§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,000, 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 Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTI beg to move, "That Item B (Horses and Carts and Carriage) be reduced by £1,000."
Of all these Votes there is none more extraordinary and none which requires more explanation than the items which are now before the Committee. At the commencement of this Session a very generous Estimate was made with regard to stationery and printing expenses, and it was pointed out in this House that that Estimate was made in consequence of the increased cast of paper, charges for printing, increased labour bill, and, above all, the unexpected and unparalleled expenditure in connection with National Insurance. In the light of that very generous estimate this Supplementary Estimate is simply astounding. I invite the Committee to look at the several items connected with salaries, wages, and allowances under this head, which show an increase of no less than 20 per cent. on the original Estimate. The item for horses, carts, and carriage shows an increase of 180 per cent., printing for public Departments an increase of 20 per cent., paper for public Departments an increase of 25 per cent., printing papers, binding, etc., for Stationery Office publications an increase of 40 per cent., making an average increase of something like 17½ per cent. upon the whole Vote. I think the Committee is entitled to a much more detailed explanation of these items than appears on the Paper placed in our hands. I assume that a very large proportion of this expenditure is in connection with the leaflets, and the regulations and printing 616 of the papers supplied for the purpose of the National Insurance Health Commission.
In answer to a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman about a fortnight ago, I learned that up to date there had been something like £250,000 expended in connection with the National Health Insurance Office upon leaflets and other publications and papers in connection with the National Insurance Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been well spent."] I very much question it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in the prosperity of the printing trade, but if he is I congratulate him upon what must be a very thriving industry. If £250,000 has been expended by the National Insurance Commissioners, or in connection with their office, I think the Committee is entitled to some details of this particular grant of expenditure. As regards the second item, I should very much like to find out from the right hon. Gentleman what is the meaning of a total vote of £11,280, involving an additional Estimate of £7,200, which has been expended upon horses and carts and carriages. I do not know whether it means a single carriage for the Chairman of the National Insurance Commission or the cost of consignments over the railway apart from over the roads. Horses and carts presumably have been employed to convey this vast tonnage of literature from the Stationery Office or the Government publishers to Buckingham Gate or other premises of the National Insurance Commission. It is a very large sum, and involves an increase on the original Estimate of nearly 200 per cent., and I think we ought to know something more about the details of the cost of the conveyance of these new publications. Now we come to the printing for public Departments which is represented by the astounding aggregate figure of £337,000. I assume that that also is mainly in respect of documents issued from the Insurance Commission offices. I think we have had far too much literature from the National Insurance office, and this is such a bewildering amount and such a variety dealing with the same subject that it has 617 become wholly impossible for the general public and the over-tired Members of this House to properly digest this literature.
The next item is perhaps the most surprising of all. I think we ought to take the next two items together because apparently they are both represented mainly by paper. The amount for paper for public Departments is £424,000, or nearly half a million. What is all this paper for? Is it paper that is printed on or paper used for a variety of other purposes? The next item is one which is largely for paper, and this is for Stationery Office publications. In addition to the £424,000 I have mentioned, there is another item of £48,000, bringing up the total to nearly £500,000 in respect of paper and printing for other public Departments and for the Stationery Office. What I want is details of all these very large sums, of which we have no detailed information at all. I have the honour of being a member of the Publications Committee of this House, and it is a most disheartening task at the present time dealing with the cost of stationery and printing in respect of the publications of this House and of the various Government Departments. We do all in our power to suggest economies in connection with the various Government Departments, which are very fond of plans, diagrams, and the like, which are of an extremely expensive character, but while we did prevail upon the officials of certain Departments to amend their Estimates for these publications, other Departments seem to delight in vieing with each other to exceed their own former Estimates, and apparently the Insurance Commission Department is the greatest sinner of all, and has commenced its existence with extravagance which ought to be condemned at an early stage before it develops into a vast national bill which would mean a serious increase in taxation. I want to ask a question in connection with the Regulations issued from the Insurance Commission, which represents, I imagine, a considerable part of this money, and we have asked that those Regulations should be available to Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) the other day that he was prepared to provide Members of this House with copies of these regulations. Some hon. Members asked for the whole of the regulations that have been issued, and, on being supplied with them, they discovered that a very large number have 618 not been supplied in due course to Members of this House. There are serious gaps in that literature. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is the meaning of it. I notice, Sir, you are inclined to be a little restless of my observations. I was going to bring forward a question of a similar kind. If I am out of Order, I have no doubt you will stop me before I get very far. These regulations are of two distinct types. One type is for the purpose of the necessary administration of the Insurance Act—
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley)The hon. Member will perhaps be aware that this Department merely carries out that which originates in other Departments. It does not control either the regulations or certainly the policy of the National Insurance Commission.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI was going to suggest an addition of a little red ink on one type of these regulations in order to indicate they were Amendments of the Act and not merely Amendments for the purposes of administration.
