benches.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. It seems to me to be an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is, however, travelling a little wide of the subject before the House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will come back to the question of the Bill. The experience of hon. Gentlemen is that working men subscribe hundreds and thousands of pounds to hospitals against their will and therefore their subscription ceases to be voluntary. I do not think that is so. I myself am most anxious that they should not cease to be voluntary. The hon. Member would be glad to see them put upon the public money. I do not know whether ho means the rates or taxes. I am most anxious they should be kept off both as much as possible; I think it will be a bad thing for the medical society, bad for the hospitals, and bad for the progress of medical science if you introduce in these hospitals the kind of inspection and control and rules and regulations which necessarily follow upon direct aid from the taxes. I am most anxious that should be avoided; I have before my memory the considerable support given to an observation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this afternoon. He rested his case that the hospitals would not be injured mainly upon the German example. He has told us throughout that the effect of insurance in Germany was to improve, and not to weaken, the position of the hospitals. To-day, for the first time, he has told us the reason why that is the case. It is because the German system has adopted the practice embodied in my Amendment. I quite understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absent; but he was sympathetic towards this idea, and had so open a mind upon it that I hope those who represent him in his absence will not be more unwilling in regard to it than he showed himself inclined to be.
  94
  The Government agree that where a man has no dependents the money should not go to him, and the Committee have already embodied in the first Sub-section the provision that no money is to be paid to a man while he is in hospital, but there is no provision for paying it to anyone else. The original proposal was that it should go to swell the general insurance fund. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer provides that where there are no dependents it shall go to the hospital. I propose that where there are dependents it shall be divided between the dependents and the hospital in such proportions as the local health committee think fit. We must set up some tribunal to decide what the proportions shall be. I am not wholly satisfied with the local health committee, but I do not see any better tribunal that we can provide, or one which would have greater power to obtain knowledge of the conditions and needs both of the hospitals and of the dependents of the individual whose money was at stake. There is only one other thing I would say, though it does not really arise on this Amendment, and I do not wish to complicate the Amendment with it. I think it will be found desirable that the hospitals should be represented on the local health committee, and no doubt it will be still more desirable if an Amendment of this kind is carried.
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope the Committee will not agree to take money for the sake of the hospitals from the dependents of persons in hospitals. We all thoroughly agree with what has gone before in this Debate as to the urgent necessity of maintaining hospitals in a proper manner, but I do not agree that the sick fund which would otherwise assist dependents is the right place to get the money. If a man has no dependents there can be no serious objections to the money going to the hospital; but if a man has any dependents at all the main purpose of this Bill is that they should be prevented from becoming impoverished during the sickness of the breadwinner. The hospitals must be entitled to be paid for the services they will render to the insured person. The only question before us is where the money is to come from. I think the right hon. Gentleman indicated some time ago that before this scheme has been established long we shall have forced upon us the necessity of organising proper standing relations between the hospitals and the insurance scheme. At the present time—and I daresay this is the reason why

  95
  the right hon. Gentleman has selected this particular fund for a raid—there is really no permanent arrangement for properly contributing to the hospitals. The health committees have their maternity benefit, their medical benefit, and their sanatorium benefit all earmarked, but it will be necessary at the very first stage of this scheme coming into operation that some insured persons should receive treatment in a hospital as soon as possible, in order that they may be prevented from coming on the sick fund. I did not intrude earlier in the Debate, and I will not press my views on the Committee at this stage, but I think that an organisation working through the local health committee is the proper way to deal with the hospital part of the scheme.
  It will be necessary that we should have a proper organisation for maintaining the hospital portion of the scheme as an insurance scheme. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to have an insurance scheme unless we have institutions attached to it for the treatment of patients. The Amendment simply suggests that the money shall come from the sick benefit of the insured persons. Nothing would be more deplorable than to mix up business with charity. We know that the lay members of the boards of the hospitals devote many hours every week to the collection of subscriptions—a wearisome and miserable business it is—to keep the hospitals going, and the medical staffs for the most part are entirely voluntary. There is no question whatever that very soon after this scheme is established there will be a great addition to the in-patient work of our hospitals. No doubt there will be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, some relief to the out-patient department. A large number of people go there who are perfectly well able to pay for themselves; they are a burden to the hospitals and a nuisance to the deserving poor who go to be attended to, because the latter are kept much longer than they ought to be. It will be a good thing for the hospitals altogether if this evil is abated. I am afraid that I cannot agree with an hon. Member opposite that the establishment of a system of inspection would in any way touch the disease. We have only to go to the out-patient department of any large general hospital to see that it is perfectly easy to pick out a considerable number of people who have slipped through the very wide mesh of the sieve which has been provided by the system of
  96
  inspection. It is almost impossible, in a large hospital with a great many people coming into the out-patients' room in the early morning, to sift them out with justice. But when we have the domiciliary treatment that we shall have under this scheme, they will be sorted out for us to a great extent. So far as the wards are concerned, we must of necessity have an increase in the work of the hospitals almost at once. A large number of cases will be diagnosed at an earlier stage, and treatment will be called for at an earlier period. Many cases which are now not treated at all, or which are curable only by operations, will, when this fund becomes established, be sent into the hospitals as soon as possible to be treated, and the pressure upon the hospital part of it will become very much greater.
  I feel confident that it will be imperative for us to establish, under proper health authorities, standing relations between the existing hospitals and, let us say, for example, as I hope will be the case, the existing Poor Law infirmaries brought properly up to date and devoted to their proper use. All this means that we shall have before us the great problem of how properly to finance the hospitals and dispensaries, and to bring them into working relation with this great scheme. Therefore I hope the Committee will not prejudge the issue by playing with the question—for that is all that this proposal will do—by extracting from the dependents of insured persons some small portion of their sick pay in order to devote it to these purposes. That will be no adequate way of dealing with the question. It will create a great deal of prejudice against the scheme, and serve no useful purpose. For these reasons I sincerely hope the Committee will not agree to the Amendment.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: The hon. Member opposite (Dr. Addison) has really supported the statement made on this side of the House that in the future increased burdens would be laid on hospitals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wound up a very careful speech by saying that when this Bill was passed there would be established a wider spirit in favour of preserving the national health, and that that would make the work of hospitals easier. But the hon. Member opposite has shown us the true facts of the case as presented by every hospital in the kingdom, namely, that as soon as this Bill is passed the result of that, earlier diagnosis to which he referred will be to send the cases to the hospitals sooner. The medical men will

  97
  naturally transfer to the hospitals for additional treatment and also for the relief of their own heavy responsibilities a great deal of the work which otherwise they would have to do themselves. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) that the working man who is insured ought not to pay anything at all. For instance, it is quite clear that the sickness benefit of the insured pays, as it were, for the insured person's board and lodging and for the hundred little things that are necessary for the care of a sick person. But if he goes to a hospital to which he has contributed nothing—it may be he goes with an in-patient's ticket, which someone has paid for by heavy subscriptions—he gets the benefit, and no one begrudges it to him. On the contrary, the hospital is established for that purpose. But in that case the sick benefit goes to the man's dependents alone. Those dependents may be in great need, or they may be, say, two sons who are partly earning their own living. It would seem reasonable that there should be detached from that full benefit a portion for the hospital from which the insured person receives treatment and care, more things than he would receive in his own home, better and more constant attendance, and probably a better class of food and everything else.
  What I am suggesting is this. That if he were in his own home he is going to benefit under the Bill—which is considered a benefit, at any rate, such as can be given with the fund at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That money covers his own expenses in connection with his own sickness, and covers, also, the expenses of his family. He is then very much better off if he goes to a hospital and leaves the whole of that money for the support of his family, because nothing of it goes to pay for, say, accessories of medical attendance and things which are not directly medical attendance, for a hundred smaller things which must be paid for, and which would have to be paid for out of the sick benefit if he were in his own home.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Does the hon. Member consider the train fare and the hundred and one little things that have to be paid for?
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I do not think that quite meets my point. There may be an occasional train fare, but this sum represents a great deal more. The margin between what he will have to pay if in his own home and what he receives for nothing
  98
  in the hospital is considerable. I think, without putting any pressure at all upon the working man, that it is a thing which ought to be taken into account by the Committee. Take a hospital in my Constituency which is supported by a few people who are fairly well to do. On the whole it is a poor constituency. It is supported by the working men. When the yearly deficit occurs they combine, go out into the streets, and gather money. That money, together with the proceeds from the hospital fête, or something of that sort, tides the hospital over from year to year. But now the governors of the hospital say that they are absolutely certain, that once the working man has to pay compulsorily into the fund provided by this Bill, and once the employer has to pay, you will get a general diminution of the subscriptions. The working man will not take the same interest in supplying the yearly deficit of the hospital, and therefore the hospital will get less. The employer, having to pay into this fund will naturally say: "The State is doing so much and compelling me to do so much, I cannot afford to give so much to the hospital." Rightly or wrongly that will be the tendency. Private subscribers, who are neither employers nor workmen, will also say: "The State has a great scheme of sick benefit," and their attention will be directed away from these voluntary hospitals, with the result, I am absolutely certain, that throughout the country the general funds of the hospital will suffer. I cannot think that any working man, seeing the thing as I see it, will hesitate to say: "I am perfectly willing if that sick benefit is coming, that a certain portion of it shall be detached to help to pay for, in however small a degree, the attendance which I am receiving in this public hospital, supported by voluntary contributions." In that view I very strongly support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I am absolutely certain that if the workmen had the matter explained to them that they would have no hesitation is supporting the Amendment, and that really hon. Members opposite have no right to say, as they have said, that this is an extra burden upon the working men. It is only the subtraction of a small amount of benefit for the double benefits which he receives.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I beg the Committee to bear in mind as to why we pay sickness benefit. The theory of sickness benefit is this: When a man is ill his dependents need some maintenance, and

  99
  the maintenance provided by the Bill is 10s. per week for thirteen weeks, and 7s. 6d. thereafter. I ask hon. Gentlemen to reflect as to what right have we, because a man is seriously ill, and therefore taken to hospital, to deny his dependents the sickness benefit which he would receive if he were not seriously ill, if he merely had a small complaint and were at home? For there he would not only be enjoying the society of his family, but the 10s. sickness pay. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think of the matter from that point of view, and ask himself very seriously whether it is not the fact that this Amendment would deny the family in their destitute condition—because it is a destitute condition—the small amount of benefit which this Bill provides. I do most earnestly hope that the Government will on no account agree to this Amendment. I can only say that, desirous as I am of supporting the Bill in this connection, I shall be compelled to vote against them if they accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: We have been told that the burden of the hospitals will be very much increased. In fact every speaker is absolutely agreed that the work thrown on the hospitals will be enormously increased. A second factor that we have been told in this connection is that the income of the hospital—it seems to be unanimously agreed—will be diminished by the operation of this Bill. Therefore we are in this position so far as the hospitals are concerned: Anyone, I think, who has listened, as I have, carefully, to this Debate will not, I think, demur to these two propositions: the enormous increase of hospital work, and the diminished revenue by the operation of this Bill. In Sub-section (2) the Bill provides that the committee or society can say—it is a duty cast upon them—in the case of an insured person going into one of the hospitals, how much of the sick benefits shall be paid to the dependents and how much shall go to the general fund of the hospital. We find in a later Clause a definition of what "dependents" are. They cover nearly everybody. They may be a stepson, a half-brother, or a half-sister. I should like the Attorney-General to inform us how much, say, shall be paid where the stepson is the dependant, out of the 10s., and how much to the general fund? Suppose the committee say that under the circumstances 5s. of the 10s. shall go to the dependent. Then,
  100
  by the operation of the Act the committee will hand the other 5s. over to the hospital, which is taking care of the insured man, giving him medical attendance, food, etc. Instead of going to the hospital, the balance, it appears, may be paid over to the general fund.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, in which I heartily agree with him and will support him, simply desires to extend the operation of the Bill a little further, and leave it to the health committee to say how much of the money shall be paid to the "dependent"—stepson, for instance—and how much shall go to the hospital. It is proper to do so, because the hospital is providing for the insured man. There is a hospital in my Constituency that I am particularly interested in. The governors have appealed to me on this particular point. In this hospital there are no tuberculosis cases at all. It is a county hospital, operating in three counties, and entirely dependent upon voluntary subscriptions and charity. Three counties send all their accidents there, and the cases that need operations. A very large portion of the community that that hospital serves are poor people. Nearly all those men who go there will be insured. Further work will be thrown upon the hospital, whose funds will get less. All that is asked by this Amendment is that the health committee shall have the powers already given by the Bill extended, and be able to decide how much will be paid to the dependents and how much, if any, to the hospital.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: There are two aspects of this Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman who moved it cannot have considered. The first is that this Amendment proposes to worsen the position of members of friendly societies. At the present moment the members of friendly societies who are receiving sick benefits, and who require to go to an hospital or infirmary, are not thereby called upon to forfeit any part of the benefit. If this Amendment be carried, if they have no dependents, they have to forfeit the whole of the benefit. If they have dependents they have to forfeit a portion of the benefit. Thus the position of friendly society members is going to be worsened if this Amendment be added to a Clause already sufficiently vicious. The second point is this: the right hon. Gentleman was frank enough to admit that a very large proportion of the funds, especially in the industrial centres, for these

