§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the 1740 Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission (England), for Contributions under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and for Grants-in-Aid of Expenditure incurred out of the National Health Insurance Fund in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under that Part of that Act (including certain Special Grants towards the Expenses of Insurance Committees)."1741
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
On a point of Order. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we could have a general discussion taking in the different countries concerned. If the discussion is confined to England it will be very difficult indeed to take one country at a time.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
If the matter is put in a separate Vote, I am bound by the Vote. I cannot allow a discussion on Wales on an English Vote.
§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100.
Bearing in mind the vast interest taken throughout the country in the Insurance Act, and that the opportunities given us in this House of discussing administration have been so very meagre, and also that the additional sums required are so very large as compared with the original Estimates, the House will agree that it is somewhat unfortunate that the time left to us to discuss these Supplementary Estimates is so very short. A glance at the Supplementary Estimates will show that the additional sums required are very large in proportion to the original Estimates, and that those sums vary very much in the cases of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. England seems to have underestimated the expense to a very much greater extent three months ago than the other countries, or else Scotland and Ireland were much more greedy in the claim they made at the time. At any rate, we see that the additional sum required for salaries, wages, and allowances amounts to over 50 per cent, of the original Estimate, whereas if we go to the Votes under the same head in Scotland we see a comparatively small sum, something like 15 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. Some reason might be given by the right hon. Gentleman as to this very large difference. My reason in moving to reduce this Vote by £100 is really to get some information from the Government as to how these Estimates were arrived at originally, and how these additional sums which are required have been arrived at. I think it is right that in this House we should watch very carefully the action of the 1742 Insurance Commissioners at the present time. It is the first opportunity we have had since the Act has come into operation of examining some of their work. I should like to know who is really responsible for these Estimates. Is the Treasury responsible for them? Or have the Insurance Commissioners gone through them step by step, and satisfied themselves as a body and individually that the amounts they are asking us to pay are fair amounts and will be required? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he told us to-day, in an answer to a supplementary question:—I do not think the Commissioners ever do come actually to a vote.What do the Commissioners do? How do they conduct their business? Without coming to a vote? They must satisfy themselves in some way, and I assume that the Commissioners, like all human beings, do not agree on every subject: there must be some divergence of opinion. In that case how do they arrive at a decision? Is their mind made up for them by the right hon. Gentleman, or do they really make up their own minds? It is a point of the utmost importance, and one on which I should be glad if the Committee could be enlightened. It must be remembered that we are at the present time entering upon a system which is entirely new to English local government. Hitherto, if a Commission or Committee has been appointed, its first duty has been to put aside individual interests of its members and act as a whole, but, in this instance, each Commissioner is appointed directly to represent a separate interest. One represents friendly societies, another trade unions, another the doctors, another the Treasury, and so forth; so that really each Commissioner, in his office, has to look at the Act in a different light, and to interpret the Act as an advocate while he is at the same time a judge. That is quite foreign to our system in England hitherto. On any public body it has always been recognised that the man who is appointed to it should put aside any particular interest he may have had, and judge of the question at issue from a general standpoint; but in this Insurance Commission we have the members of it representing particular interests, and not only is that the case with regard to the Commission, but right away through every committee under the Act, the members of those committees each representing a 1743 certain interest. Therefore it is very important, and I do not think it is unreasonable, that we should ask how the decisions are arrived at in those circumstances. If a vote is not taken, are we to assume that they are entirely led by the chairman, or by the chairman of the Joint Commission, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That is a question which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not fail to answer later on. With regard to the Supplementary Estimates, it is interesting to note—the Commissioners having come, I suppose, to a unanimous decision—that a White Paper has been issued to the Insurance Committees in which they give some very good advice, and it is this:—The Commissioners advise the Insurance Committees to proceed tentatively in the first instance, and with strict regard to economy.I should like to know whether the Commissioners have practised the advice they have preached, and, if so, why is it that these sums are required now? Why have the increases been so very large in the last three months? In the details, which I am bound to say are very scanty, we find that there is a sum of £18,000 for travelling expenses. I should like to know how that £18,000 is made up, because it is not, remember, £18,000 for one year, but it really means £18,000 for something like six months. I do not think, so far as we can see, that this is observing that strict regard for economy which the Insurance Committees are recommended to follow. The same remark applies to the other sum for administrative, legal, and general clerical staff, and for the medical and inspecting staff, now being appointed in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. I would like to know whether these medical inspectors have already been appointed, and what are they to do when they have been appointed? So far I have not been able to find out whether there is at present any work of inspection for them to do. Some information on that point would be convenient when we discuss that item. Under Sub-head E, Weekly Contributions, we find:—Contributions payable out of money provided by Parliament under Section 81 (10) of the Act, and in respect of low-waged contributor? (Section 4 (1)), persons over sixty-five years of age at the commencement of the Act (Section 48 (2)), and persons coming under the provisions under Sections 47 and 48 (2) of the Act.1744 I would like some information in regard to persons over sixty-five years of age, because we are told now that persons who at the time of the passing of the Act were sixty-five and were employed persons are to become insured persons under the Act. What benefits are they going to receive, because, according to the Act, they are to have such benefits as their society may prescribe? I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would tell me, in the first instance, what benefits men over sixty-five years of age are to get who do not belong to an approved society? There are a great many people living in the Constituency which I represent who are sixty-five and over, and who have belonged all their lives to small village societies which have been killed by virtue of this Act, and these men are forced to become Post Office depositors. Although we have tried recently to find out what their position would be when called upon to pay this weekly tax, we have been quite unable so far to elicit any information on the subject.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
They cannot join approved societies, and they are forced to become deposit contributors.
