§ 23. Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, after referring to 1773 the proceedings on the Committee stage on the National Insurance Bill, 1911, he still maintains that it was the intention of the Government that Section 109 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, should not apply to Scotland?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer is in the affirmative. On the Committee stage the hon. and learned Member advocated the extension of Section 109 to Scotland as well as to Ireland. Between the Committee and Report stages the question was carefully considered, and it was decided that in Ireland, where as in England, outdoor relief was administered by boards of guardians, and the relief is subject to control by the Local Government Board, the Section might properly be applied. In Scotland, however, the Scottish Local Government Board were of opinion that, in view of the differences in the Poor Law system, which is administered by parish councils instead of boards of guardians, and does not provide for the relief being subject as in England and Ireland to control by order of the Local Government Board, the extension of the Section was not desirable and would indeed, in the absence of such control, have been ineffective.
§ Mr. CASSELIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Amendment I moved in Committee was with a view of placing the three countries on the same footing; that the Attorney-General acceded to the reasonableness of the arguments I put forward, and said that he would take steps to see that the proper Amendments were inserted; that no opportunity whatever was allowed on the Report stage to consider the Amendment?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe Attorney-General said that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman were deserving of consideration—with which everyone will agree—and that he was willing, if any hon. Member could show that there was injustice, that he would put it right on Report. The matter was very carefully considered by the Scottish Office, and on reconsideration the Scottish Office thought it was undesirable to make a change.
§ Mr. CASSELIs there any reason why persons in Scotland should be treated on a different footing; why in their case should the provision be that any payment not exceeding 5s. should be taken into account under the Act on account of outdoor relief; and why should the provision 1774 not apply to Scotland as well as England and Ireland?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI cannot go back upon the decision of the House of Commons; all I can say is that it was carefully considered by the Scottish Local Government Board, and we acted on the advice of the Scottish Local Government Board.
Major HOPEIf that is so, why was it necessary for the Secretary for Scotland to state that he was making further inquiries as to the views and practice of parish councils in the matter—why was it necessary if the matter was all settled?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt might be necessary; if there is any grievance such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is very desirable that there should be further inquiries.