  101
  hospitals and infirmaries, are drawn from the working classes. I will not enter upon the disputed point as to whether the workmen pay voluntarily or under a system of semi-compulsion. That is beside the point for the moment. The point is beyond dispute that the working classes in industrial centres—whatever the case in the country districts—are the main supporters of these charitable organisations. There are districts like Sheffield where every workman employed in the big works pays a penny per week towards the maintenance of these institutions. In the mining districts the contribution is usually a shilling a year. No one who knows the fact but is aware that anything from 60 to 75 per cent. of the total income of these so-called charitable and voluntary institutions comes directly from the working classes. So what would happen? The workman at the present time is a member of a friendly society. He is also paying 1d. a week towards infirmaries and hospitals. He meets with an accident. Is he going to be deprived of a part of his sick pay which is to be paid over to the institution which he is already paying to maintain? That is to say, you make a workman provide the money for the building of the institution and then you penalise him by taking away part of his insurance money. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters cannot have considered that aspect of the question. Even in the case of a man with no dependents there is always house rent, which is going on, and there are all sorts of items of expenditure when a man is in hospital or out of it which are being continually incurred. I agree entirely with the final argument of the hon. Member for Hoxton, that a fund would be required to maintain the hospitals in the future to a greater extent and higher degree of efficiency than they have been in the past, but some other source must be sought for that purpose than the sick pay of the persons insured.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Speaking in the interests of the hospitals, I am rather inclined to agree with hon. Members opposite, that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, although not unjust in principle, is not a satisfactory way of meeting the hospital difficulty. The truth is the authors of the Bill have forgotten the hospital problem. What we want to do is to establish a true and vital arrangement between the scheme and the hospitals. Money will have to be found, but I do not think it is satisfactory to take it out
  102
  of the sick pay. The hon. Member opposite said it is against the common practice at the present time. As he pointed out, those in receipt of sick pay who are members of friendly societies are not asked to pay to the hospitals to which they go, and therefore it would be objectionable, not perhaps from the hospital point of view, to introduce this new feature. If the Government would only face the point, it is just as necessary to deal with the hospitals and perhaps more so than with sanatoria without shirking the problem because of any difficulty and unpleasantness that surrounds it. They are a little afraid of the doctors, and they are not willing to increase the burdens under the Bill. At the same time I do not feel inclined to support a proposal which is represented with some reason as interfering with the custom now prevailing, that the workers should have access to the hospitals without any change on the sick pay which they receive. But I must take exception from the point of view, not only of London, but of the whole South of England, to the charge that at present workmen generally are forced to subscribe to hospitals. Take the Hospital Saturday Fund. Thirty-five thousand pounds a year of that is devoted to hospitals in London, and the workmen manage this fund through their elected representatives upon the fund, and they have a voice in all questions as to how it should be raised or spent. The workmen of London subscribe to the fund, and they would resent as much as anybody else the charge that they are compelled to subscribe to it. That is not only true of London, but it is also true of other towns such as Dartford, where 65 per cent. of the money for the hospitals is found by the working men, and where they have their own representatives upon the Committee, and take part in the management of the hospitals. So far as the South of England is concerned they refute that charge, and I venture to think that they recognise it as the best form of thrift and the highest social duty that they can perform. They do this, and do it in a large degree, not so much in London as elsewhere. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil knows that in London the proportion contributed by the working classes is very small in comparison with the total amount—it does not go beyond 10 per cent. of the total charge for the upkeep of the hospitals. Whilst that is so I am not prepared personally to support a proposal to take money from the sick pay,

  103
  The Government will have to face these difficulties like men, and they will see that they must deal with the hospitals in a fair spirit from the national point of view. They will learn that before this Bill is through, and I hope the effect of this discussion will not be wasted.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have listened to the discussion and to the arguments put forward with considerable interest, and I agree there is a desire to come to some agreement, if possible, with regard to this matter. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to a large extent he rather agreed that something must be done with regard to the hospitals and some provision made to meet any possible deficiency that would arise in the future after this Bill comes into operation. But I do feel, after listening with the closest attention to everything that fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who supported him, that the Government cannot accept the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman moved. I am impressed myself with two views against that Amendment which I will submit to the Committee. The first is, I think the Committee should hesitate long before it would consent to take the money which this Bill provides as insurance benefit from those insured, and so deprive them of it and pay it to the hospital which hitherto has not been in receipt of it. I quite understand the case made that if what you were doing by the Bill was to take away something from the hospitals which they have hitherto been receiving you must make the working classes pay to make good that amount. But you do not take away a contribution which the working classes were paying hitherto. The working man has paid, and is paying, to them. Six millions of people have been subscribing to friendly societies up to now, but they have also been subscribing to the hospitals. This is not the case of where a man is a member of a friendly society and has not been a contributor to the hospitals.
  I may mention a personal incident that happened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself in the country the other day. We were met, almost as if it was intended as an object lesson, when going through a country district, by a collector who was collecting from members of friendly societies or others money for an hospital. We believe that will continue, more especially having regard to the very important benefits which we are conferring upon the working classes. The man who
  104
  has to pay in order to get certain benefits from the hospital will now be able to pay not less, but more, for he will have more money and not less to contribute to the hospitals, and, notwithstanding that you make him insure, for benefits that he did not previously have, he will still have more money in his pocket than before. I am giving full effect to the criticism of Mr. William Watson, the actuary to the Manchester Unity, in reference to a speech which I made some time ago. Even allowing that Mr. Watson is right, and he is a very great authority, but making all due allowances for his authority, I say there will still be a surplus in the hands of the working man which he will be able to distribute.
  The second point is also very important. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment gives the allocation of the proportion of this fund between the insured person and the hospitals to the health committee. But what is to become of the friendly society? Why is not an approved society to have right in determining how much shall go to one and how much shall go to the other? That is a very serious blot upon the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. There is no provision made for that at all, and the result would be that you would be taking it out of the hands of the approved societies and putting it into the hands of the local health committee, which would then be dealing with the benefits of members of approved societies. I submit that the last thing we want to do here is to impair the working of the friendly societies We do not want to take this matter out of their hands and put it into the hands of the local health committee. I agree that there is a great deal that may be effected, and it seems to me there is admirable ground here for arriving at some agreement. There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, which, of course. I cannot discuss at the present moment, but I think under that Amendment you have a clear scheme by which the hospitals would get benefits which hitherto they never had, but they will not get them at the expense of the insured person.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not deal with the friendly societies.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. What is intended, and it can be made clear, is that an agreement can be arrived at be-

  105
  tween the friendly societies and the local health committee and the hospital or infirmary. I do not want to take up time now on that point, but if the Amendment does not clearly do that it can be made right. The intention is for an agreement between the friendly society and health committee, and the hospital or infirmary under which members shall be taken by the hospital, and shall receive certain payments, if there are no dependents; the money can be dealt with either as a whole or in part, as the Amendment provides by the approved society and the local health committee. That is the way we submit to deal with this, and my suggestion is that the we might dispose of this Amendment now, and later on get on with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon which Members can express their views. I hope that, having discussed the matter, I will not say at undue length, because it is an important matter, the Committee will come to a conclusion now, before we adjourn for the private Bill.
  8.0 P.M.
  Dr. HILLIER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech this afternoon based his objection to this Amendment, or any Amendment on the lines of that now before the House, on the ground that the burden of the hospitals would under this Bill be considerably lightened. The hon. Member for Hoxton, who is an authority on this subject, has completely demolished that argument, and he has made it perfectly clear that the effect will be precisely the contrary to what has been set forth, and that the burden thrown on the hospitals will be greater than it was before. As the hon. Member pointed out, there will be a great increase among the number of in-patients in the hospitals, and it is the in-patients that cause the expense and not the outpatients. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in all probability the out-patients' department will have a smaller attendance in the future, but we should bear in mind that in all great hospitals the services rendered in the outpatients' department are generally given gratuitously by the medical profession, and add very little to the expenditure of the hospital, in fact it is a mere bagatelle. In future that expenditure is likely to be very materially increased. I hope the Committee will take note of that fact. We must remember that the expenditure of our great hospitals in the future will be
  106
  increased rather than diminished, and we must consider how that increased expenditure can be met.
  I confess that on this point I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Mile End. I know the proposal contained in the Amendment is an arguable position, but it is sure to be misrepresented and misunderstood, and after all it will not satisfactorily meet the difficulty. I think as an alternative it would probably be wiser to bring an Amendment to Clause 17, which does provide for contributions to hospitals. Apparently the one shred of the old voluntary system to be left is that on which the Government are going to rely for the maintenance of the great general hospitals. That is a very inconsistent attitude to take up when we bear in mind the attitude they have adopted in this Bill. There are various other points which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which in view of the very admirable rejoinder made by the hon. Member for Mile End, who has shown great expert knowledge on this question of hospital administration, I will not take up any further time dealing with. I think when the Chancellor of the Exchequer relies upon the sanatoria movement relieving our hospitals to a great extent in regard to tuberculosis patients, he is as unduly sanguine as he was in regard to the effect of this Bill upon the expenditure of our great hospitals. The women and children suffering from tuberculosis in our great cities will, unless further machinery is provided, continue to attend the out-patients' department of those hospitals. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unduly sanguine when he imagined that the sources of revenue of the hospitals would not be diminished by this Bill. I think that when you once get State intervention in a matter of this sort you will inevitably find a disposition on the part of those who have supported the voluntary principle in the past to think twice before they continue their subscriptions to any considerable extent in the future. Although I have come to the conclusion that on the whole it would not be wise to press the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, I am convinced that some provision will have to be made in the direction I have indicated, and I hope that when we come to Clause 17, which deals with the provisions for the upkeep of our great hospitals, the Committee will approach the question in an unprejudiced way.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman is going to with-