§ Mr. GWYNNE
The reason why is that the approved societies will not take them. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that there are hundreds and thousands of men who cannot get into approved societies.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are many men belonging to village clubs over sixty-five years of age whose health may not be sufficiently good to get them into an approved society. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the names, not of one or two, but of hundreds of men who have been unable to get admission into approved societies. If there were only ten or twenty of those persons what benefit are they going to get under the Act, although they are going to be taxed? I know that the right hon. Gentleman resents the word "taxed," but certainly in 1745 the case of men over sixty-five it is a tax and a very unfair tax. I ask him if he knows now what benefits those men are going to get? I find in a circular, A.S. 29, issued for official use by the Insurance Commissioners, a list of alternative benefits which it is suggested approved societies can give to men who are sixty-five and over. That does not meet my point as to men who do not belong to approved societies. In the list of benefits suggested for men over sixty-five who are fortunate enough to belong to approved societies we find that under this beneficent Act some of those men who are compelled to pay taxes in this way are to get as much as a pension of 1s. per annum. I do not like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is to be paid quarterly or monthly or weekly. Really, is it worth while to drag men into an Act unwillingly for the sake of telling them that they are going to get 9d. for 4d., and—
I understand it is the desire of the hon. Member to discuss benefits, but we are now dealing with the Supplementary Estimate, and must confine ourselves to the rules of the Committee with regard to it. The only reason benefits comes in here is that £17,000 are credited to the English Fund which should have gone to the Welsh Fund. I desire to enter a caveat against the very wide discussion of the Act. We are entitled to deal with the administration of the Act, and not the general purposes of the Act.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
I submit I am quite in order, as the Insurance Commissioners offer alternative benefits.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
On the point of Order, I am only too anxious that we should deal with the administration of the Act in the fullest possible fashion. The hen. Gentleman, when I took exception to his remarks, was not touching the administration of the Act, but the Act itself. If we are going to discuss the Act, we will not have much time to discuss the administration.
On the point of Order, the Commissioners have issued advice to the friendly societies as to the nature of the benefits which can be given, and stating that if the societies were to offer any other benefits than those which they have scheduled then they would have to get actuarial valuations. 1746 The right hon. Gentleman says it is the Act, but I submit that it is the administration of the Act by the Insurance Commissioners which is now called in question. My hon. Friend was referring to an actual circular issued to the Approved Societies for their information and guidance, and was commenting upon that administrative step taken by the Commissioners.
Does not the Grant-in-Aid and the expenditure of money in respect of benefits come in under expenses and administration of Approved Societies?
As I have already explained, the only reason that comes in is owing to an error by which a sum of £17,000 was credited to the English Fund which ought to have gone to the credit of the Welsh Fund, otherwise that would not come in the Estimate at all. I do not want to rule too absolutely strictly as that is no doubt the general feeling of the Committee, but as I understood the hon. Member, he was going into the Act in general and not the administration of the Act which is the question under the Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
I do not want to transgress your ruling, but I do want, and do not conceal the fact, definitely to get out from the right hon. Gentleman what is the exact position of those men who are forced to contribute against their will and whose age is sixty-five and upwards? I think I am right in saying that a majority of hon. Members were under the impression that persons of sixty-five and upwards would not have to contribute under the Act, and, in fact, the Act itself says so. We have been told comparatively lately that a man who is not in employment at the time of the coming into operation of the Act, 15th July, but who becomes employed afterwards will not have to contribute, but a man who was in employment on the 15th July and whose age was sixty-five or upwards will be called on to contribute. That in itself is a somewhat confusing state of affairs. Although we have repeatedly pressed for an answer, we cannot find out what are the benefits for which those men are paying. The right hon. Gentleman rides off on the excuse that that will depend upon the particular society to which he belongs. I think it is unfortunate that this House should not have the opportunity of discussing what those benefits are.
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has been saying, and I rule that it is outside the scope of the Estimate "we are now considering.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
Surely it is not outside the Estimate? I should have thought that the fact that either a deduction or increase was mentioned was material when it comes before the House. If it is not for discussion, then I do not know why it was put there. In Any case we can get it on the Scottish Vote. There are several items here which are new charges altogether. Thus we have law charges and incidental expenses, about which I should like some particulars. There is also a Grant of £11,500 for insurance committees. So far as I can gather that is a special Grant to those committees. How was the figure arrived at, and is the Grant to be continued for a number of years? For, although there may be heavy expenses thrown upon the committee in starting, yet I do not see how that expenditure is to be curtailed in future. I think the sum suggested for carrying on the clerical and other work of those committees is extremely inadequate. When you talk about a Grant not exceeding £100 or, in regard to a large county, being from £100 to £200, it cannot be said that that is an abnormal amount for carrying on the work of the committee. If that is going to be given, not for one year but six months, and then cut down straight away, we shall certainly have chaos in those offices when the time comes. I think we ought to be told quite clearly what is the policy of the Insurance Commissioners with regard to this Grant. Why do they expect the first six months to be much more expensive than the future? According to their own circular they suggest that at the beginning people will be ready to give for nothing help which they cannot be expected to continue. If this Grant is given for the first six months, is it intended in the future to give a Grant of £200 or more additional each year? No doubt the Commissioners had some grounds for coming to their conclusion as to what Grant they should give, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on the subject.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I welcome this opportunity of calling attention to the method by which the Commissioners have approved certain societies. I do not take 1748 up the line indicated by the hon. Member opposite that the Commissioners, because prior to their appointment they were particularly interested in certain sections of the friendly society movement, are incapable of dealing competently with these matters.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
I never said the Commissioners were incapable of being competent. I said they were appointed to represent certain interests.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
To my mind they were not appointed to represent certain interests. I presume that they were appointed because particular interests would be affected by the Act, and their special knowledge of those interests would be of value in the administration of the Act. If that were not the situation, the experience they have gained would be use less. Any Member appointed because of his special knowledge of friendly society work or of the doctors or of trade unions, need not necessarily be prejudiced in favour, of that particular industry, but he would be enabled by his long experience to see that the interests of the various societies were at any rate safeguarded. I have had a fairly good experience of the Act. My own society was one of the first to be approved, and it is one of the largest. I say that it is not true to suggest that any man of sixty-five years of age need become a deposit contributor. There are scores of societies to-day whose doors are open to them, and who are making efforts to get men of all ages. Again, to suggest that this Act has killed societies is not true. No one criticised the measure more than I did. I kept the House going one or two nights all night on Amendments which I proposed. But it is not true to say that the Act has killed trade unions or friendly societies. The experience of our own trade union is—
That has to do with the effect of the Act, and not the administration as disclosed by this Estimate.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I was tempted by the observations of the hon. Member opposite, and, unfortunately, I fell. One particular point to which I wish to call attention is the manner in which the insurance cards have been issued. Several trade unions, including our own, were partially approved; that is, subject to a conference of the society ratifying the rules, the society was approved. We 1749 urged the Commissioners to allow us to have the cards. It was pointed out that there would be a rush as the day for the Act to come into operation came nearer, but we were told that we could not have the cards until the society was finally approved. When the appointed day came every one was in a difficulty. A most remarkable thing was that a large number of employers' societies, which were not approved and are not approved to-day, were given thousands of cards, which were distributed indiscriminately. Therefore other societies were penalised, with the result that thousands of men have been driven into societies to which they never intended to belong, simply because the Commissioners did not enable the approved societies to have cards as they ought to have done.