§ The CHAIRMANThat would have to be done on the order of some other Department; it would not be done by the Stationery Office.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTThe Stationery Office have very large powers, and I thought perhaps they might extend thus far. I honestly consider every one of these items, representing enormous sums of public money and particularly that relating to paper, requires some detailed explanation.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am not quite sure I shall be in order in dealing with anything but item (b).
§ The CHAIRMANI think that is so.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAll I can do is to tell the hon. Gentleman the cause of the increase. It was entirely due to two items, one expenses under the National Insurance Act, and the other extra expenses incurred by the Stationery Office in connection with the Dock Strike during the summer months of this year. If the hon. Gentleman would like the items in connection with insurance, there is £1,200 for the cartage through London of various insurance publications, including enormous masses of insurance cards, weighing tons, £5,000 railway charges for the carriage of cards to the provinces, and 619 £1,000 extra charges incurred through the dock strike, not specifically for insurance purposes, but incurred by the Stationery Office owing to the imposibility of dealing with the matter by the ordinary methods of cartage, making a total of £7,020. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that none of those items are exaggerated, and that none of them could have been foreseen. I could deal with the whole question of the necessary expenses in connection with the Insurance Act on the Vote, but I may say here that if the cards had to be printed they had to be delivered, and this is the expense of delivering them. The dock strike could not have been foreseen by the Stationery Office. The work had to go on during those months, and it was necessary to provide extra money—
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs the use of horses and carts an expensive mode of locomotion?
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, this is the general head to the Vote and it has been the head for a good many years, "horses, carts, and carriage"; it includes all methods of carriage. The great bulk has been spent on railway carriage, or I imagine motor carriage.
§ Mr. CASSELThe right hon. Gentleman has told us this expenditure was largely in respect of the delivery of insurance cards. I should have thought that was a matter which could have been provided for in the original Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman himself says it is perfectly obvious if the cards were to be printed they would have to be delivered. Then surely it is a matter which ought to have been dealt with in the original Estimates. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how much was provided for in the original Estimates, and how much is provided for in this additional Estimate in respect of the same matter, and why that additional sum was required. I can understand the additional amount caused by the dock strike. That, of course, could not have been foreseen. He told us there was £1,200 in respect of the carriage of these cards, quite independent of the dock strike. Why was not that provided for in the original Estimate? It seems to me quite unintelligible that a Department should have entirely overlooked this matter when they originally framed the Estimates.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICEI do not know whether I should be in order in referring to Item A?
§ The CHAIRMANNo, we have passed Item A; we are now on Item B.
§ Mr. PRICEDo I understand that by accepting the Motion for a reduction on Item B we cannot discuss Item A?