  107
  draw his Amendment, because I believe it would prevent the maternity benefit being paid, because it has to be divided. If a man is laid up in a hospital while his wife is confined, I cannot see, under the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, that the wife would be able to get the whole of the maternity benefit. That is one of the legal effects of the Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think my Amendment is capable of being construed in that way, and in the case mentioned by the hon. Member a woman would not be deprived of maternity benefit at the time of her confinement.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: That would be the legal effect of it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be the legal effect of my Amendment, although that may be the legal effect of Sub-section (1) as altered. The Government, however, have promised to consider the form of words to be adopted. After all, my Amendment would leave the matter to be decided by the health committee.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: But it must be divided.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The maternity benefit need not be divided. The benefits to which the man is entitled are to be divided only in proportion as the health committee think fit, and they might give a small part of it to the hospitals and the rest of it to the man's dependents. They would not refuse to give the maternity benefit to the man's wife if he was eligible at the time. I put this Amendment down here as being the earliest place at which I could raise the question of the hospitals, and I was anxious to have a general discussion on the Sub-section rather than upon the Amendment. I certainly do not want the case for the hospitals to be tried on this Amendment only. I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I wish to observe, however, that the Attorney-General has been much less sympathetic in this matter than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose attitude at the beginning of the afternoon was one of great sympathy with the hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hospitals have done so well in Germany on the lines suggested that they must do well here. The
  108
  discussion has revealed the fact that the treatment of cases in the hospitals under this Bill is not the same as it is in Germany, where a contribution is made to the hospital for every patient sent. You are bringing a vast number of men into your net who have never been in a friendly society, and if that is a fatal objection to my Amendment it is also fatal to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  There is the strong, sentimental argument of the picture which has been so luridly drawn of a heartless health committee getting everything they can for the hospital, and not thinking of the man who is sick and his dependents. I do not think that is a very likely case to arise. If you put it on the principle that a man is entitled to have what he is insured for, namely, 10s. per week whether he is maintained and boarded in a hospital or not, that applies equally to the man outside the hospital as to the man inside, and from that point of view the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment is as unsatisfactory as my own. It is unsatisfactory from my point of view because I do not think it gives sufficient compensation to the hospital, and if the Government reject this Amendment, which has been put down in conformity with their own scheme, they ought seriously to consider the granting from some central fund of compensation to hospitals for loss of revenue incurred in consequence of the passing of this Bill, whether by the falling off of the subscriptions of workmen, or of employers, or either. It would be a disastrous thing for medical science in this country if we did not adequately provide for our hospitals. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, as it, stands, will do that, and I do not think it can be done under the Financial Resolution unless it is altered. I have been most reluctant to press any Amendment upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would increase the expenditure provided by the Bill, but I wish to say I should be sorry to try the case of the hospitals upon an Amendment of this kind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "in whole or in part."
  This Amendment has arisen out of the subject-matter we have been discussing. I would point out that, after all, the highest benefit provided for is 10s. for

  109
  thirteen weeks, at the end of which period it falls to a smaller sum. I believe that such a sum ought not to be divided in that manner, and it ought to go wholly to the dependents. I put the case that if a man is not seriously ill, his dependents get 10s. If he is so seriously ill as to be in the hospital, why should he——
  And, it being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceedings were postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL [Lords.] (By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. NIELD: The form which this Bill has taken makes it somewhat difficult to deal with the merits of it at the present stage, and, with your approbation, Sir, I propose to withdraw my Motion against the Second Reading and to proceed with the consideration of the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper varied in the particulars of which I have already given the Clerks notice. I propose, after the Second Reading of the Bill, to move:—
  "That the Bill be re-committed, that it be advisable the same be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that a message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."
  I believe that is in order, and, if I may have the assurance of the Chairman of Ways and Means that we may discuss this Motion in order that the merits of the Bill may be debated in. priority to his Motion I will not move my Motion against the Second Reading. If the Chairman of Ways and Means is content to allow us to discuss the merits of the Bill without making the formal Motion for rejection, I think it would be better we should do so. I understand his Motion proposes to reserve the Report Stage to this House, and I would be perfectly willing, after a statement of the case, to reserve any question or revision until the Report stage has been fixed and discussed.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott): The Motion I have put down is the usual Motion, and I do not quite understand what the hon. Member is asking me to do.
  Mr. NIELD: A technical difficulty arises from the fact of the Bill having been read a third time in the House of Lords, and I ask you to permit the Motion substituted for the Motion that would have had priority, if in order, to take precedence.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I am afraid that is a matter for Mr. Speaker rather than for me. It seems to be a matter of order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member appeals to me, I think, after the Second Reading of this Bill has been passed, the natural thing to do would be to call upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to move his Motion. If he does not move his Motion, or if, after having moved it, he hears some reasons why he should not persist in it, then I should be quite prepared to call on the hon. Member for Middlesex.
  Mr. NIELD: I am very much obliged to you. I hope the Chairman of Ways and Means will see his way to follow that, because it will give us an opportunity of stating our objections, and yet prevent us from appearing to oppose an official Motion.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: My Motion is an official Motion, but within the bounds of order any hon. Member ought to be absolutely at liberty to oppose that Motion, and to put before the House any alternative course he desires. I shall not take it as any reflection upon my official Motion if it is opposed and is the subject of discussion. I put it down as usual and as a matter of form.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are we quite clear that on the official Motion we shall be able to discuss the policy of the Bill in respect of the objection that Middlesex has to it. With great deference several of us must state the objections of the county of Middlesex to this Bill, and we must do it either on the Second Reading or on the right hon. Gentleman's Motion.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I will put it to you, Sir, as a point of Order. Will it be in order for hon. Members who desire some portion of this Bill to be dealt with either on Report or by re-committal to state their objections on my Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be in order. If hon. Members can adduce reasons why it is undesirable the Committee stage should be omitted, and why it is

  111
  desirable the Bill should be re-committed for a particular purpose, then any such arguments will be clearly in order on the Motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means is to omit the Committee stage. If hon. Members proceed to show it is necessary there should be a further Committee stage in order to deal with some particular questions, then such arguments will be in order on that Motion.
  Mr. NIELD: Under those circumstances I will not persist in the Motion against the Second Reading.
  Bill read a second time.
  The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS and MEANS: I beg to move, "That the Standing Orders relative to the Committal stage of Private Bills be suspended, and that the Bill be ordered to lie upon the Table."
  Mr. NIELD: In rising to offer opposition to this Motion, formal so far as the Motion is concerned, but substantial so far as the objections to the Bill are concerned, I will endeavour as far as possible to confine my remarks and to put before the House in as cogent and as brief a way as I can the very serious objections which the county of Middlesex has to this Bill proceeding without some protection being afforded to those it affects. I would first of all call to the recollection of the House the curious circumstances which have arisen by reason of this Bill having originated in another place, having passed its Second Reading, having been referred to a Select Committee, having been somewhat drastically treated by that Joint Committee, having been read a Third Time in another place, and having now come to us for a Second Reading, which we have just given it. Originally this Bill sought powers to create eight reservoirs of huge dimensions, which were located in the western portion of the county of Middlesex and in the eastern portion of the county of Buckingham. Before the Bill came on for the consideration of the Joint Committee the Water Board abandoned one of the reservoirs, No. 8. I cannot help thinking the Committee proceeded with some haste, for I believe only one day's notice was given of intention to proceed at a time when none of the learned gentlemen who were to be instructed had received their papers. The result was that when the Committee met very considerable difficulties were discovered in putting
  112
  the case properly before it. It was not long after the Committee commenced the consideration of the merits of the Bill it became necessary to strike out several of the reservoirs. Nos. 1 and 2, which were partly in the county of Bucks and partly in the county of Middlesex, and No. 3 were promptly struck out, as well as No. 4, which was situated in the county of Middlesex.
  I ought to point out to the House the condition of the country in which these reservoirs are proposed to be situated. Those hon. Members who have the opportunity of indulging in the pastime of motoring and who go down to the West of England by way of the Bath road will remember the condition of the country as they approach Staines. There is a considerable tract of land which is eminently suitable for the construction of reservoirs. There is one reservoir, No. 5 in the Bill, the site of which is not objected to by Middlesex. It is proposed to be placed in close contiguity to an existing reservoir. But there is, on the other side, between that portion of the high road and the River Thames, a very delightful and charming part of the county of Middlesex still in a rural condition, comprising the villages of Laleham and Littleton, in which it is proposed to place reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7. Middlesex has had much to suffer from London in the past. It is a very serious thing for districts around a great city like London, because they have to provide for the artisan population of a large city where the wealth is generated; they have thrown upon them obligations of a very onerous character; and they are called upon to bear enormous burdens in regard to the housing of the working classes and the education of the children of the workers. In fact, in some cases, the burden is so great that it has been found that it would be cheaper for the county to buy the land and dedicate it as open spaces to the public than to permit the land to be covered with small houses, because of the incidental liabilities that attach thereto. That is one of the reasons why it is asked that this Bill be recommitted for the purpose of having this matter gone into.
  There is very serious objection to putting down reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7 in this district, because it is expected to prove a very valuable rate-paying area, and, if the land be used for reservoirs, it will bear somewhat less than one-half of the rateable value that it would were it built upon and inhabited in the ordinary way. These

  113
  were the proposals that came before the Joint Committee and were drastically-dealt with. Reservoirs 1, 2, and 3 were struck out; No. 8 was withdrawn, and only 5, 6, and 7 were really left for consideration. The Committee heard what the promoters had to advance, but they never heard the objections of the county of Middlesex, because admissions were made by the engineer of the Water Board which met, to a certain extent, the views of the opponents. I will ask the House to bear with me for a moment or two while I call attention to those admissions. They had reference to the very serious injury that the construction of these reservoirs would have on a district which is wholly dependent on wells for its supply of water. My hon. Friend the Member for the Uxbridge division will confirm me when I say that these two villages of Laleham and Littleton are wholly dependent on water obtained from wells for their water supply, and it was because of that that questions were put in cross-examination, with a view to showing the effect of the works. Mr. Bryan, the engineer of the Water Board, was cross-examined, as follows:—
  "I think you told my friend Mr. Hutchinson this morning that during the time your trenches are open through the gravel to the London clay you will have pumping machinery here? —Yes,
  "Is that liable to pump the water out of the surrounding gravel for a radius of some distance?—It is.
  "Are you aware that a large number of the houses in the village of Wraysbury are dependent to a great extent for their water supply on wells?—I gained that from some of the petitions.
  "May I ask what you propose to do in view of that? —It is rather difficult to say what would be the best means, but I should think the putting down of a small temporary pumping station, taking the water from the existing sources and laying some temporary pipes of supply.
  "Of course nothing of that sort is in your Bill at the present moment?—No.
  "Nor included in the estimate?—Yes, I have got a contingency in the estimates which will cover that.
  "Will that be covered by the 10 per cent. contingencies?—Yes."
  Mr. INGLEBY: This cross-examination had reference to a different reservoir, and had no bearing on the point raised by the hon. Member.
  Mr. NIELD: I am sorry my hon. Friend should have interrupted, because, when the discussion took place in another place, and when the Duke of Northumberland moved on specific grounds he read this very evidence, and it was accepted by Lord Kintore, the Chairman of the Joint Committee, as having a bearing on Reservoirs 1 and 2 and also on Reservoirs 5, 6, and 7. If my hon. Friend will look closely into
  114
  the materials before the Committee he will find that is exactly the case. Mr. Bryan, on further examination, said as follows:—
  "Is that a usual thing for the 10 per cent. contingencies to cover?—That will not he a large matter; it will be a very small matter, indeed, as compared with the cost of reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2.
  "Are you prepared, as an engineer, to come under an obligation to supply water if these wells fail?—If it could be proved that these wells failed by reason of our works, I think it would be fair that we should supply them with water.
  "But forgive me, you have just admitted to me that the water will be sucked out of the gravel for a very considerable area; many of these works are within 200 yards of your works?—Then I have just stated that if that be proved, it would be fair that we should supply them in some form or another with an adequate water supply.
  "Then I may lake it you will be prepared to insert some obligation in the Bill to that effect?—That would have to go through the Solicitors and Counsel for the Bill, but I have stated my opinion that it would be fair to do it.
  "There is another point of course—you see my difficulty, How is a cottager going to prove that damage has been done by your pumping? That is an expensive matter?—I am quite sure my Board would take a perfectly broad view of this matter.
  "Will you put a general obligation in the Bill?—I am quite sure if the wells were depleted we should supply an adequate quantity either to the cottager or to other property owners."
  That was the testimony given before the Joint Committee which caused Middlesex to refrain from giving evidence because it would only be affirmative of the admissions by the engineer (Mr. Bryan). The result was that no statutory pledge was given and there is no undertaking by the Water Board incorporated in the Bill. The Bill comes to this House without any security at all in the interests of those who will be affected by it. Let me tell the House the conditions under which it is proposed to construct the reservoir. No. 5 will be five miles in circumference. It will be necessary in the case of Nos. 6 and 7 to go to a depth of 110 feet before the clay is reached. It is proposed to establish pumping machinery for the purpose of pumping the underground water, and it is admitted that that water-will to a very large extent be lost. That will be the water which has been taken from the wells of the cottagers and the small holders, because the whole of this district, with very few exceptions, consists of small property which will be denuded of water, and, moreover, a great many of the persons who live in the district are dependent upon agriculture or upon market gardening—occupation which require an ample supply of water if they are to be conducted at all. The point was taken by the Chairman of Committees in another place that there had been no