§ Mr. THOMAS
I am not complaining about any having obtained cards. What I say is that there ought not to have been preferential treatment. Some trade unions received scandalous treatment in their endeavours to get cards. Telephone messages, telegrams, and interviews produced no result. Further, I cannot understand the method by which the Commissioners approved certain societies. It was repeatedly stated when the Bill was passing through Committee that the intention of the measure was to give every man a free choice to join any society he liked. There was to be no compulsion on the part of the employer or anybody else to induce a man to join any particular society. Let us see how that has been given effect to. Take a railway society. Prior to the Act coming into operation it was a condition of service on the Great Western Railway that a man must belong to the society connected with that particular railway. The same thing applied to other railways, such as the Great Northern. The management committee of the Great Western Society decided to make one section of the society an approved society under the Act. They said, "We will not in future make it a condition of employment that you shall join this section, but we make it a condition of employment that you join the other society." The Commissioners approved the society, with the result that a man who was previously stopped 1s. 2d. per week for his contributions, because he has made another society his approved society is now stopped 1s. 6d., although he made full provision before. The Commis- 1750 sioners have approved a society which not only makes it a condition of employment, but also penalises men to the tune of 4d. per week. On the other hand, the reverse position is created by another railway society. The men connected with the Midland Railway Company said, "We want to continue as we were before, paying the same contribution for the same benefit, and we will pay the 4d. in addition." In that case the Midland Railway said—and they are approved by the Commissioners—"No; in order to have a special inducement that you should be attached to us, we will administer the benefits of the Act for 3d.; but unless you make us your approved society we will refuse to allow you to go on as in the past." I say that in these cases between employer and employés it is not fair dealing; it is indirect pressure, and it is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act.
But there is a clearer injustice. A man who was injured some months ago, and who has been receiving compensation for a few months, went last Friday, a week after the Act came into operation, in the ordinary way to draw his sick pay. He had received his compensation from his employers, the Midland Railway Company, and went for his sick pay to the Midland Railway Club, of which he is a member. The company said, "No, so far as we are concerned you did not make the Midland your approved society, and therefore you do not continue to have sick pay as heretofore. All this clearly proves that there is pressure. Here was a man who was injured prior to the Act. At least he should go on as if the Act were in operation; but, as I say, all these things clearly prove one of two things: either that these clubs are being sanctioned and approved contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act, or, if it is not so, then the intention, as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not being given effect to. I speak with a view of drawing attention to these particular anomalies, because, after all, anyone who has attempted to administer this Act cannot do other than appreciate the magnitude of the whole question. One has had only to attempt to deal with it even in a limited sense to realise what a gigantic task it was. I am not speaking critically in the sense that I feel the Commissioners have been negligent, but rather to draw attention to these anomalies which are prejudicing the men unnecessarily, and which are causing friction in the early stages of the Act that should not be 1751 caused. It is because, I believe, that in the end the Act will be beneficial that I am genuinely anxious to at least give every friendly society, every trade union, and every other society a fair, open chance to do its best under the Act that I think the Commissioners should realise that their duty is to hold no brief for any particular organisation, either employer or employé, trade union or friendly society, but to treat everyone on an equal footing and administer the Act in that spirit.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I notice that a large item under this Vote is for salaries, wages, and allowances. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether any of this sum is to be applied towards the remuneration of the Excise officers who are being asked by the Commissioners to give information and advice to persons in their districts who might desire it. We are told that the persons who require information should apply to their local Excise officer. In many districts, however, the Excise officer does not visit a particular village, it may be for a week or a fortnight at a time. In such cases it is very difficult for the persons living on the spot to obtain the information required. Assuming that they find the Excise officer, a very general experience is that with the duties that they have to carry out as old age pensions officers, combined with their various other duties, relating to the Excise, the officers really have not time to devote to the large number of applications received from almost every quarter. These applications are to a very large extent to the effect that the persons making them desire exemption altogether from the provisions of the National Insurance Act. I understand that something like 100,000 claims for exemption have been sent to the Excise officers. These they have been wholly unable to attend to, because they have not had the time to do so, if they are to carry out the other duties for which they are paid. I should like to ask whether any additional provision is being made for the remuneration of these officers, and whether any additional number of officers are being provided in order to carry out the duties which these gentlemen have not time to carry out?
In the second place I want to refer shortly to the position of the small societies, and to the way in which the small societies are being treated, 1752 owing to the system of urging insured persons to join an approved society as soon as possible. The position of the small societies was discussed when the Insurance Bill was passing through this House. It was then pointed out that the way to save the small societies was for them to become associated under Section 37 of the Act. The system of association which was propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House seems not to be favoured at the Commissioners' offices. During the last few weeks there has been sent out an extremely unintelligible and intricate circular to those who are interested in small societies, urging them to adopt one of three courses, which, if I remember aright, are described as, Centralisation, Affiliation, and Association. It is extremely difficult for a person well acquainted with the provisions of the Act, and one who has received a comparatively good education, to understand the intricacies of this circular, but it is wholly impossible for the officials of a small village society to understand it at all! The result has been absolute confusion in many districts, whereas before the issue of this circular there was a fair chance of carrying out association in a county federation or otherwise, for the purposes of the Act, as was originally intended, and as was suggested to this House.