§ The CHAIRMANOh, yes, that is a very old rule, and the Committee cannot go back.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury really understands that he has given a very lame and inadequate defence of an increase of 180 per cent. on the original Estimate under Item B. Taking the £1,000 due to the dock strike off altogether, it leaves an increase of something over 100 per cent. I understand £1,200 is simply for dragging insurance cards about London. If he had made a contract with Pickfords or some other eminent firm, I cannot imagine that they would have required all this. I gather the sum of £5,000 is for railway carriage, not the delivery of insurance cards through the Post Office, but merely consignments from London to the provinces. Will he tell us what was the weight of them? We can then compare them with the railway charges, and, in view of the Bill we are to discuss tomorrow, see if the railway companies have taken an unfair advantage. On the face of it, it would seem to require an enormous tonnage of insurance cards to justify the railway companies charging £5,000 for their consignment to the different depots in the provinces, and I really must press him on this matter. In former days an increase of this sort would have aroused men like Gladstone, Joseph Hume, and Cobden, to protest, and they would have voted in this matter apart from party lines. In these days there is no one of that calibre, except the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London, but in our small way we feel bound to enter our protest against this colossal under-estimate of 180 per cent., of which only from 20 to 25 per cent. can be justified. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion to a Division.
§ Mr. CASSELBefore a decision is taken, will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not give us some further explanation. In his statement he admitted that it was a matter of comparison with 621 the original estimate. Will he tell us how much the original estimate was in respect to this matter? Is it not the case that the Insurance Commission only delivered those cards to the societies? They did not deliver them to the individually insured person; they merely distributed them to the societies and the post offices. Does he say that the increased cost of delivering those cards to the societies, of which I believe there are 20,000, including branches, and to the post offices was this enormous sum? A great many of these societies have their offices in London, and I believe I am right in saying that they made delivery to the societies, and not to the branches. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain that.
§ Mr. J. WARDAnd how much the vanboy got?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have furnished to the Committee all the information at my disposal, but I have to regret that the hon. Member in proposing a Vote of Censure upon this particular item, has prevented me from giving a general explanation dealing with the Insurance Act as a whole. His Amendment refers to this one item, and therefore makes out of order the general question of the expenses under the Insurance Act. If I were at liberty to go into that, I think I could show him that the Stationery Office, both in the original estimate and in the subsequent expenditure, especially so far as this particular item is concerned, can have no censure attached to it. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) has altogether under-estimated the gigantic nature of the work done by the Stationery Office in connection with the National Insurance Act.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEYou under-estimated it.
§ Mr. MASTERMANYes, I under-estimated it, when I had no facts to go upon, but you under-estimated it when you have all the facts before you. It was a question of bringing from place to place a gigantic mass of material which was literally measured, not by ounces and pounds, but by tons. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) asks what was the original Estimate in this particular item. I believe the original Estimate was £5,500, and the swelling of it in connection with this item is no greater than the swelling in connection with all the other items of the general Vote which I should not be in order in dealing with.