  115
  petition from these cottagers. This House would not require me to point out how difficult it is for poor cottagers to present petitions to Parliament, and they rely upon their county council to put their case before the Houses in order that justice may be done them and that they may not be deprived of a very important adjunct in the making effective and profitable of the employment which they carry on. It is objected that the case of Middlesex was not dealt with before the Joint Committee, but the answer to that is that not only were Mr. Bryan's admissions, accepted as they were by Middlesex, amply sufficient for the purpose, but the counsel for the promoters actually dealt with the matter, and the Committee came to the conclusion that they could not interfere. The Committee did not come to that conclusion because they dealt with the merits of the Bill. Lord Kintore admitted that the merits of the Middlesex case were never considered, because they expected that one or other House of Parliament would deal with the whole matter of underground water. In the speech which he made in the House of Lords on 18th July Lord Kin-tore refers to this aspect of the case in these words:—
  "During the hearing a Clause similar in effect, if not identical in words, was pressed for by the Middlesex County Council. It was argued that where the water level in any well in the county council's area was even temporarily lowered by the trenching, the Water Board should be held compelled to add water up to the deficiency. We were not of ourselves prepared in a private Bill to take this new departure involving such a large question of principle, so in the confident expectation that the matter would be raised in one or other House of Parliament, we decided as a Committee to take no action."
  Which is an admission that this was never considered on its merits in anticipation of the whole question of underground water being considered. The whole of the merits of the objection of Middlesex were clouded and obscured by the reference to this Commission to be appointed at some time or other—Lord Salisbury referred to it as probably the Greek kalends—for the purpose of discussing whether there should be rights in underground water. The question had arisen in this way. Hertfordshire had introduced a Bill for the purpose of protecting underground water and had proposed the most stringent regulations. They proposed to alter the whole general law of the Kingdom. The Bill was sent to a Select Committee presided over by Lord MacDonnell, which reported in very general terms and recommended a Com-
  116
  mission, and I think most hon. Members know what that means. A Commission, even if it is appointed, generally extends its labours over several years. That was what was operating on the minds of Noble Lords when at the instance of Lord Kin-tore they dealt with this question a few days ago. It was said there, that although certain illustrations were cited of protection which had been given, yet there was no one instance in which protection had been given in the case of works causing temporary disturbance. All that Middlesex asks is that there should be protection to those persons resident within two miles of the works during the time of execution of those works. They do not ask for permanent compensation, because I agree that this is not a case of pumping underground water. This is a case of temporary interference with underground water by the construction of huge reservoirs after which it may be that the underground water may return to its original state and may not be permanently depleted. There is this extraordinary thing about it, that the Joint Committee did give protection to Lord Fitz-Hardinge, and yet they deny it to the small holders of Middlesex to whom it is vital for the continuance of their water supply. Apart from the fact that that was conceded to Lord Fitz-Hardinge there are a number of other precedents which go to establish the case of the Middlesex County Council for the protection which it seeks at the hands of this House, and that the Middlesex County Council has a right to represent persons on whose behalf they are raising this objection is shown by the Cambridge Bill, which contained a distinct provision that the undertakers in that case should give compensation upon the written request of the county council. I think the right of the county council to represent these cottagers and small holders is absolute, and there can be no question raised that they have not presented a petition separately. I should like to refer to the South Staffordshire Act, which was granted in 1909. Very often these Clauses are introduced for the protection of private owners or particular estates, and that was one of the objections urged in another place against the Clause which was submitted by Middlesex in this ease. Here is a Clause passed by both Houses, which now has the effect of an Act of Parliament, which is far more verbose than the one which Middlesex is now proposing, but

  117
  which, at the same time, contains every bit of protection which Middlesex is now seeking. Clause 18 said:—
  (1) If any diminution has taken or shall take place in the supply of water from any well, borehole, pond, pool, spring, stream, or watering place which existed, or has existed, as an effective source of supply at or since the date when pumping by the company first commenced at any pumping station by this Act authorised or confirmed during either the construction of such pumping station or the use thereof for the purposes of supply or in the supply of water to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal at or since the date aforesaid, either during such construction or for the purposes of supply (such source of supply or canal being situate within a radius of two-and-a-half miles from that station in this section called "the protected area"), the company shall, upon the written request of the owner of any such source of supply or canal as aforesaid (in this section referred to as "the owner," which term shall include any lessee or occupier, and any body of persons having the control and management of a water supply, and any local authority), and upon proof that such diminution arose since such commencement of pumping, afford to the owner a supply of water equal to the amount of such diminution, at such cost or rate (if any) as that the total cost to the owner of obtaining his full supply shall be the same (as nearly as may be) after as before the construction of the company's well.
  That is a case in point. The Bill also provides for compensation during the construction of works, so that we have an absolute precedent for what is proposed in this Clause. I should have thought that, whatever might be the view in another place with regard to the necessity for precedent, this House, at any rate, need not be over nice about not having a precedent to follow if there is a case of justice to be met. I would submit, also, the precedent provided in the Barry Railway Act of 1908, which was first of all for the protection of the general owner, but which also provided for compensation in respect of temporary works in connection with the construction of a tunnel. In reply to the contention that there is no precedent in the case of temporary works, I point to what was done in the case of the Cambridge estate and in the case of the Barry
  118
  Railway. The Barry Railway Act provides that if, owing to the construction of the tunnel, or the cuttings connected therewith, the present water supply was in any way diminished in quantity, the company should pay compensation to the owner of the estate for such deficiency. There are many other precedents in Acts of Parliament, but I have only cited those directly in point which contain precedents for the very claim which Middlesex County Council is asking to be enforced in this case. There can be no question of London ever being in want of water by reason of anything in this Bill. It was admitted in evidence that the supply when certain works which are now in progress, and which will shortly be completed, are finished, will be no less than 7,000 million gallons, while all that is wanted to supply London down to the year 1916 will be 6,436 million gallons. I trust that this House will not allow an injustice to those persons who are dependent solely on the water they obtain from their wells for the humble callings they carry on. Is this House willing that they should lose the privilege of getting water from their wells when the only question is compensation so far as reservoir No. 5 is concerned— compensation from the Water Board when this supply is suspended during the construction of the reservoir? When the Committee had dismissed four or five of the Water Board's resolutions the Board made up their minds not to go on with the Bill, and it was only after persuasion and after an adjournment that they reconsidered the decision.
  I submit that if this House is prepared to insert the Clause for the protection of these smallholders in respect to the construction of No. 5 reservoir there is nothing to prevent their proceeding. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward) is here in the interest of labour, and I would point out to him that there is an ingenuous Clause inserted in the Bill by the Water Board as to the desirability of providing labour. I say that that question does not enter into the matter at all. It will be years before the construction of reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7 is required. We do not oppose the construction of No. 5, provided that the Water Board will give reasonable compensation to those who have a right to water in the area affected. The labourers engaged in the construction of this reservoir would be seriously incommoded if the area were deprived of water, and I would appeal to the hon. Member for

  119
  Stoke-upon-Trent to see that it is adequately supplied with compensating water during the construction of the new works. I should like to call attention to the Debate which took place in another place. Beyond question the sympathies of the House were with the objectors. I think nobody who reads the official account of the proceedings in that House will fail to observe that the sympathies even of those who were bound to speak against the Clause were really with the objections urged by the Middlesex County Council. The Secretary of State for War spoke of the state of the law with regard to underground water. He referred to the necessary hardships which must from time to time be inflicted upon persons by reason of interference with wells in connection with the undertakings of large water companies. Lord St. Aldwyn moved the adjournment of the Debate, being impressed by the arguments in favour of the Clause. The Secretary of State for War said he would rather take the Bill as an urgent Bill with the clause inserted than have the adjournment and the inquiry which the Noble Lord asked. I think that should show this House the way in which the argument was pressed in another place. As a result, Viscount St. Aldwyn withdrew his Motion, and the question went to a Division without what I regard as the natural sequence, that is the incorporation of an undertaking that that Clause should go in as the consideration of the withdrawal of that Amendment.
  In the course of that Debate Lord Alverstone related his experiences at the Bar with regard to underground water, and said that in many private Bills a special Clause had been inserted in order to protect those who were affected, and he also said, "I am satisfied that the claim of the Noble Duke cannot be resisted on the ground that there is anything in principle against it." I ask hon. Members before they come to a decision on this question to read carefully the Debate on 18th July, in another place. If they do, I am sure they will come to the conclusion that the only real objection which was urged there was the one of precedents. I think I have shown the House there is no want of precedent. I do hope that the objection now made may receive very serious consideration. We make it in the interest of the democracy of the county of Middlesex. On that ground, I appeal to this House not to let this Bill go forward with-
  120
  out some protective Clause which would preserve to the persons whom I have referred to the rights they possess to draw water in these places. The Metropolitan Water Board have plenty of opportunity. They have plenty of storage accommodation for years to come. They have an ample supply until the year 1921, and I trust that this House will not allow the powers asked for to be exercised without some means of protecting the small owner, and will determine that reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7 shall not be placed where they are proposed, but shall be, by means of a small Bill next year, removed to another place in the same district a few miles away, where the works can be carried out with far more efficiency and much greater economy.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. MILLS: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield). The Metropolitan Water Board seek to make three reservoirs, one of 360 acres and the other two together of about 800 acres. To do so they will have to dig a deep trench down to the London clay, around these reservoirs, to what they call, I understand, the puddle clay. During the construction of the trench there will have to be considerable pumping to get the necessary water, with the result that there would be great risk of drying up the wells and the boreholes of the people in the neighbourhood. We desire that this House should compel the Water Board to insert a provision in the Bill that compensation shall be given to the owners of such wells. I do not think it necessary to try to prove that that damage will be done to the owners of water. That already has been proved by the evidence of Mr. Bryan, the engineer. I notice that objection was taken to his evidence on the ground that it applied only to reservoirs numbers one and two, which I admit is perfectly correct. But if it is admitted by the engineer that damage will be inflicted by the construction of numbers one and two, that equally holds good in the case of all the other reservoirs. The fact that damage will be done was freely admitted by the speeches of the Noble Lords in another place, who opposed the clause which the Middlesex County Council desire to insert. In addition the Water Board themselves admitted this principle by the fact that they compensated Lord Fitz-Hardinge for what was going to be done to him. Therefore, I take it as admitted that there will be depletion of the wells in the neighbourhood.

  121
  The compensation will be very cheap to the Water Board. The engineer of the Water Board said he considered that such compensation was wholly fair and just. It is quite a common-sense proposition. The objection to it seems to be very extraordinary. No doubt to those who understand law it is perfectly obvious, but I have spent a long time looking through Bills which form precedents and I cannot see where the objection comes in. From 1894 to 1910 there were fifteen Bills passed in which water undertakers and railway companies have agreed to give compensation for depletion. But I understand that the objection taken by the Joint Committee was that there was not an exact precedent for the action which the Middlesex County Council desired the Water Board to take. I believe that though there was abundant precedents for our Clause, yet because all the precedents did not happen to find themselves in one Bill at the same time, therefore it was considered in law not to be a precedent. That is as far as I could gather the objection which the Joint Committee urged. It was freely admitted in these Bills that if the damage was going to be continued the compensation ought to be continued, and would, therefore, be expensive. We admit that the damage will be only temporary. Mr. Bryan, the engineer, has admitted that the compensation will be cheap. I should have thought that the greater precedent covers the small thing which we desire the Metropolitan Water Board to do. The next objection which the Joint Committee and those who opposed this Bill in another place took was this: In the year 1910 the question of the depletion of water supplies was gone into very carefully by a Joint Committee, which was considering the Water Supplies Protection Bill. This Bill sought to amend the law with regard to underground water by providing that wherever private supplies are injured by the construction of a public water supply, the owners are entitled to compensation. The Committee who considered this Bill decided that they could not allow legislation to pass of such a general character until they had further information on the subject. They do not say that compensation was unfair; in fact, they said that serious damage done to private property, such as breweries, railways, and so on, through lack of water from the sub-soil, was worthy of notice. I do not see anything in their report to suggest that they condemned the principle of giving compensation, or
  122
  that they denied that positive damage would be done. On that Report the Joint Committee, I understand, principally based their decision that they could not possibly insert a Clause compelling the Metropolitan Water Board to give compensation for damages that were going to be inflicted under this Bill. I think I have shown that they drew their conclusions from entirely wrong premises, and that there is no possible ground, except some very abstruse points of law, which I submit ought not to be allowed to weigh, for allowing the people who live near these reservoirs to have damage inflicted upon them without any compensation. There is one other objection which was raised in another place. It was said that no one had appealed to the Committee for compensation with regard to these reservoirs, and therefore probably there was not anything to appeal against. It is not necessary to remind the House that it is a very expensive matter to appeal, and most of these people who are affected are in a very small way of living, and naturally they prefer the adoption of other methods of obtaining compensation rather than go to the great expense of a petition against the Water Board. What is the present position of the people who live around these reservoirs? They are told on all hands that they have got an excellent case, but that they must wait until inquiry has been made as to whether it is strictly legal that general compensation should be given. I submit that while this inquiry is going on the damage is being done, and though that damage is only going to be temporary, yet very serious injury would be inflicted on market gardeners and small holders. I would remind the House that it is absolutely necessary that this Clause should be put in, because we understand that the law does not recognise any property in sub-soil water. Therefore, unless there is a special Clause protecting these people, they have no appeal to the law in order to get compensation for damage done.
  One other point, and that is the question of causing the Metropolitan Water Board to omit reservoirs 6 and 7. I would point out that we do not for one moment desire that London should be deprived of water which she needs; but we do say that Middlesex has been the dumping ground for these reservoirs, which are not pretty things or very useful things, or very sanitary things for a considerable time, and we venture to ask the House, in considering the necessary supply of water for this