I think it was wrong at the eleventh hour, and shortly before 15th July, to issue a circular of this kind, which has tended to confuse so many minds. The confusion does not rest there, because in many districts—I think it is particularly so in the North of England—there have been agencies at work with a view of trying to persuade members of these small societies to join other and larger organisations. I am sure that the methods adopted are methods which the right hon. Gentleman will cordially disapprove of. I feel I can say that before I put the case. The agents of certain societies—and unless I am pressed I am not going to mention names—have during the last, few weeks been approaching not merely prospective insured persons, but their employers, in order to point out the supposed advantage of joining their particular societies; and they have not merely tried to influence the employer, but they have tried to bring pressure upon the workmen to leave their own small societies and join those particular large organisations; 1753 and they have gone so far as to make it worth the while of foremen and others in authority, by means of commission or otherwise, to induce their fellows to join these societies. The result is that these men are being drafted away in many cases from the smaller societies into the bigger organisations, and the employers are encouraging them to go. Many of these large societies are making it known that they intend, in the middle of October, to collect the contribution cards, and so save trouble to those concerned.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
I do not quite see the point that the hon. Member is putting or how it can be connected with the administration of the Act in regard to this Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. C. BATHURST
With all due respect, I assume that some of these salaries, wages, and allowances, of which there is an extraordinary increase in this Vote, are for the purpose of the National Insurance Office, and what I am seeking to criticise is the method of the National Insurance Health Commissioners in not putting a stop to this practice, and what I am about to suggest is that the time has arrived when in my opinion a circular ought to be issued to the employers informing them that it is no business of theirs to choose a society for their work people, and in the second place that intimation ought to be given in like manner to the working men making it perfectly clear that they will be no way prejudiced in their employment by joining any society that is likely to be approved. There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention, and that is to the poster which has been displayed during the last fortnight upon church doors and other public places to the effect that it is desirable that all employed contributors should take the earliest opportunity of joining an approved society because if they do not they will become deposit contributors and lose all the chief benefits of Health Insurance. What is the effect of that? We all know that the small societies have taken, and must take, a longer time to become approved than the large societies which are better staffed and better organised. Most of these small societies have not yet become approved. What is the result? Any employed contributor reading this notice at once says to himself, I shall lose the benefit 1754 of National Health Insurance unless I at once belong to one of these large societies which have become approved. I venture to say that this notice has done a large amount of harm to the small societies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury have professed so much their interest in. It is only with a view to drawing attention to these matters that I have risen at all, but I am bound to say that I think there is an enormous amount of confusion in the Commissioners' administration, and although I for one am doing all in my power to exhort law-abiding citizens to carry out the Act, whether they like it or not, I think it is hard that those interested in the village societies should have to meet with all the difficulties to which I have referred, and for which the Commissioners are, to a large extent, responsible.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of this Vote complained of the meagre opportunities that have been given for impeaching the administration of the Insurance Act. Hon. Members opposite have had six opportunities in six months of full Debate since the Act has been launched, but they have been reluctant to use these opportunities, and the only criticism I make of them is that the strength of the attacks by hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to lessen each time, and on each occasion they seem to show greater reluctance in bringing these matters before the House. And there is a singular discrepancy between the impeachment of the Act in this House and the impeachment of their administration of the Act when that impeachment is made in the country. On every opportunity we ask our critics to bring before this House and assize of public opinion something of the impeachment of the administration which is spoken of so freely in the country by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We know what is said in the dark cannot stand the survey of the light of day.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Well, as there has been criticism of the administration of the Act, and as this is a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the administration of the Act, I think we have a perfect 1755 right to defend its administration. This is the only opportunity we get of defending its administration from impeachment made outside. We are told that there is chaos, confusion, absolute muddle. Every effort has been made to impeach the administration of the Act, and I have few-opportunities—except on occasions like this—to defend the Insurance Commissioners from statements of that kind. I am glad to exclude the hon. Member who has just sat down from any such futile attacks as have been made upon the Act outside. I shall try to deal with the points raised as effectively as I can. If you examine the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite you will see that they are very far from the mark. This is a new service, a great Government Department, which will, I suppose, be one of the largest of all the Departments of the Government, dealing with the insurance of 14,000,000 of people in the country. It had to be very largely experimental, and we should be very much open to criticism if at the very beginning we were to ask in the first Estimate that large sums of money should be voted without being able to go into details or to give justification for these large sums. Everyone who understood what was going on recognised that as soon as the conditions were settled and the staff increased, and as soon as the Report of the Mowatt Committee had been given, a Supplementary Estimate would of necessity be required. When you consider what the Supplementary Estimates are in the recurring Estimates, and what they are in the initial expenditure, any fair-minded man must recognise what an extraordinarily small amount we are asking for to work such a gigantic scheme of social reform. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Rupert Gwynne) made a statement for which he had no warrant when he stated that the Commission was formed to represent certain interests. Of course, it was formed for nothing of the kind. The Commissioners were appointed from all those who had special knowledge of the various classes of employment which were going to be gathered in under the general title of insured persons. They were appointed on account of their knowledge of the various interests affected and their special knowledge of the administration of the Act. If the hon. Member for East-bourne had been present at any single meeting of the Commissioners, he would 1756 have understood that there was no question of the representation of any particular interests; nor are their meetings carried out by a kind of wrangle between the Commissioners, ending in a vote, in which the majority votes down the minority. It is so far different from that wild picture that I cannot understand where the hon. Member got his information.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNE
I asked to be informed how the Commissioners arrived at their decision, and whether they voted or not.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
At any rate, the hon. Gentleman made an attack upon the Commissioners. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) asked me certain specific questions.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The hon. Member for Derby asked me questions of a more serious nature concerning the action of approved societies. I agree there has been from a very small number, not 1 per cent, of the general body of insured persons, certain complaints in connection with approved societies, but I do not think the hon. Member will find that in administration the Commissioners have gone outside the boundaries of the Act. It is true that the Act definitely laid down that no employers' society should make it a condition of employment that the men should belong to a particular society, but it was not laid down in the Act that no employers' society should offer special advantages to persuade men to join approved societies. He recognised that the great organised body which the hon. Member represents did offer counter advantages in order that the men should join approved societies. As to the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst), his points always require serious and courteous answers. In the first place, the hon. Member asks whether there was any sum in the Estimates which we set down to remunerate the Excise officers for their special work. No such sum was set down in these Estimates. The Excise officers had been called upon to deal with special work, and in consideration of that special work they have been given certain special privileges. It is true that there has been a large addition to the staff of the Customs and Excise in order to cope with this particular work, and 1757 there has also been a larger number of promotions in the service. For reasons which the hon. Member opposite will understand, I do not wish to commit myself beyond that at the present time. The Excise officers are doing excellent work with the greatest energy and devotion and, of course, if on examination it is found that they have been subjected to a very large amount of overwork, that will have to be considered in the future. I cannot go beyond that statement at the present moment. The hon. Member further stated that he thought we had been unfair to the small societies, but I can assure him that if he had been a member of the Commission he would realise that if we had definitely decided to brush away the small societies, or even let the normal condition take its course and no effort made to save the small societies, the result would not have been so satisfactory.