§ Mr. CASSELThe original Estimate was only £4,000. The total Estimate, not for insurance alone, is £4,300.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat may be so; I will try to obtain the information desired by the hon. Member. I agree that the original Estimate was very much less. I admit that the Estimate before the Act was passed of what the total requirements would be in connection with the Act was nothing near the actual requirements as they have proved. On that I wish to make the general statement I have referred to. The hon. Member says that these cards had only to be delivered to offices of approved societies. They were delivered to every post office, and especially in last July, when the Act was started, to the offices of every approved society and to the post offices in very great numbers, almost twice as much as will be required in future. There was the greatest necessity of getting every card to every insured person for the 15th July. I think they were delivered to branches of approved societies as well as to the approved societies themselves. That is my impression at the moment. In any case, we had to send this great mass of necessary literature, cards, tickets and medical tickets, leaflets explanatory of the Insurance Act, and all the literature which I think any student of the Act will realise was necessary.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWere there any posters?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIn so far as the Stationery Office printed any posters, they had to be issued the same as the others; and I think they did the work with great economy, smoothness, efficiency, and celerity. They had to be issued to the various societies and to every tiny post office in the United Kingdom, and I think that hon. Members will agree that this is a Vote which might be passed without any reductions.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand the right hon. Gentleman to explain that this Vote refers to horses, carts, and carriages. I presume the horses and carts are those which took those heavy bundles of paper about London?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI gave particulars of the items of the Vote, including the item of railway carriage, when the hon. Baronet was not present.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat accounts for railway carriage; do I understand that 623 these cards were delivered at the Post Office, or did the Post Office not take charge of them and forward them to their destination in the ordinary way? Or were they forwarded by the Stationery Department from the railway station, and the expenses paid by the Stationery Department?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe distribution of cards and tickets are the main items; they were delivered at the Post Office for distribution, and also to the offices of the approved societies, their registered offices.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWere they delivered at the Post Office in London to be sent, say, to Birmingham, or were they delivered to the London and North-Western, to be forwarded by them?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThey were delivered at the chief district offices; I will take Birmingham, which I think is a chief district office. They were delivered by the Stationery Office, and this is the cost.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen the whole cost is to be paid not by the Post Office, but by the Stationery Office?
§ Mr. MASTERMAN£5,000.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat makes the difference. It is a very enormous sum to be spent in distributing literature. It would not be in order to go into the merits of the National Insurance Act, but I think it ought to be put down to advertising. What we are paying now is for advertising the National Insurance Act, and I object to that expenditure.
§ Mr. CASSELI did not wish my remarks in any way to be a reflection upon the Stationery Office, who have done their work most marvellously, having regard to the difficulties with which they had to contend. My attack was on the Estimate, and was based upon the fact that the original Estimate was for £4,080, and that it has now been increased to £11,280. It was of that fact that we required an explanation, which has not been given, and if we press the matter to a Division it is only because the right hon. Gentleman has not given it. He told us that the item relating to insurance was £5,000.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is only £1,000 so far as insurance is concerned.
§ Mr. CASSELIt is an important matter for the Committee that the Estimate 624 should have some relation to the actual facts. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the amount for insurance was £5,000. He now says it is £1,000. We want to know how much of the £11,000 is in respect of insurance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to supply us with the figure, because it is only then that we shall be in a position to form a judgment whether it bears any reasonable relation to the original Estimate.
§ Mr. J. WARDWe have been questioning the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this, that, and the other. I am interested in another side of the question. The Estimate is for horses, carts, and carriage. Has the increased cartage necessitated any new contract with the cartage contractors or the railway companies? If so, I should like to know whether proper wages have been paid to those who drive these horses, and whether any of this extra sum is represented by overtime for those who drive the horses and carts? Another matter, which is much more important than voting millions without discussion for the Navy, is what wages were paid to the van boys?
§ The CHAIRMANThat does not arise on this Vote.
§ Mr. J. WARDI understood the Vote was for horses, carts, and carriage generally, and that it represented extra work beyond the ordinary work of the Department. Therefore, I thought I was entitled to ask whether it had necessitated any extra work for these people, and whether any extra wages had been paid. I thought that would be quite as interesting as some of the stuff to which we have had to listen from the Opposition.
§ Mr. MASTERMANOf course I cannot enter into any question as to Government rates of wages or pay for overtime under your ruling, but I can assure the hon. Member that the extra work that has been done in connection with cartage and Moving about has been done under exactly the same conditions as the ordinary work of cartage. It was done by contract; the Fair-Wages Clause prevails in the extra work just as it prevails in the ordinary work, and the overtime was paid under the same conditions as the ordinary work.
§ Mr. PETOI should like to know whether, in the course of this flood of literature and cards from time to time the 625 Department took any steps to find out whether there was any real demand for the literature, for the distribution of which we are asked to sanction this expenditure. I took the opportunity to ask the Insurance Commissioners to send a copy—
§ The CHAIRMANThat comes on another Vote.