  123
  great Metropolis, that they shall put these reservoirs in places which the residents of Middlesex tell them will do the least possible amount of harm to the county. It is the people of London who are going to benefit from the reservoirs; the people of Middlesex are going to get none of the benefits and all the hardships which result from them. In my Constituency of West Middesex there are some very nice places, and there is one particularly charming spot; yet it is that very spot which the Metropolitan Water Board has selected for these enormous reservoirs. I suggest that the Bill might be re-committed so that these reservoirs might be put in other places, of which there are a number, and which would be less harmful to my Constituents and to the people who live around there while they would, moreover, be just as useful to the people of London and just as cheap to the Metropolitan Water Board. In possibly one of the prettiest reaches of the Thames these monstrous reservoirs have been erected, and the beauty of the river scenery is not by any means enhanced.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, if the Metropolitan Water Board has to delay the construction of any of these reservoirs there will be no injury or danger to the people of London, nor any danger of lack of water, because it is estimated that in the year 1921 they will require nine thousand eight hundred million gallons of water to store, whereas by that time, allowing five years for the construction of the Staines reservoir, which is in a position to which no one objects, they "will have in 1917, eight thousand eight hundred million gallons, and there will be plenty of time between now and 1917 to prepare plans for reservoirs in some more convenient spot. Besides the damage which is done to the amenities of the locality and its probable value, there is also the question of very important high roads, several of which will be blocked by these reservoirs. The only way by Hounslow and Feltham down to Chertsey and that part, would be entirely blocked by these reservoirs. I ought also to mention that the reservoir at Staines would block a road which at present is very useful to the workmen going to the factories, and they will have to go a very long way round at great inconvenience to themselves to get to their daily labour. I respectfully ask the House to allow the insertion of this Clause, safeguarding the interests of these people, and I also ask
  124
  it to allow the Bill to be recommitted in regard to the omission of reservoirs 6 and 7. I do not think that is a very extravagant demand, while the objection of the Water Board is based on an entirely abstruse and legal quibble. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to support the common sense view, and also support the people who live round about those reservoirs. As a whole, they are mostly poor people, depending for their living on their market gardens, to which a supply of water is of extreme importance. I ask the House-to support them in getting their right from the Metropolitan Water Board.
  Mr. J. WARD: The opposition to this proposal to-night has been the most plausible that one could posibly hear; it is clear that behind the opposition to the situation of the reservoirs spoken of by both the hon. Gentlemen, there is the loss of rateable value to the County Council of Middlesex, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield). I daresay after all the latter point is the real purpose of the whole thing, and that those questions which have been raised are, as it were, a little dressing for the more important part of the opposition. That is the common-sense and practical knowledge of anyone who has been engaged in excavating work along the Thames valley for the last quarter of a century. You may find a solitary spot where you may have to go down eighty or ninety feet, but that is an extraordinary thing. The depth of the trenches is on the average about thirty feet.
  Mr. MILLS: How does the hon. Member arrive at that?
  Mr. J. WARD: You may take it for granted that is so. I have a statement from one of the engineers in. which he says that it would be between thirty and forty feet at the outside. The statement has been made that they were going down 100 feet and depleting all the wells in the neighbourhood, and we were told of all the damage that would be done to private property and interests in the locality.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Does the hon. Member refer to reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7?
  Mr. J. WARD: I am referring to all of them. These reservoirs are sub-soil reservoirs; they are not well reservoirs. The consequence is that you are bound to take them along a low-lying flat country where the water collects. You are merely taking sub-soil water, and have nothing to do with the streams or anything of the kind.

  125
  Taking the Thames valley from top to bottom you will find, say in the case of Waterloo Station, which I assisted in building, and the gasworks opposite which I assisted in building, that in excavating you can take it for granted that in the Thames valley the average depth is twenty, or fifteen, or ten feet, and that although you occasionally get to perhaps eighty feet it is rare. The statement of the hon. Member that you are going to have a whole line of trenches miles in extent, and that you are going to pump a whole lot of water and do a lot of other things is extraordinary, since, as a matter of fact, the hon. Member ought to know if he has ever had anything to do with works of this description that it is the object of the contractor, and must be, owing to the danger of the work of excavation, to make the trenches as short as he possibly can. He must do that, or otherwise he gets the whole weight of the sides on to the timbers. You may take it for granted that all this talk about draining the whole of the country is not so, and I know all about it. Many a job I have been on where we wanted to drain the country round, and we only wished it had happened as the hon. Member suggested. I do assure the House, from my practical knowledge of some twenty-five years working in deep excavations in the Thames Valley, that I do not believe that there is the slightest danger such as is suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I listened to the hon. Member, and I am only speaking from what I know by practical experience and from a knowledge of the localities, it will be almost impossible to suppose that even a hundred yards would affect very seriously sub-soil water by the pumping of a small area. The hon. Gentleman referred to South Staffordshire. Luckily I know the works well. They mean a deep boring laid down.
  Mr. NIELD: I only referred to South Staffordshire to show that Parliament did give protection in that place.
  Mr. J. WARD: That is so. It is a deep boring for underground springs, and when the boring goes down you strike out in all directions in order to take as much of the underground springs as you possibly can. As a matter of fact, owing to the construction of the works, you want protection for the people, and permanently. The case of the Barry Railway has been cited. The hon. Gentleman must not forget that I absolutely assisted in excavating the
  126
  tunnel he has been talking about here tonight, and I know the whole circumstances as well as can be. A tunnel may cut off a source of supply in the low land because it is a permanent obstruction. I believe that Lord Kintore's statement that so far as underground springs and underground water are concerned, no such provision has ever been put by any Committee in any Act of Parliament before is absolutely correct. There can be no necessity for such a thing. All that this means is trying to put as many obstacles in the way of the Water Board performing their duty as you possibly can, and to create as many interests and subsidiary issues as possible to defeat them and their purpose. That is my opinion, especially after the quotations which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given us as to similar provisions in previous Acts before. I happen to know of these matters personally, since, being the officer of the Navvies Union, I go about all over the country and see all these works done. The engineers tell me their difficulties and their different methods of working, and sometimes I have been able to give them tips as I have seen things done in other localities. I knew everyone of the cases to which the hon. Member referred, and I do assure him that they had nothing to do with the question we are debating here to-night. I merely wanted to point out that those who will give a few moments' consideration to this subject have nothing to be frightened about in supporting this proposal, because I do not believe that any of the suggested works proposed to be carried out by the Bill as it is now before the House will have any of the dire effects spoken of by the hon. Member for Ealing and the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I believe they are conjured up by those opposed to the scheme. Some people say, have a reservoir at Ealing, and then the people there say they do not want it, and then you keep on badgering the Water Board, saying this place will not do, and that place will not do, and nobody wants it. That is the situation. I wonder after all there has been struck out that the Water Board did not throw over the Bill and let Parliament some time later on, when there is a famine, decide the thing for itself. This is stupid obstruction against a great public authority carrying out a great statutory authority. One of the reservoirs was planked down on the Windsor Road, opposite Eton, and, no doubt, there was a case there where certain historic features were suggested.
  Mr. NIELD: That is not the case. Does not the hon. Member know it was beside the Windsor sewage farm and that was the reason.
  Mr. J. WARD: I know that was not the reason. I listened carefully to the evidence given before the Committee, because I am always interested in these cases, and I heard all the evidence given against it. What was the reason the Committee had for striking the reservoir out I do not know, but I certainly listened to the evidence, and that was not the reason. But to come back to my point, you can badger a body like this about, conjuring difficulties up until the expense of supplying water to London will be about 10 per cent. higher than it is, and it is dear enough now. I think the proposals are reasonable, that there is none of the danger which hon. Gentlemen opposite have urged to private interests, and my own experience of works of a similar character during the last twenty-five years strengthens me in that.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The Bill now before the House was before a Joint Committee of both Houses from March until June. That was a long and costly proceeding. Against this particular Bill some sixty-four petitions were heard. I want to say to those who are promoting this Debate, we do not want to have a Second Reading discussion now on the Motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means to dispense with the Committee stage, and——
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was agreed we should have a Second Reading Debate now. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House.
  Mr. BURNS: I was in the House all the time, I was at the Bar.
  Mr. NIELD: It was agreed that we should treat this Motion as if it were a Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. BURNS: If hon. Members would only have patience they would find we are agreed. It was agreed of course that this Debate should take place in a Second Reading form, but it is unfortunate that hon. Members did not remember at the time that they would probably want to raise it again on the Report stage. We ought to have some reasonable guarantee that we are not going to have another Debate. That was the observation I was making. We do not want to have another
  128
  Second Reading Debate when the Report stage is discussed two or three days hence. The House and those interested have decided to take this Bill in a Second-Reading form, and it has been treated in that way by hon. Members on both sides. Therefore I venture to follow them very reluctantly from the Second-Reading point of view. What really are the facts of this case? The hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) ought to have given the House a little more of the facts as to the way in which the Bill has been treated. As I have said, it has been before a Joint Committee of both Houses, discussed fully from March to June, a large number of witnesses have been heard, the petitioners' points have been discussed at considerable length, and what has happened? Originally it proposed to create eight reservoirs on the banks of the River Thames. The Water Board were well advised when they withdrew reservoir No. 8. Then, later on, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were knocked out by the Committee, and the result is that out of the eight original reservoirs three only remain.
  I mention that point to dispose of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing. He took the æsthetic point of view, and said that hon. Members riding along the Bath Road would witness now certain things which from the aesthetic point were objectionable. It is not a Bill for getting rid of existing reservoirs. They are there, and must remain there. The reservoirs as struck out comply with the aesthetic views of the hon. Member. Looking at the map, it will be seen that those nearest to the river, which justified the criticism of the hon. Member, have all been struck out or withdrawn by the committee of the Water Board. So much for the aesthetic argument. It is safe to say of the three remaining in the Bill that they are unobjectionable in site. I am glad to say the Water Board and nearly every other local authority have made up their minds not to make reservoirs as ugly as they have been made, not to bring them so close to rivers, which are a source of profit by virtue of their attractiveness and amenity. We have their guarantee that they will be improved in appearance, and that they will have greater regard to existing amenities than they would have had if such reservoirs had been projected twenty or thirty years ago. The works in connection with them will be so conducted as to do the minimum amount of harm to the interests of those concerned. What are the objections to this Bill? They are