§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I do not wish to suggest that the Chairman or the Commission has been unfair to the small societies.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
We have appointed special officers to visit the country societies to facilitate their being approved individually or joined together as affiliated societies or associations. It seems probable that there will be a large number of these societies. Some of them have been already approved, and many of them are on the verge of being approved, and the whole effort of the Commission, as was acknowledged in another place, has been that none of these small societies should be destroyed, but all of them, in so far as they possessed any claim to be called insurance societies, should be woven up in the great fabric of national health insurance. He complains of our urging men and women to join approved societies; but I am quite sure the Commission are right in urging men and women not to delay in this matter. At the present moment no doubt there is very great competition to get insured persons to join approved societies, and all sorts of societies have engaged in that competition. The small and large friendly societies are competing for members, and without medical examination they enrol them as members, and so the prophecies as laid down in last October and November by hon. Gentlemen opposite have proved wrong in this respect. We were told every one who could not pass a medical examination would be squeezed out and would have to become deposit con- 1758 tributors, and even wilder suggestions were made.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the right hon. Gentleman is now trespassing upon matters which I have ruled out of order.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I am very sorry, but I assure you, Mr. Maclean, that I am doing my best to keep within your ruling. My argument is that the advice given is right, and not wrong, to urge men and women as soon as possible to get into approved societies. In a very few months' time it is exceedingly doubtful whether people will receive such liberal conditions, and it is doubtful if they become deposit contributors whether they will not have to go through some special test. If men join new approved societies, and afterwards find societies which specially meet their needs, they can apply for a transference, and that cannot be unreasonably withheld, and there will be no attempt to withhold it in the first few weeks of the operation of the Insurance Act. I am sure we are right in urging forward the importance of persons joining approved societies immediately. Then the hon. Gentleman said that confusion existed in the Insurance Office, though he said he would do his best to reduce that confusion. In all seriousness, I ask, "Where is the confusion that exists?" We had the most elaborate prophecies of it. We were told on the highest authority the whole of the administration had broken down, that the Commissioners were in despair, and that they wanted to throw up their job and were only kept in it by the indomitable fury of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How remote that was from the actual facts I, who was spending many hours every day in connection with the administration of the Insurance Act, knew. You can never argue against prophecy. The only thing to do is to wait with what patience you have until events prove how foolish that prophecy is.
I submit the results which have been seen in a fortnight only of the working of the Insurance Act have proved the folly of the prophecies which were so freely indulged in on the other side of the House. What is the actual state of affairs? I agree there might a priori have been ground at the beginning for prophesying confusion. The magnitude of the task set before the Commisisoners of introducing a system of insurance, which was a new 1759 system in this country, affecting three-quarters of the population to come into, and of dealing with over 13,000,000 people and with every variety of trade and industry in what I suppose is the most complex commercial society in the world, might have given ground for the belief that they would not be adequate for it. It would have been a difficult task if hon. Members had freely accepted the Acv and had freely helped the administration instead of putting every obstacle they could in the way of it. It would have been easier if we could have laid down an iron systematic State scheme, instead of doing what we have done and which the Commissioners have certainly succeeded in doing with a success beyond my expectation—sweeping into one universal system all the great approved societies that have had anything to do with insurance of any sort or kind. They have had to create a great Government Department operating in four countries, they have had to create a vast machinery of regulations and local administration, and they have had to deal with special cases such as out-workers or tuberculous sufferers, in respect of whom we have received assistance from some hon. Gentlemen opposite; and, from the first week I had to defend the administration, we were subjected in this House to the fiercest attack, not on the Act, but on the administration of the Act, The Commissioners were accused of corruption in their appointment; they were accused of corruption in the spending of public money; and, when those charges of corruption were refuted, they were accused of incompetence and of confusion, and of wishing not to have anything to do with the Act.
That statement is entirely untrue. I made no such charge whatever. The right hon. Gentleman has no business, on the spur of the moment, to bring against me a charge for which he has no foundation.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
If the hon. Gentleman repudiates it, I certainly withdraw it 1760 as far as he is concerned. All I know is that for weeks I have had to answer questions put by hon. Gentlemen opposite suggesting these were party appointments, and suggesting public money was being spent on Liberal propagandism, charges which were utterly unworthy of the party opposite.