§ Mr. PETOThis is a question of the distribution of this literature. I want to know whether it was by horses and carts or by any other methods; whether from time to time the Department took any steps to find out what percentage of the literature which was sent out was going to be really effective, and what percentage of it was going to be put into the waste-paper basket—
§ The CHAIRMANI pointed out a little earlier that the Stationery Department has to execute the orders which are sent to it. It does not control that matter.
§ Mr. NEWMANThere is one point I should like to have explained. Diving into ancient history, going back to 1905, the last year of the Conservative Government, one point comes out, that the Horses Vote is about the only Vote which this Government have not radically increased by Supplementary Estimates. In 1905 the then Government spent on horses, carts, and carriage £3,900, and the original Estimate was £4,080. Now it has suddenly jumped from £4,080 to £11,280. In other words the Financial Secretary did not make any Estimate for the extra cost of carting about literature for the Insurance Act. That is incomprehensible. I should like to know why he did not foresee any of this cost of cartage.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have tried to make that clear. The Estimates of the Stationery Office were made before the Insurance Act was passed. After it was passed it was many months before it was possible to realise what particular methods would be adopted through the regulations. Take one thing in which the hon. Member is interested—the contribution cards of which now some 13,000,000 are filled up every week. It was a long time after the Estimates had been made and published and after a good deal of inquiry, in other countries as well as in our own, that the Insurance Commissioners came to the conclusion that the cheapest and most satisfactory method of dealing with contributions was by the method of a card for each contributor to possess. If they had 626 not had a card this extra Estimate would not have been required. As they had cards to the extent of some 14,000,000, it was necessary to deliver them. No mistake has been made in the original Estimate. The Stationery Office has shown its usual astonishing accuracy. I am very glad that the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) paid a well merited tribute to the Stationery Office in respect of what they did. The Act was not passed when they made their estimate. They made a rough estimate, but cards and books had to be devised after that estimate was made. Therefore it is not a legitimate criticism to say that the amount was under-estimated. There is not a penny more required for this purpose except the special amount required owing to the exigencies of the Dock Strike. I think the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) will see that it would be a graceful thing if he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI am afraid I am not in a position to carry out the act of grace which the right hon. Gentleman has demanded of me. He suggested, after [...] addressed the House first, that I was making an attack upon the Stationery Department. I assure him that his answer that the Stationery Office has to execute the orders sent to it shows that if the estimate is at fault, it is not the fault of the Stationery Office. I have some intimate knowledge of the working of the Stationery Office, and I should like to testify that there is no Department better qualified controlled and managed than that office. But there is a most gross system of under-calculation on the part of the Government Departments in presenting their estimates at the beginning of the financial year This particular Estimate of £4,080 was presented a considerable time after the Act was passed, and there was plenty of time between the passing of the Act and April last to form something like an accurate estimate, except in respect of £1,000 which may be said to be due to unforeseen expenses in connection with the Dock Strike. The original Estimates were nearly trebled, and I am going to divide the House upon this vote. It is only one of many instances of gross miscalculation by the Government Departments.
§ Mr. KEATINGAs we have been informed on a good many points of the expenses under the Vote, I was wondering 627 whether the right hon. Gentleman has made an estimate of cost of Government printing as compared with the amount spent for literature by the Opposition in endeavouring to defame the Act.