  129
  quite general, and rather referring to the reservoirs that the Joint Committee have disposed of. No specific injury has been cited and no particular danger pointed out, and the persons whom it was alleged were to be damaged if these reservoirs were to be constructed did not appear before the Joint Committee. That Committee, after listening to all this evidence, declined to consider a hypothetical injury on purely conjectural grounds without having some definite proof of harm being done.
  Mr. NIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman in justice admit that the Lord Chairman of Committees, before the Middlesex people had an opportunity of putting in witnesses, gave a ruling, and they were not able to call attention to this?
  Mr. J. BURNS: My answer to that is that the Joint Committee have heard all the evidence and on this Clause they unanimously voted against it, and the evidence to which reference has been made, and with which great play has been made, was that of a gentleman who not only spoke against but voted against this being accepted. The hon. Member and those who support him are under the impression that these reservoirs are to be filled with subterranean water. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Certainly they create the impression that that is their view and that these reservoirs are to be filled with subterranean water extracted from the immediate vicinity. But the fact is that these are storage reservoirs of water, not got from the immediate district, not from wells or pumps to fill the reservoirs; the only pumping will be in short sections of the drainage done by instalments, thus precluding the possibility of the shortage which hon. Members expect. They have not given the least reason for their apprehensions. The fact is, the greater amount of water found in the trench the shorter the trench will be and the smaller the instalment undertaken. Because economy will lead the contractor to introduce the greatest amount of protection and to have as small holes as possible. The fact is the water of these reservoirs is taken from the Thames by an intake which does not touch subterranean water at all, and will not deplete the local wells. The water is drawn from the river itself and carried by a large conduit into the reservoirs. Some play was made of the evidence of Mr. Bryan, who said that in the course of construction certain water
  130
  might be tapped. But he said that in connection with reservoirs Nos. 1, 2,3, and 4, all of which have been struck out of the Bill.
  Then a picture was drawn of the invidious way in which the small holder and the market gardener were brushed on one side and deference had been shown to the claims of a Noble Lord who had had a Clause given him in this particular Bill. The hon. Member ought to have known that there is a great deal of difference between the claim set up on behalf of the small holders who did not appear and to whom injury has not been proved, and the saving that was voluntarily put in the Water Board's own Bill relating to Lord Fitz-Hardinge. The facts are that five water mains, each forty-eight inches in diameter, are taken right through Lord Fitz-Hardinge's property, right through his water supply, and practically destroy any chance he may have of water, both for his farms and for his adjacent property. This great trench, containing five four-feet pipes side by side, would inflict upon this property damage both actual and prospective, for which it was the duty of the Water Board to make provision. It is only in that sense that differentiation has been made between the small holders and Lord Fitz-Hardinge. The Middlesex County Council alone are complaining of this Bill, but they called only one expert witness, who could give no evidence of special damage, who spoke in general terms, and was unable to quote any precedent for this Clause. If the hon. Member for Ealing would only quote the Lord Chief Justice, accurately he would find that Lord Alverstone, with the care which is typical of that distinguished lawyer, said that he did not in the least doubt that precedents might be found, but that not a single one had been produced.
  Mr. NIELD: I read it out.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member reads out—I do not blame him—only what suits his particular line of defence and argument. He will find on further reference to the Lord Chief Justice that no actual precedent was produced. Even if the hon. Member's interpretation is correct he will find that Lord Kintore spoke in strong terms as to the precedents which had been mentioned not applying to this particular case. After a long and very learned Debate in the House of Lords, on a Motion moved by the Duke of Northumberland, who has local knowledge and experience of

  131
  what he thought was a grievance to a local body, by 58 votes to 27, a Clause similar to this was rejected.
  The last point made was: Is it wise that we should deal with this matter, with what may be a public grievance, in a private Bill? On that, Lord Kintore gave specific reasons why it should not be done. He had adequate reasons for so doing, because Lord MacDonnell, who was chairman of the Commission appointed only a year ago to consider the question of underground water supplies, supported him, and the House of Lords by a decisive majority agreed with both. But they suggested on this and on a previous occasion that an inquiry, not a Commission, should be instituted into this particular subject. On that may I say that the matter was brought to the attention of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords a year ago. As Minister responsible for the settlement on proper lines of some aspects of the question, I took up the suggestion recommended by the Joint Committee, presided over by Lord MacDonnell. We have created a very small sub-department of the Local Government Board, and appointed a competent geologist to make a general inquiry, as short as possible, into the whole of this matter, with a view to the question of underground water supplies in general being dealt with on more satisfactory lines than has hitherto been the case.
  But that question is not raised by this Clause this evening. What we as a House of Commons have to consider is this: The House of Commons is asked, at this time of the year by the Middlesex County Council, without damage shown or injury proved by evidence to recommit this great Bill and to subject the Water Board and the public to unnecessary expense, when precisely the same decision would be arrived at—because we are told by the local Members there is a possibility of some people being damnified if these works are carried out. The practical knowledge of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) confirms the view of the engineers of the Water Board, that wells 110 or 150 feet deep will not be affected by this trench or by the construction of these reservoirs. It is not fair that on mere allegations, without evidence to justify the statements made, a public authority like this, who have the greatest possible difficulty in carrying on their vast undertaking, should be still further handicapped without injury proved or cause shown. Quite firmly, I appeal to
  132
  the House of Commons that created the Water Board and to Members who realise the great difficulty under which that great authority labour, not to handicap them as they would be further handicapped if this Clause were carried and the Bill probably lost. On the ground of economy, on the ground that no injustice to anyone has been demonstrated if these works are carried out, as they will be by the Water Board, along the line of least resistance and with great regard for all local interests, I appeal to the House of Commons not to accept this Clause, but to allow this Bill to go through its Report and Third Reading stages, to give London, through its Water Board, an opportunity of carrying out too long deferred works of storage which are obsolutely necessary for a cheap, permanent, and continuous water supply.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the view of the President of the Local Government Board is correct, it will be idle in the future to appeal to this House against the decision of a Committee. He has appealed to us to-night not to send this back to Committee, because the Commit tee will be sure to vote exactly as on a previous occasion. I do not exactly know how he knows that, or what authority he has for suggesting that the Committee would not reconsider this matter, as they would be bound to do if the Bill were sent back to them by this House. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that the decision of the Committee must be the same. If I remember rightly, it was only ten days ago that the right hon. Gentleman voted for a Motion to recommit a Bill relating to St. Paul's Bridge. I believe he voted to send that back to Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW did that Committee report?"] That is not the point at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman got up in the House and said, "It is no use sending the St. Paul's Bill back to the Committee because the Committee are bound to report the same as they did before." He voted for it. I submit all of us are entitled to consider this question on its merits, and to give the Committee at least credit for believing that they will do what is right if this Bill is sent back to them, and the matter reconsidered—if I may humbly say so—apart from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  After all, his speech has gone very little beyond the old, old arguments which are always used by the official of the day in charge of any Bill in regard to the decision

  133
  of the Private Bill Committee. That is: "Do not send it back to the Private Bill Committee; that Committee has thoroughly considered it, and they must be right." This House, by its forms, gives those people who feel themselves aggrieved at the decision of the Private Bill Committee the right of appeal to this House. This is the only opportunity the county council of Middlesex, a democratic body, a body which represents the people, a body which is entitled to put its views before the Committee and before this House, has of asking this House to revise the decision of the Committee on this question. The right hon. Gentleman complains that none of these poor people came and gave evidence, and presented petitions against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well they could not do that. We all know—everybody who has had any experience of private Bill work either inside or outside of this House knows that the only possible opportunity these poor people could have of dealing with that great body, the Metropolitan Water Board, is by the opinion of their representatives of their county council; to get their county council to intervene on their behalf. The county council of Middlesex went into this question fully, and they have intervened. They have asked this House to reconsider this question on behalf of these people, who think that the county council — with great deference to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke —is really in a better position to know the needs of the people of the Thames Valley even than himself, although, I admit, his technical knowledge in the matter of excavations in the Thames Valley is, perhaps, greater than that of the members of the county council. We are asked to let these three reservoirs go through because five have been withdrawn or knocked out. Does not the House see that these five were withdrawn or knocked out because they never ought to have been put in at all? The right hon. Gentleman has no right to claim that as generosity or wisdom on the part of the Metropolitan Water Board. It was an act—I do not want to use harsh language—but well nigh stupidity on the part of the Water Board to put them in, assuming that the Committee was right, and the right hon. Gentleman has asked us to assume that. I appeal to the Committee now from the right hon. Gentleman.
  We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that we are under a misapprehension,
  134
  or trying to put the House under a misapprehension, with regard to the construction of these reservoirs. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing, and also to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Uxbridge Division. If I may say so—and it is within the recollection of the House—neither of them suggested that these reservoirs were going to be filled with subterranean waters. Nor has it ever been suggested in any of the literature on the subject. Everybody who has read the Bill, and the authorised matter which has been issued, knows perfectly well that the claim is that during the construction, by the act of construction, the underground water would be temporarily drawn away during a period of one, two, or three years.
  Mr. BURNS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if I may, I will read what will justify what I said:—
  "The Bill seeks to authorise the construction of reservoirs in West Midde-sex, the admitted effect of which may be to intercept the underground water supply of that area, and so deprive the numerous small holders, etc., of their water."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Where did that come from?"] That is issued on behalf of the Bill of the Water Board. I am quoting from the statement issued on which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing——
  Mr. NIELD: Certainly, for temporary purposes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Bill seeks to authorise the construction of reservoirs, with, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the admitted effect, it may be, of intercepting the water supply, and so depriving the numerous small holders, allotment gardeners and market gardeners of that district of the water now derived from the wells, springs and ponds. The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest to the House that my hon. Friend put before the House that these reservoirs were going to be filled with subterranean waters. Then he went on to say that it was nothing of the kind. Nowhere in this Bill or in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend is there any suggestion that these reservoirs were going to be filled in that way. The whole gravamen of the case against the Metropolitan Water Board is simply this: that in the course of their construction of these reser-

  135
  voirs they go down to a depth of ninety or 100 feet, and they will temporarily drain the underground water for a considerable distance. That is admitted. There is no necessity to bring evidence on the part of these cottagers or small holders or allotment gardeners—it is admitted by the promoters of the Bill themselves that this would be the case. Mr. Bryan, the Board's engineer, one of the witnesses, in the evidence on the Wraysbury Reservoir, said that on this point the evidence was general. Mr. Bryan was asked:—
  "I think you told my friend Mr. Hutchinson this morning that during the time your trenches are open through the gravel to the London clay you will have pumping machinery here?—Yes.
  "Is that liable to pump the water out of the surrounding gravel for a radius of some distance?— It is.
  "May I ask what you propose to do in view of that? — It is rather difficult to say what would be the best means, but I should think the putting down of a small temporary pumping station, taking the water from the existing sources, and laying some temporary pipes of supply.
  "Are you prepared, as an engineer, to come under an obligation to supply water if these wells fail?—If it could be proved that these wells failed by reason of our works I think it would be fair that we should supply them with water."
  Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke or the right hon. Gentleman deny that if it can be proved? If it could be proved that these wells failed by reason of the works, I think it would be fair they should be supplied with water. That is all the Middlesex County Council asks. It does not say: "We want to force the Metropolitan Water Board to lay down new supplies for this district whether it is damaged or not." It only says: "If they are damaged and if damage could be shown to have arisen from the action of these works, compensation or a temporary supply should be provided for." I cannot understand why this House should deny such a right whether the persons demanding it are poor or rich. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says there is no precedent for it. I should have thought he would be the last person in the House of Commons to ask for precedent to deal with any hardship put upon any portion of the community. I do not care whether there is precedent for this or not. If there is not, let us make one. If these people are going to be damaged by the action of the Metropolitan Water Board, I say it is the duty of the House of Commons to make a precedent, if necessary, and to see that they are safeguarded against any damage being done them. This is the whole case. We do not say they will be damaged.
  136
  We say, we believe they will be damaged. The engineer of the Water Board admits they may be damaged. All we ask is, if their engineer is right that damage may take place, the House of Commons should see that adequate but not undue compensation should be provided for those people. And remember that these people are dependent upon their water supply for their livelihood. Practically the whole of them are small holders, allotment gardeners and so forth. I am not pleading for my own Constituency only. There are people in other parts of Middlesex affected, and I ask the House, and it would not take long, to re-commit the Bill to make an expression of their view that this Clause should be inserted. It would not cause the Water Board much hardship, but it would be of incalculable value to the people of this district.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I approach this Bill from the point of view of a consumer living in Middlesex and also as a member of the Middlesex County Council, who deplores the absence of this Clause from the Bill. We have heard a good deal tonight about precedent, but I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was unfortunate in referring to Lord Alverstone, because when dealing with the question of precedent, Lord Alverstone distinctly says this:—
  "If the noble Duke dealt with the case of the water abstracted by reason of the existence of the reservoir I could not support him. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount opposite that there are many who think that our law has not been sufficiently careful of rights regarding underground water. My noble and learned friend Sir Edward Fry takes a strong view upon that, but I wish to deal only with this particular Amendment. These landowners do not say that when the reservoirs are constructed the result will be that their wells will be drained and that therefore they should receive compensation. As I have said we could not in the present state of the law support that, but it is thought that in the course of the construction of the reservoirs the wells should be temporarily interfered with. They desire temporary protection, and if private Acts are looked through I am confident it will be found that there are many precedents for compensation being allowed where wells are temporarily interfered with during the construction of works."
  10.0 P.M.
  That is to say we can claim Lord Alverstone as saying that there are precedents for such a clause as this. I would like to point out that in this very Bill protection is given to a Noble Lord in the county as compensation for water which he loses. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, if I may say so, was a little more astute than the defenders of this Bill in the House of Lords were. He says there was