§ Mr. FLAVIN
The hon. Member charged the Government with making political appointments under the Insurance Act.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
All the appointments were made by the Commissioners. What are the facts? The Commissioners have issued thirty different varieties of leaflets, with a circulation of 75,000,000 and all the examination which hon. Gentlemen opposite and their Friends have been able to give to those leaflets has shown no single flaw in them, nothing inaccurate as far as the Act is concerned, and nothing partial. One hundred and ten lecturers have given 5,000 lectures to 40,000 officials of approved societies, and to 900,000 members of the public; and in spite of the most minute examination and criticism not one statement made by those lecturers has been impeached in this House or outside. I should like to pay a special tribute to the work done by the Customs and Excise Department and by the Post Office, and especially to the work which has been done by the Stationery Office, unprecedented I think in the history of this country, without a flaw, without a break, and really without criticism in launching this gigantic scheme of reform. The hon. Gentleman said societies have not been approved. Eleven hundred Societies have been approved up to this present date.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Including a number of small village societies and affiliated village societies. What was the experience in this House and outside before 15th July? Continual prophecies of disaster, and columns of statements as to the chaos and confusion in the Insurance Commission offices. There was a general prophecy, stimulated by a general wish, that the Act would break down in the first week. One of the great newspapers said in response to a protest from myself that the whole of the administration of the Act has broken down. What are the actual facts?
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Will the hon. Gentleman get up and say to this House what his friends have been saying in Crewe? What are the facts? A sudden silence amongst all these newspapers as to the chaos and confusion, an amazing absence of friction far greater than anything I foresaw in the launching of a new Act, and the statement that the Act would break down in the first week by one of the greatest newspapers of this country has been turned into the statement that there was a "lack of enthusiasm' in the operation of the Act. What are the facts as to the administration in respect of approved societies? Before the Act came into operation my right hon. Friend was able to announce the shattering figures, that 9,500,000 of 13,000,000 who would be compulsorily insured were already members of approved societies. That was altered to over 10,000,000 the day after the Act came into operation, and now without a doubt it is over 10,500,000. I think that is a moderate estimate of the insured persons who are now members of approved societies. What about the payments that are being made? In the first week of the Act before the first substantial payments were made 15,396,000 Insurance Stamps had been sold. In addition to that 1,250,000 insured persons were having their payments made through bulk insurance, that is payment by cheque on deposit, including over 100,000 who were being paid through Labour Exchanges, giving an aggregate of something like 16,600,000 of stamps which had been bought for the payment of contributions under the Insurance Act. I hope before Parliament rises to be able to give certain figures up to date as to the second week of the Act. The report of our inspectors, north, south, east, and west, is that the Act is working with smoothness and celerity and with satisfaction to all parties concerned. Certain foolish persons in limited areas of the country have declared themselves resisters and adopted a policy of anarchism, which I do not think they would have done if they had not been encouraged by most injudicious statements by the party opposite. I think the approved societies will see in the future administration of the Act that the interests of insured persons will not suffer thereby. When it is remembered that, not only is there a penalty under the Act for taking such a course, but that anyone who chooses to refuse to 1762 stamp the card of insured persons will have the privilege, not only of paying his own contribution, but the contribution of the insured persons, it will be realised that what they are pleased to call their resistance may prove more uncomfortable for themselves. But, after all, they are a small and negligible quantity.
The great mass of the employers of this country have freely and willingly accepted the duty, and it is the testimony of the employers which has surprised me. One great employer, a Member of this House, came to me and said, "I waited until the Saturday before the Act came into operation, and took no action in regard to it. But on that Saturday I called my employés together; told them that the payments under the Act would begin next week, and that consequently I had better inform them about it. The whole of these employés, with the exception of three out of something over 1,000, immediately produced their insurance cards, told me that they knew all about the Act, and all they wanted was that I would be good enough to stamp the cards. When I came to inquire how they became insured, I found there were almost as many societies represented as there were insured persons." I have been told over and over again of cases in which practically whole bodies of working people have obtained insurance cards without any pressure from the employers, and have joined approved societies, utterly indifferent to the hubbub going on, thus showing once more the sound common sense of the working classes. What about the experience of the Insurance Commission? Up to the date of the commencement of the Act they were receiving and answering correspondence at the rate of about 7,000 letters per day. Since the Act has come into operation that correspondence has fallen steadily, showing without a shadow of doubt that a very great number of the problems which confronted the people have been solved by the active operation of the Act, and instead of the Act resulting in great confusion, chaos and unpopularity, its commencement, and every day since its commencement, has shown that the working people understand it and approve of the conditions under which it is worked.
I have only one remark to make in conclusion, I have no criticism to make on the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the Act when it was passing through Parliament. Indeed, I should not be in order if I attempted to pass criticism 1763 on that. But I think the record of their action in connection with the administration of the Act during the past six months is a record which history will declare to be one of the most discreditable. My hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire was justified in asking me the other day whether in any nation in which a contributory national insurance scheme had been established such action has been performed by any large body of responsible persons such as has been performed by the party opposite.
I thought you ruled, Sir, that we were to be confined to discussing the administration of the Act. It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the action of the Opposition.
§ Mr. FLAVIN
Surely the right hon. Gentleman has a right to reply to the criticisms made by hon. Members above the Gangway.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think I am in full possession of the facts. I have already drawn the attention of the Committee to the somewhat severe limitations by which we are bound in dealing with Supplementary Estimates, and I have already, on two occasions, asked the right hon. Gentleman to confine himself within those limits. I gather he is just bringing his remarks to a conclusion.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Yes. As a matter of fact, I was replying to a definite statement made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the existence of confusion and chaos in connection with the administration of the Act, and I was endeavouring to keep within the bounds of order. These criticisms and these attacks are on the administration of the Insurance Act, which is now the law of the land, and which ought to be carried out impartially, and with the support of all persons, especially those who believe in a contributory system. This administration might have broken down but for two things, and these I will frankly confess to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first is the amazing work done by the Insurance Commission. I should certainly be lacking in my sense of public duty if I did not take this opportunity of giving the fullest possible credit to the men who have accomplished so great a work in so short a space of time. 1764 The second reason why the administration has not been broken down is this: those who wished for the administration to break down altogether underestimated what the attitude of the working people would be towards it. We appealed to the sagacity, common sense, and self-respect of the working people of this country, and we have not appealed in vain.
