§ Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he proposes to take to carry out the terms of the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for West Cumberland on Wednesday last with regard to the co-operation of the medical profession in working the National Insurance Act, and accepted by him on behalf of the Government; and (2) how many deputations he received from the British Medical Association before the introduction of the National Insurance Bill on 4th May, 1911, and on what dates; did he, before the introduction of the Bill, invite representations from the British-Medical Association; and did he afford the association any opportunity of becoming acquainted before 4th May with the special provisions of the Bill affecting the medical profession?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI would refer the hon. Member to the answers to these questions which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT for yesterday. I have nothing to add to these answers except, with regard to the latter, I had overlooked the fact that, in addition to the deputation to which I have already referred, I received a deputation from, members of the medical profession in my room at this House at the beginning of the year 1911.
§ Mr. PEELMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the doctors were appointed to the Advisory Committee so long ago as 16th March, and, if so, how is it that the Committee is only going to meet for the first-time, as I understand, next Friday—nearly two months after the doctors had nominated their members?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat does not quite arise out of the answer which I gave, but I may be allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman. The Advisory Committee does not consist merely of members of the medical profession. We had to get nominations from the great employers' associations in the country, the friendly societies, the trade unions, and several other bodies. The Advisory Committee meets on Friday to consider the Regulations. They were not ready for consideration earlier.
§ Mr. PEELMay I ask whether, in view of the report of the actuaries, it is really 215 any use for the doctors to be allowed to present their case to the Commissioners as regards further payment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.
§ Mr. PEELI put down these two questions yesterday, and then I postponed them until to-day. I find, to my intense surprise, that the answer to one of them is set out in the public Press. May I ask whether it as not the case that if a Member of the House asks that a question should be postponed, he is entitled to have that request complied with?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt may sometimes happen that though notice of the withdrawal or postponement of a question has been given at the Table here, notice may not have been given to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was not aware of the question being postponed. He had no intimation of the question being postponed, and he supposed that as it had not been reached at a quarter before four o'clock the answer should be printed in the usual way.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI was here right to the end of the answers to questions. I received no notice of the two questions which the hon. Member for Taunton had on the Paper being postponed. I was not aware that they were postponed until today, and that being so, they were published in the ordinary course.
§ Mr. W. PEELI certainly understood that it was enough to give notice at the Table and that one need not give notice to the Minister. The answer to one of these questions was not sent to me at all. Surely, when an hon. Member asks a question, he has a prior right to have the question sent to him before it is sent to the Press.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIs it not a fact that the whole of the names of the Advisory Committee were published on the 16th of March, and that the real cause of the delay in meeting was due to mistake in the Act which has since been amended by Regulation?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am informed that this has actually nothing to do with it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat I cannot answer without notice. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is correct.
§ Mr. PEELWith reference to the question I asked just now of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor complained that notice had not been given to him that two of my questions had been postponed until to-day. I gave notice in the ordinary way at the Table that the questions were postponed, and I find that his secretary was informed that the questions had been postponed until to-day. I therefore submit I am entitled to have those questions answered orally, and instead of that I understand the answers were circulated with the Votes. The answer to one is sent to me, and the answer to the other is not. Of course in this way it is very easy for Ministers to avoid supplementary questions being asked. I think I am entitled when notice is properly given to have questions answered orally at the Table, in order to put supplementary questions if necessary.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have nothing to add to what I said. I was here to the very end of questions to answer the questions of the hon. Gentleman. I received no notice.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, I beg your pardon, my secretary did not receive the notice before the end of questions. I was here right to the end, and if the hon. Member had only had the civility to give notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The hon. Member is complaining of my conduct, and suggesting that I was trying to avoid supplementary questions. I say if he had only the ordinary courtesy to give notice to the Minister that he was going to postpone his questions, then I would have taken the usual steps.
§ Lord BALCARRESMay I ask, as a question of procedure, as it is impossible to know how many questions are going to be reached day after day—to-day, I think, seventy-two being reached, and yesterday, I think, ninety-six or ninety-seven—is it not sufficient practice for hon. Members who desire to postpone their questions to the following day to give notice to the learned Clerks at the Table before 3.45 o'clock, in which case notice of the question may appear on the Order Book; and the Minister who answers the question, in handing in his replies to the official recorders, does not hand in the reply to that 217 question, of which he then has notice that postponement has been effected. May I ask for your ruling as to the ordinary procedure of the House on that point?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord is quite correct. It is sufficient for an hon. Member to go to the Clerk at the Table and ask to have his question postponed, and, provided he goes to the Table before a quarter to four o'clock, the question is postponed. I understand that what generally happens is that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister, before he hands in the replies, goes to the Table and asks whether any question has been postponed. Those that are postponed he ought to hold back, and in the case of those that are not postponed he hands the answers in at the Table.
§ Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSPerhaps, as the matter affects me slightly, I may explain. In order to oblige the official reporters, an advance copy is sent down early so that the answers to the questions may not be delayed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. When a Member postpones his question, it sometimes happens that it gets through, whereas the others are stopped. Yesterday all copies of the questions were stopped, except that of the official reporter, and the question which the hon. Member did not ask I think did not appear in the Press, and was not sent to him. The one that appeared in the Press was sent to him.
§ Mr. PEELWith regard to the charge of incivility, I have constantly postponed questions and asked them the next day. What I did yesterday was in the ordinary course. I have never before given notice to the Minister; it has always been given to the learned Clerks at the Table. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the charge of discourtesy.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member rather brought it on himself by suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done something in order to avoid supplementary questions.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWith regard to my question, the complaint I desire to make is that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer it, but referred to an answer which he had given yesterday, although notice of postponement had been given at the beginning of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give me a specific answer to-day. He merely referred to a printed answer, without letting the 218 House know what the answer was, and of which a copy had never been sent to me at all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman, at any rate, did not accuse me of deliberately refusing to answer his question. Therefore it is in a different category. If a copy of the answer was not supplied to him I regret it. It ought to have been sent, and I have already given instructions that an official copy shall be sent to him. With regard to my answer to-day, I only referred him to an answer which appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that sufficient, I am sorry.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTIs it not the case that, as a matter of convenience, answers are occasionaly sent to the Press direct from the Department concerned, and unless hon. Members give notice to the Minister or his secretary, would it not be very difficult to stop them?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not know what happens about that. That does not come within my cognisance at all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI generally receive notice from hon. Members opposite when questions are postponed. I have made inquiries among my colleagues, who inform me that they also generally receive notice of the postponement of questions. Therefore, I think I have a right to complain that I did not receive it on this occasion.
§ Mr. PEELThat notice of postponement is given only when a Member will not be present and wishes to ask the question another day. My notice of postponement was one of those given in the five minutes before quarter to four—the only time when it could be given, because the question was not likely to be reached that day.
§ Mr. KINGIn order to avoid any difficulty in future, may I point out that I and forty other Members have not had our questions answered to-day. Is it open to us at the last moment just before a quarter to four to go in a body to the Clerk at the Table and ask for those questions to be postponed until the next day? Also, if we have that right, is it a practical policy which can be carried through?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe answer is yes. I would point out that there is another and 219 still simpler way of getting questions answered, and that is by not asking so many supplementary questions.