  137
  a difference, and that the noble Lord may suffer such a loss of water because they are going through his land. But Lord Kintore, dealing with that point, is more likely to know the reason why the Clause protecting Lord Fitz-Hardinge stands in this Bill. He did not say the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge was different from the case of the small holders and occupiers which the Middlesex County Council are asking us to protect. He says:—
  "I pass that by because, as my noble Friend admits, the clause was an agreed one and was attached to the Bill as a manuscript clause when first presented to the Committee."
  It is said that this was an agreed manuscript Clause attached to the Bill, but Parliament is responsible for all Clauses that go into a Bill, and I, for one, cannot support a Bill which contains a Clause giving a Noble Lord protection on the ground that the Noble Lord is sufficiently powerful to influence the promoters of the Bill to give him the protection that ho wanted, but which does not protect small holders and owners of land in the same vicinity simply because they are not able individually to come to Parliament, but come there through their proper guardians, the Middlesex County Council, which sought to obtain protection for them. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to attempt to draw this distinction between the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge and those other people, but the engineer admits the possibility of the loss of water to them during the construction of the reservoir. It is not material to say that he was talking about some other reservoir. It is admitted that if you dig a deep trench round a reservoir and pump it in order to make that reservoir you may interfere with other water supplies. Whether that trench was forty feet or 100 feet it is obvious that there is risk of water being withdrawn from the immediate neighbourhood while these pumping operations are going on. If the hon. Member for Stoke and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board are right and that there is really not going to be any loss of water then there can be no objection to this Clause, because it is only if these occupiers can prove loss and damage as the result of these words that there is any reason for compensation at all. I claim the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke, who has practical knowledge, as really being in support of the insertion of the Clause. There is another point. This has been before a Joint Committee. The Joint
  138
  Committee have carefully considered it, and the right hon. Gentleman says that for months the Joint Committee carefully considered this Bill. What did Lord Kin-tore, the Chairman, say? He did not say they had considered this question and rejected it on its merits. No, he said:—
  "We were not ourselves prepared in a private Bill to take this new departure, involving so large a question of principle, and so in the confident expectation that the matter would be raised in one or other of the Houses of Parliament we decided as a committee to take no action."
  That Committee threw the responsibility upon this or the other House, and all we ask is that the House shall not overrule the Committee, but accept the invitation of the Committee to give them a direction upon a matter which they preferred as a private Committee not to deal with. Why is that Clause protecting Lord Fitz-Hardinge allowed to stop in the Bill? I maintain that this House cannot support this Bill until that Clause is withdrawn, or, at any rate, until a similar Clause is introduced giving similar protection to the small owners. London and the parts of the county of Middlesex which obtains water from this authority do not expect to get it at the cost of depriving others of water even during a short period of time, whether it is four years or fifty years, while these temporary works are being carried out. If the landowners in the immediate neighbourhood suffer a loss of water the Board should make that good. The engineer said perfectly plainly and honourably that with regard to other reservoirs in this scheme he was prepared to do that, but, of course, they had to fall back upon the lawyers, and it, is now a matter for this House to say whether it will take the engineer's view or not.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): May I appeal to the House to come to a decision upon the Motion now before us. There has been a considerable amount of discussion upon the merits of the Compensation Clause, but I wish to point out that that matter will arise upon a subsequent occasion. Already certain hon. Members have given notice of such a Clause. The Motion moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means is simply to give an additional opportunity on the Report stage, which is the proper occasion for moving such a Clause as the hon. Member has just referred to. This matter is bound to come up on the Report stage and it is for that very reason that the Chairman of Ways and Means has not drawn up this

  139
  Resolution in the customary form. I may inform hon. Members who do not follow these questions so closely, that the usual practice is where the Bill has been referred to the Joint Committee of the two Houses, that both the stages in the second House are dispensed with. In this case the Chairman of Ways and Means has departed from the usual practice in order to give the Members for Middlesex an opportunity of raising this question on the floor of the House. I think they would be well advised, having now stated their case, not to pursue the matter further but allow this stage to conclude, reserving their right upon the next stage. They have already given notice of their intention on the Blue Paper that they intend to move the insertion of this Compensation Clause. I therefore appeal to the House to proceed with this Motion and allow this matter to come up on the next occasion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I agree with the Deputy-Chairman that an opportunity will be afforded later on of dealing with this matter, but I do not agree that we ought not to discuss the question now, because it is really a very important one. It is a question which takes away from this House certain powers and gives them to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. I am astonished at the hon. Member for Stoke desiring to give powers to the House of Lords of all places in the world, and taking away from this House a stage which we have always had. The President of the Local Government Board is against the recommittal of this Bill because he says it has already been considered by a Committee of Lords and Commons. I know that on two occasions recently the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to override the decision of a committee of his own House, not upon a vital question as to whether people should be deprived of the first necessity of life, that is water, but upon a small question whether a bridge was aesthetic or not. Now the right hon. Gentleman says we must recommit this Bill, because the committee has given a decision upon it. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke takes such a great interest in a decision given by people who are only the sons of their fathers, while the decision of the elected representatives of the people is to be sent back to them. In this extraordinary House of Commons, with everything apparently topsy-turvey, I have never heard such arguments as those to which we have been listening. What is
  140
  it that is required? The Chairman of Ways and means has made a Motion that one stage shall be dispensed with——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The effect of the Motion before the House is that this question shall be decided on the floor of the House, and not upstairs.
  Sir F. BANBURY: How can we, on the floor of the House, hear the expert evidence of the engineers who would be able to say whether what has been said by my hon. Friend below the Gangway can be justified or not? How can we decide such matters here? These are questions which ought to be decided in a Committee, and I think this stage should not be abolished. We cannot decide these questions on the floor of the House at a time when the Government are keeping us here with the Insurance Bill, and various other measures. All small points of this sort are matters for experts, and they should be decided by engineers. We cannot decide whether Jones or Brown is going to suffer from a loss of water supply. It is in a Committee that these questions should be dealt with, and strong supporter as I am of the House of Lords in its original state, and strong supporter as I am of the House of Lords having the power to veto bad legislation by this House, I think it only shows the privileges of this House with regard to its own business right to be safeguarded. They are going to be thrown away by the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters merely for the safety of—well, I really do not know what. Apparently, he is going to appoint a Committee under the Local Government Board to spend our money and to decide whether or not this sort of thing is possible. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but my recollection is quite clear upon that point. He said he was going to appoint a committee of chemists, or something of that sort.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Baronet is entirely mistaken. The best qualified man was appointed months ago to carry out this suggestion of the Joint Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: By the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BURNS: Certainly.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then he has appointed a Committee.
  Mr. BURNS: No, the hon. Baronet is mistaken, I have not appointed a Com-

  141
  mittee, but an officer, a competent geologist, whose qualifications the hon. Baronet himself would endorse.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Having appointed an officer at a very good salary, the right hon. Gentleman is going to abide by his decision, and we, the representatives of the people, are not going to have a word. Having said that, there is no need to say anything further. It is bureaucracy run mad.
  Question, "That the Standing Orders relative to the Committal stage of Private Bills be suspended, and that the Bill be ordered to lie upon the Table," put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Further considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Postponed proceeding on consideration of Clause 12. [See Cols. 37–38.]
Amendment proposed in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "in whole or in part."—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]
Debate resumed.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: When I was interrupted I was endeavouring to persuade the Government and the Committee to omit the words "in whole or in part." I do not think we ought to make any differentiation between the payment of sickness benefit, in serious cases and in trivial cases. When a man is only slightly ill we pay the sicknes, benefit to his dependents. How then can it be defended that when a man is seriously ill and is taken to a hospital we should give power to an approved society to pay only part of the sickness benefit to his dependents? After all, the sickness benefit at its highest is only 10s. a week, and there is not very much in 10s. to divide between the dependents and the general fund of the approved society. I earnestly hope the Government will reconsider the wording of this particular Sub-section, and will consent to the omission of these particular words, thereby conferring the whole of the sickness benefit, without any deductions whatever, on the dependents of the indisposed persons in serious cases. If the Amendment is accepted it will be necessary to omit the latter part of the paragraph after the word "any."
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think my hon. Friend has omitted to take note of certain considerations. There may be a case in
142
which a man may have been contributing 2s. 6d. or 3s. for the support of some relative, say, a grandmother. There can be no object whatever in saying that the whole of the 10s. shall be devoted to the support of that relative, yet that would be the result of this Amendment.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the fact that we do not attempt to sit in judgment on what is done with the 10s. in the case of an ordinary trivial illness? We pay the whole amount without question as to how many dependents a man has. Why should we in the case of a man seriously ill empower an approved society to sit in judgment and divide up the 10s.? After all, it is a very small amount of money.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) is, I think, consequential or is ruled out by a decision already come to.
Mr. CASSEL: No. I think not. I wish to move in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "for" ["for the relief"], to insert the words, "for the benefit of such person or."
The object of this amendment is that where part only of the sick benefit is applied for the benefit of the dependent there should be at least power to apply the remainder either wholly or in part for the benefit of the man himself under the Clause as it stands, as the Attorney-General has said there may be a case where the insured has a grandmother who is dependent on him and has been allowing her 5s. a week. In such a case there is no reason why the grandmother should get the whole 10s,. because the man is in hospital. On the other hand there is no justification for depriving the committee of the approved society of the opportunity of applying the balance of 5s. for the benefit of the man himself. He has paid for the full benefit, and surely the difference between the total and what is required for the dependent might well be used in providing him with additional comforts in hospital. There is no necessity for it to go into the General Insurance Fund. You must treat this as a business matter and not as a charity, and so long as the man's dependents are fully provided for he should be entitled, having paid his full subscriptions, to the benefit of the