I am going to endeavour to keep myself within the bounds of order, but it is almost necessary for me to deal with some of the statements made by the Secretary for the Treasury. It is true he escaped with three calls to order. I will try to keep within that limit at least in the few remarks I propose to address to the Committee. I do not think there is anyone on whichever side of the House he sits, who does not recognise that the chief and only reason why the Act has not broken down in administration is that the Government have secured remarkable assistance from the Insurance Commissioners. If it had not been that they had got in the Insurance Commissioners, and in the Department, the pick of the service, this great Act could not possibly have survived the initial efforts which tried to bring it into force. But when the Secretary to the Treasury asks us to believe it is working with smoothness and celerity and satisfactorily, he is asking us to believe something which is not obvious to the eyes of those who are looking on, and who are not privileged to know what is going on inside the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have made a most unjustifiable attack on my hon. Friends who have addressed the Committee, each one of whom has been animated by a desire to bring before the Government certain points in connection with the administration of the Act, and if hon. Members opposite had listened to their speeches, they would have known that that was the case. My hon. Friends brought before the Secretary to the Treasury certain points connected with the administration of the Act, most of which the right hon. Gentleman has found it more convenient to pass by in silence. He asked us to believe that this Act was working now with great smoothness and satisfaction, because 1,100 societies and branches had been approved. I do not know if he remembers the total number of friendly societies which were in existence.
Well, 1,100 societies, including small societies, have been approved. I remember that there were 6,000 friendly societies with a number of members under 10,000, and many more above that number, so that at the best all that the Secretary to the Treasury can point to at the moment is that about one-sixth or one-seventh of the existing friendly societies, which were carrying on work before the Act came into operation, have obtained approval. We know that, in addition to these, trade unions, industrial insurance societies, and many others have come in as approved societies, so that I do not suppose I am putting it too high when I say that not one-eighth of the existing friendly societies, and probably not one-tenth of them, have become approved under the Act. The Secretary to the Treasury made the very interesting statement that there are 9½ millions of members of the approved societies which had sent in their returns at the time of the Woodford speech, or within a week after the Woodford speech, and that there are now 10½ millions out of the thirteen millions in approved societies. Will the right hon. Gentleman complete that information? Can he say how many of these were members of friendly societies existing at the time the Act came into operation, how many new members these friendly societies have got, and how many of the new members have gone to the industrial insurance societies and the trade unions? It would be extremely interesting if he would give us that information.
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS
The right hon. Gentleman has not taken my point. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimating that there were about 5 million members of friendly societies—probably 4½ millions, if you exclude duplicates.
That would be reduced to 4,500,000 if you exclude duplicates. What I want to know is how many out of the 10,500,000 now said to be members of approved societies belong to the old friendly societies and how many to the industrial insurance societies and the trade unions?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I understand the question put by the hon. Gentleman is this: How many of those who are now members of approved societies were members of the old societies?
That is not my question. My question is: How many members of approved societies now come within three categories: First, those who have joined a society which used to be a friendly society—of course, they have some new members; secondly, the industrial insurance societies have approved sections, how many have joined them; thirdly, the trade unions have approved sections, how many have joined them? Those are the three categories, and it will be very interesting if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us those figures.
The Secretary to the Treasury claimed—I do not know why—as some sort of evidence of the success of this scheme., that 16,600,000 stamps have been sold. Does he think that means that that number of people are insured, because I myself have rashly purchased £2 worth of stamps, and I have not the slightest doubt that many other hon. Members have done the same thing. They do not want to go to the Post Office every week for a sixpenny stamp, and they have bought them in advance. 16,600,000, instead of representing insured persons, may represent only one-half or one-fourth of that number. Why the Secretary to the Treasury quoted it at all, without any explanation, I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was no confusion, and he pointed to the work which had been done by the Outworkers Committee and the Tuberculosis Committee. He said that all things were going well, and that the Act was settling down into operation. He is most unfortunate in the examples that he chooses. He chose the outworkers. The outworkers case will be remembered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as by my hon. Friends, more especially by my hon. Friend the Member for South Somerset (Mr. Aubrey Herbert), who has very good reason to remember what has happened. Even now I understand that the wage earning unit has not been fixed; it is almost impossible to say what the outworkers are going to get by way of benefit, and the amount and method of their contribution has not been finally settled.
1767 With regard to the administration of the sanatorium benefit, again the right hon. Gentleman chose a most unfortunate example to show how well the Act is working. I was looking only yesterday at the report of one of the large County Council's County Insurance Committee. It is true they have appointed a Sanatoria Sub-Committee, but it has never met. It is true that they are going to have a Clerk to the Committee, but that clerk has not been appointed. That Committee is no more ready to administer the sanatorium benefit in that county than is the right hon. Gentleman himself. He said that sanatorium benefit does not only mean sanatorium treatment. That we all know. What was called the cod-liver-oil-treatment has to be approved by the Local Government Board, as well as by the Treasury, before it can be given. So far as I know, the Local Government Board have not yet prescribed the particular dose of cod-liver oil that is to be given as sanatorium treatment. The right hon. Gentleman also accused us of saying in the dark what we dare not say in the daylight. He accused us of saying something at Crewe which we dare not repeat in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently some hon. Members are found to support that. I spoke at Crewe. I do not know whether my speech was reported or not, but I am quite willing he should go through every single word in that speech, and I defy him to point to any single part of that speech which he could qualify, or that he thinks I ought to qualify.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Will the hon. Gentleman repeat in this House the most conspicuous placard and cartoon issued by his party at Crewe, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was charged with taking 4d. under the pretence of insurance from every working man and spending it in paying £400 to Members of Parliament?
The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual inaccuracy, has misquoted the poster. He has put words into it which are not in that poster, and hon. Members cheer his statement. I assume hon. Gentlemen opposite know what the poster was. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not intend, although the right hon. Gentleman has been three times called to Order, to go into that. I intend, if I can, to avoid being called to 1768 Order for dealing with matters entirely extraneous; but I will read, for the benefit of hon. Members opposite, something apropos of the sanatorium treatment which was used at Crewe. I have a document called the "Money Box." I believe the hon. Member (Mr. Chiozza Money) does not claim authorship. His portrait appears amongst others, but it is said not to have been named after him. At any rate it is called the "Money Box." This I am told was thrust into every household in Crewe. I will ask hon. Members if any single one of them can justify the statements in it.Up among the chimney pots, when the cats keep you awake at night, and the heavy air floats up at all hours from the hack yards and dustbins below, it is not possible to get properly well. Far away from the dust and din of cities they are being built near the sea or amongst moors and mountains.There is a sort of family likeness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that phraseology, and I am not at all sure that he will disown authorship of it.You can rest there, tended night and day by skilled hands, until you hare quite recovered health and strength.Would hon. Members believe that there is not a single sanatorium at present being built either on moor or mountain owing to the Insurance Act? There is a sum of £1,600,000 set apart for the purpose, but what is stated here is that when you cannot get well among the chimney pots you can go up to the moors and mountains and rest in a sanatorium provided under the Insurance Act. No more untrue statement could possibly be issued in support of the Insurance Act. When the right hon. Gentleman challenges us about a poster which he misquotes he ought to look home amongst his own people. This is an official document issued by the Liberal Insurance Committee.
am quite willing to take responsibility for it, and if the right hon. Gentleman will study it along with the statement that he made about five minutes ago, he will see where he needs to correct his statement. There are other matters which I should like to discuss, but it seems almost impossible. We are allowed an hour and a half to deal with sums aggregating £2,266,000. The original Estimate for sickness insurance for this year was £2,032,300, including various items -which appear on other Votes.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
These are the figures the hon. Member asked for—Friendly societies and trade unions 6,000,000, industrial insurance societies 4,500,000.
These are not new members, but the figures including those who were members before the commencement of the Act. Five and a half milions were members of trade unions and friendly societies, getting sickness benefit, subject to duplicates, and now the duplicates are eliminated.
That was never a definite figure. It was 4,500,000 or 4,000,000. Assuming that it was 4,000,000, it appears that the friendly societies and trade unions between them have succeeded in getting 2,000,000 new members, and the industrial insurance offices have 4,500,000 new members.
It being Tea of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under discussion.
§ Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,400, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 301.1773
|Division No. 168.]||AYES.||[10.2 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dixon, C. H.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Duke, Henry Edward||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han.S.)|
|Astor, Waldorf||Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||MacCaw, W. J. MacGeagh|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Baird, J. L.||Falle, B. G.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Fell, Arthur||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Malcolm, Ian|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Fletcher, John Samuel||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Barnston, Harry||Gibbs, George Abraham||Newman, John R. P.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Glimour, Captain J.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Nield, Herbert|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Goldsmith, Frank||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Grant, J. A.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Greene, Walter Raymond||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Gretton, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Bird, Alfred||Haddock, George Bahr||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid.)||Hamersley, A. St. George||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Harris, Henry Percy||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Burgoyne, A. H.||Hickman, Colonel T. E.||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, J. G.||Hills, J. W.||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Campion, W. R.||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hohler, G. F.||Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)|
|Cassel, Felix||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Cator, John||Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Cautley, H. S.||Horner, A. L.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Cave, George||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hume-Williams, W. E.||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender||Kerry, Earl of||Stanler, Beville|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Kimber, Sir Henry||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feethum||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Craig, E. (Ches., Crewe)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End||Swift, Rigby|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lloyd, G. A.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C, Scott||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Talbot, Lord E.||Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)||Wheler, Granville C. H.||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Tobin, Alfred Aspinall||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)||Yerburgh, Robert|
|Touche, George Alexander||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud||Younger, Sir George|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Walker, Col. William Hall||Wolmer, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. R.|
|Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Wood, John (Stalybridge)||Gwynne and Mr. Worthington'Evans.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lansbury, George|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Elverston, Sir Harold||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumg'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Leach, Charles|
|Alden, Percy||Essex, Richard Walter||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Falconer, J.||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Farrell, James Patrick||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Armitage, R.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Lundon, Thomas|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Ffrench, Peter||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Fltzgibbon, John||Lynch, Arthur Alfred|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury E.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||France, G. A.||Macdonaid, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Furness, Stephen||McGhee, Richard|
|Barnes, G. N.||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)|
|Barton, William||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Glanville, Harold James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Greig, Col. J. W.||Manfield, Harry|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Griffith, Ellis J.||Martin, J.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Boland, John Pius||Hackett, J.||Meagher, Michael|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Hancock, J. G.||Middlebrook, William|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Brady, P. J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Molloy, M.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Mond, Sir Alfred M.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harwood, George||Mooney, J. J.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morrell, Phillip|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Morison, Hector|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Hayden, John Patrick||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hayward, Evan||Muldoon, John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)||Munro, Robert|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Henry, Sir Charles S.||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clough, William||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Needham, Christopher, T.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Higham, John Sharp||Neilson, Francis|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Hinds, John||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Hodge, John||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hogge, James Myles||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cotton, William Francis||Holt, Richard Durning||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Crooks, William||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Dowd, John|
|Crumley, Patrick||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Ogden, Fred|
|Cullinan, J.||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||O'Grady, James|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Malley, William|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|De Forest, Baron||Jowett, F. W.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Delany, William||Joyce, Michael||O'Shee, James John|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Keating M.||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Devlin, Joseph||Kellaway, Frederick George||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Kelly, Edward||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Dillon, John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kilbride, Denis||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Doris, W.||King, J. (Somerset, North)||Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)|
|Duffy, William J.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Pointer, Joseph||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Pollard, Sir George H.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Scanlan, Thomas||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Wardle, George J.|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.||Webb, H.|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Sheehy, David||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Sherwell, Arthur James||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Shortt, Edward||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Radford, George Heynes||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Raffan, Peter Wilson||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Raphael, Sir Herbert H.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Snowden, P.||wiles, Thomas|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Seames, Arthur Wellesley||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Reddy, Michael||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Summers, James Woolley||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, West)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Sutherland, J. E.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Sutton, John E.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Tennant, Harold John||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Yoxall, Sir. James Henry|
|Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Rowlands, James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Rowntree, Arnold||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Verney, Sir Harry|
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each class of the Civil Service Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding for the Navy and Army (including Ordnance Factories) and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the said Services, as denned in those Classes and Estimates:—