143
balance, which would provide him with books or other comforts. There can be no justification, legal or moral, for depriving him of the balance. The fact that he is in hospital is not a justification for depriving him of benefit—in fact it is rather a reason why you should use it for such purpose as he directs, either to give him some additional benefits in hospital or enable him to save it up to meet his contributions as they arise in future. He has given his quid pro quo, and he ought to have his rights. There is no reason why the fund should benefit because he is in hospital. He has paid for that right, and there ought at least to be an opportunity for applying the balance not wanted for the dependents for the benefit of the man himself.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it would be better for hon. and learned Gentlemen to delay dealing with this particular question until we come to consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I do not think properly the words come exactly at the point at which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to insert them. I quite agree that there is ground for consideration as to what should happen with regard to this balance.
Mr. CASSEL: I am quite willing to take the Amendment at any point, though I have had some experience with the First Lord of the Admiralty in that connection. I am sure the Attorney-General will see that I have some opportunity at a later stage of raising it because it is a point on which I feel strongly.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I suggest that there is a case to consider, the man who, having had an operation in a hospital, is ordered a surgical appliance for which there are no funds except from charity. In that case it might be a good thing to have a latitude such as my hon. and learned Friend proposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, after the word "administered" ["by which the benefit is administered"], to insert the words "after consultation whenever possible with such person."
The object of the Amendment is simply that a society or a committee should consult the man himself as to how he wishes it to be disposed of amongst his dependents. He is the man, after all, who is entitled to the 10s., and there may be a
144
question as to how it is to be distributed amongst them. It is only right that he himself should be, wherever possible, consulted as to the mode of disposing of it. It may be when he is in hospital he is so ill that it is impossible to consult him, therefore I have inserted the words "whenever possible."
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think this is a. reasonable Amendment. It is desirable that there should be an opportunity to ascertain what the wishes are of the inmate of the hospital or institution, and I shall accept the Amendment in the form proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert instead thereof the words:—
(b) subject thereto any balance remaining shall, in the case of a deposit contribution, be carried to the credit of his account in the Post Office Fund, and in the case of a member of an approved society be carried to a special fund applicable for any of the purposes referred to in Clause 17."
As the Clause now stands the Amendment does not quite carry out what I intended, but the point is this. After all, in the case where you are dealing with a Post Office contributor it is extremely hard that you should take any balance away from him and carry it to the credit of the general fund. He has got a special fund of his own, and it is the only fund he has to draw upon. In his case, wherever the money is not required for his dependents, I submit you ought not to take it away from his own fund. You ought not in the case of a Post Office contributor to take 5s. for a dependent and put 5s. in the general fund. It would be a hardship in his case, and, therefore, I submit the money ought to be left standing to his credit at the Post Office. My Amendment does not quite carry out what I want. It now applies to the case of a man in a. sanatorium or similar institution in which he is receiving treatment in accordance with the provisions of this part of this Act. That is the case where it is least necessary.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to move his Amendment?
Mr. CASSEL: Yes, I am going to move it in the form in which it appears on the Paper in order to get an expression of the

145
view of the Government on the point I am raising, though in its present form it does not fully carry out the point I intended. The point I intended was that not only in a case where a man is in a sanatorium, but even in a case where he is in a hospital, infirmary, or workhouse. In the case of a deposit contributor it is hardship and an injustice that you should take the 10s. standing in his own name merely for the purpose of transferring it to the general fund. While the Amendment is limited in the way I have described, I would ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to the general point—the case where a man is not in a sanatorium, but in a hospital, infirmary or workhouse.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be a satisfactory way of carrying out what he desires. The question to which he has referred will arise on the Amendment to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would suggest that it would be better to defer the consideration of the point until we come to deal with that Amendment.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will press his Amendment if the Attorney-General cannot give a better assurance that it will be considered and put in its proper place at a later stage. But it may be possible to put in a proviso that this shall not apply to any insured person who is a deposit contributor. There are many ways in which the Attorney-General can put this in order. It is not sufficient for him to say that the Government will consider it when dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. Obviously it is unfair to treat the deposit contributor in this way. Under the Clause as it stands the credit of the deposit contributor is a personal credit. No subscriptions made by him or on his behalf go to his individual credit, and not to the credit of his society. If Mr. Jones pays in 30s., that stands to Jones's credit. It does not stand to the credit of the friendly society or trade union of which he is a member. Under the Clause as it stands if Jones is not entitled to draw his 10s; because he is the inmate of an hospital or convalescent home, but is only entitled to draw 5s., then the other 5s. is not left to his credit but goes to the local health committee with which ha has only the remotest possible connection. It is taken from the man who can least afford
146
it, and to whose credit it is standing, and is put to the general purposes of the health committee for the benefit of everybody. That obviously is not fair, and cannot really have been intended. I quite agree that my hon. Friend's Amendment, having regard to the alterations that have been made in the Clause, is not in the best possible words, but the Government can surely give us a better undertaking than they have given. They can assure us that they will put down an Amendment or will allow an Amendment to be put down in the proper place so that the person who is now an insured person under this Clause shall be turned into a member of an approved society, so that the deposit contributor shall not be excluded altogether.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not understand the effect of what I said. There will certainly be an opportunity for considering this matter, so that it must be dealt with. It arises upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion.
Mr. CASSEL: Having regard to what the Attorney-General says, I am content to leave it in his hands to find me an opportunity for raising the point. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment raises the same point in any sense, but if the Attorney-General thinks it more convenient for the purposes of Debate to raise it later and will afford me an opportunity I shall be content to withdraw my Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain whether the Attorney-General really appreciates the point contained in the first part of this Amendment. I think my hon. Friend did some injustice to his own Amendment. It does not appear to me that his Amendment, even after the changes we have made in the Section, will be limited at all to cases in which a man happens to be in a sanatorium. But the point to which my hon. Friend has spoken is not the second half of the Amendment, which deals with what is to become of any balance left over on the part of a member of an approved society. It is what is to happen to any balance over and above the immediate needs of a man who is a deposit contributor.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Both propositions are dealt with in the Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did I say anything to the contrary?
Mr. J. WARD: I understood you to say that it only applied to the deposit contributor.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member apparently was not listening. I said the former part. What my hon. Friend below the Gangway dwelt upon was not the second but the first part. That is the important question, and I do not know how, in connection with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, the Attorney-General thinks the two cases can be separated. I confess that I have not myself thought out this difficulty, but I am much interested by what was said by my hon. Friend in regard to the case of the deposit contributor. There you are dealing with a man who is not insured. You are dealing with a man who has no insurance, but only a deposit account in the bank. He can draw to the extent of the deposit standing to his credit. That is all he can get, no matter what his needs. That is totally different from the case of a member of an approved society, who has full pay the moment he needs it. If he has another illness immediately afterwards his insurance becomes effective again. He is in the full sense of the word an insured person. Whenever the contingency arises against which he is insured his insurance takes effect and protects him against the worst consequences of accident or illness. That is not the case with the deposit contributor. He has only such money as is placed to his credit, and I do not think you ought to take away his money. I do not know whether I make the point clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am sure he will see that the two classes of contributors in this Bill stand on a wholly different footing. One is not limited by the amount standing to his credit, and his benefits are dependent only upon his needs and the solvency of his society and you may fairly use the money which he does not need, and his dependents do not need, for a hospital or another person. But if there is one thing which is probable about any Post Office contributor it is that he will need all the money that stands to his credit, and more. I think my hon. Friends are right, that under these circumstances you ought not to take away from the deposit contributor's account any sum of money standing to his credit when you have no assurance, and he has no assurance, in regard to his benefits. The right hon. Gentleman says that you take nothing away from his account. Surely
148
that is a mistake. You do say that the money which is payable to him if he were not in hospital shall be payable wholly or in part to his dependents. Supposing it is only payable in part, and that though he is entitled to 10s. you pay only 5s., do you not withdraw the other 5s. for the general purposes of the fund instead of leaving it to the credit of the man's account? The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment would have to be recast in order to meet that point.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says on this point, but I do not think this is quite the way to deal with it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, that the best place to deal with it is on the Amendment, of which I have given notice, and I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment will have to be recast. In order to meet this point, if the hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to withdraw this, and I do say there is a grievance here which has got to be met; it will give me a little more time to consider the matter.
Mr. CASSEL: On that assurance I beg to withdraw.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I hope my right hon. Friend has given no countenance to the latter part of the suggestion that the balance shall be carried to a special fund for purposes of Clause 17, which is for subscriptions to hospitals. Surely that part of the proposition could not be entertained, and I should be glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to that part of it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. What I have said is that I think there ought to be some disposition of that balance. I do not think, on reconsideration, that the Bill as it stands quite disposes of that balance. I would asked the hon. and learned Gen-man for the moment to withdraw, and I will consider the point as to the best way. I may add I am rather impressed with the first part as to the deposit contributor.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that this shall be applied directly for the benefit of the deposit contributor or left to his credit. After all that is the point. As the Bill now stands it is proposed to take away from the deposit contributor something which stands to his personal credit. If the Chancellor

149
of the Exchequer will say that he does not intend to take away from the deposit contributor something which stands to his credit, I have no more to say.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really had rather not give an answer now. I think the hon. Gentleman certainly made a case for further mitigation. I would rather not commit myself at this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words:—
"(c) if such person is an inmate of a hospital or infirmary supported by charity and has no dependents, shall, if an agreement for the purpose has been made with the hospital or infirmary, be paid in whole or in part according to such agreement towards the maintenance of such person in the hospital or infirmary.
Provided that in the case of a married woman or widow who is entitled to sickness benefit in addition to maternity benefit no part of the maternity benefit shall be paid or applied for the relief or maintenance of her dependents, but may be paid to the hospital or infirmary of which she is an inmate as aforesaid in like manner as if she had no dependents."
I should like to add that a case was put by the hon. Gentleman opposite this afternoon, and I am sorry I was not here to deal with the matter. It was one for a little more consideration, and I should like to reconsider the point. I suggest that we now report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the other point which was referred to by the Attorney-General?
Mr. POLLOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to circulate the form of the Amendment early to-morrow morning so that we may see it before the House sits?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman is not cognisant of the machinery by which we prepare our Amendments, or he would realise that it is quite impossible to do that. We shall have our usual conference in the morning to consider these points. I have to consult those with whom I am acting, and it is only then we make up our minds.
150
It may be one o'clock or half-past one o'clock, and we could not then circulate it. I would not be in a position to do that.
Mr. POLLOCK: Could the right hon. Gentleman get it in print?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will do my best.
An HON. MEMBER: Or give us a typewritten copy?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I will do my best.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do his best. But he might desire to have other words inserted, or we might desire to move Amendments that could not be moved now. If the Amendment is put in these words that may not be open to us. I am sure that if necessary he will withdraw his present Amendment, and move it in a different way, so as to preserve to the House the rights we have been promised.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will reconsider the position, and if it has to be moved in some other form I will consider it carefully.

CORRECTION.
Mr. FORSTER: I wish to raise a point which I am not sure is a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reprinted as much of the Bill as the Committee have passed. Looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT for 17th July, an Amendment appears to have been moved by my Noble Friend the Member for Nottingham (Lord Henry Bentinck). After a brief explanation the Report goes on:—
"Mr. Lloyd George: This is a consequential Amendment, and I agree to it.
"Amendment agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1911, col. 745.]
The Amendment does not appear in the reprint of the Bill. I inquired at the Table as to the reason why an Amendment which appeared from the OFFICIAL REPORT to have been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not included in the reprint, and I understand from you, Sir, that you have no record of the acceptance of the Amendment. I am bound to say that I have no recollection of its acceptance either. But I think the point ought to be cleared up, because it is obviously undesirable that there should appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings a statement to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted an

151
Amendment and that Amendment should not appear in the Bill. I quite believe that the difficulties of reporting our proceedings in Committee are very considerable. A great deal of the discussion which takes place, especially on Amendments which are accepted, is in the nature of conversation, and is carried on in a conversational tone. Therefore, it may well happen occasionally that remarks made on the floor of the House do not really reach the Gallery, and proper opportunities for accurate reporting are not afforded. I am not raising this question in a captious spirit. I simply want to get the matter cleared up as to whether the Amendment was accepted or not. I do not know if the matter can be decided at once.
The CHAIRMAN: The Clerks at the Table and I are responsible for keeping the Bill correct. We have examined our papers in which we severally keep a record of the Committee's proceedings, and in all cases there is no mention of this Amendment ever having been moved. I am confident the Amendment was not moved, or, at any rate, was not accepted. I do not think it was ever moved. If I had been in the Chair I should not have allowed it to be moved, because I think it is outside the scope of the Bill, inasmuch as it proposes to give a benefit to the widow, which does not seem to me to be a benefit to an insured person. I am confident that the Bill is correct.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I can explain the matter. I think these words refer to the next Amendment. The Report states:—
"Mr. Lees Smith: I beg to move … to leave out the word 'weekly' and to insert instead thereof the word 'periodic'"
I think I then said "This is a consequential Amendment, and I agree to it," because the same alteration had already been made a little earlier in the afternoon. I think the words had reference to this Amendment, and not to the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham.
Mr. BOOTH: Is it intended to take the Committee stage to-morrow and to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I believe that that is the ease. There is no suspension to-night.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think we ought to get this question settled——
And it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move "That this House do now Adjourn."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what Bills will be taken on Thursday and Friday?
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Supply will be taken on Thursday; the Prime Minister will say to-morrow what Supply, and also what business will be taken on Friday.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.