| Division No. 591.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Astor, Waldorf | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, George Abraham | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gilmour, Captain John | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Barrie, H. T. | Grant, J. A. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Sandys, G. J. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hills, John Waller | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Boyton, James | Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hunt, Rowland | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cassel, Felix | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerry, Earl of | Touche, George Alexander |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Newman, John R. P. | |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Falle. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Furness, Stephen | Lundon, Thomas |
| Alden, Percy | Gill, A. H. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lynch, A. A. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Glanville, H. J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Baker, Harold T. Accrington) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | McGhee, Richard |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Goldstone, Frank | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert Lanark | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Griffith, Ellis J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Gulland, John William | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Gwynn, Stephen (Galway) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Hackett, John | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spai[...]ding) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Boland, John Plus | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Meagher, Michael |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Molloy, Michael |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hayden, John Patrick | Mond, Sir Alfred M. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hayward, Evan | Morgan, George Hay |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hazleton, Richard | Morton, Alpheus Cleephas |
| Clough, William | Henry, Sir Charles | Muldoon, John |
| Clynes, John R. | Higham, John Sharp | Munro, R. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hodge, John | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hogge, James Myles | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Cotton, William Francis | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Nolan, Joseph |
| Crooks, William | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hughes, S. L. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cullinan, John | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Dowd, John |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Grady, James |
| Dawes, J. A. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe) | O Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| De Forest, Baron | Janes, W. (Carnarvon) | O'Malley, William |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Jowett, F. W. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Dickinson, W. H, | Joyce, Michael | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Keating, Matthew | O'Shee, James John |
| Doris, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Duffy, William J. | Kilbride, Denis | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | King, J. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton) | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Falconer, James | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Pointer, Joseph |
§ Question put, "That Item B (Horses and Carts and Carriage) be reduced by £1,000."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 191.
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Scanlan, Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Webb, H. |
| Radford, G. H. | Sheehy, David | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Sherwell, Arthur James | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Reddy, Michael | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Wiles, Thomas |
| Roberts, Cranes H. (Lincoln) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Sutton, John E. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Tennant, Harold John | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Thomas, James Henry | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Robinson, Sidney | Toulmin, Sir George | |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Verney, Sir Harry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest. |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wadsworth, J. | |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg to move "That Item E ('printing for public Departments') be reduced by £10,000."
I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was not only prepared but desirous of making a statement with regard[...] to the large increases due to the Insurance Act, and therefore we ought not to proceed to a Division until we have had some explanation of the £310,000 and the £370,000 for printing, and £337,000 and £424,000 for paper. No doubt the increase of £60,000 for printing requires some explanation.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe same general considerations apply to this sub-head as to the previous sub-head. The question of policy, that is to say, what leaflets ought to be reduced or what powers ought to be reduced, is a question, as I have already pointed out, which must be challenged on the Insurance Vote, and not on the Stationery Office Vote. I have already given, in some detail, the reason why it was impossible to accurately frame an Estimate. It is that this is a new service. Although I think there would be considerable criticism of the Stationery Office if, under the old service, the Estimate had been swollen to such an enormous amount as required by this Supplementary Estimate, yet, where it is a new service in which the items were continually increasing, in which regulations had to be made, and of which an Estimate had to be made even before the Act was passed, it was quite impossible that anything like an accurate Estimate could be made at the time of what amount would be spent, but it was always recognised, and it was said several times in the Insurance Debates that in such a gigantic new service it would certainly be years, or months—I believe months will be the limit now—before the Stationery Office and other offices would have settled down to the normal amount expected year by year. The increase for printing is almost en- 630 tirely due to the services for the Insurance Commissioners. The increase of £48,000 is due to the issue of a directory of the new subscribers to the telephones, and to the cost of printing the arbitration proceedings and judgment, which had such a desirable result—£6,000.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWhat was the amount which resulted?
§ Mr. MASTERMANAbout £8,000,000. The printing and the paper Votes go together, and necessarily rise or fall together, for the printing is on the paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; is it? "] For leaflets and pamphlets for the Health Insurance Commissioners—
§ The CHAIRMANIs the right hon. Gentleman referring to Item F?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat is the idea.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Question is—
§ Mr. CASSELPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what this item of £60,000 includes. He was commencing to tell us how many leaflets. Will he tell us how much represents the cost of printing orders under the former to remove difficulties, and how much represents the printing of orders repealing or modifying the Act without consulting this House? This raises a very important point. How much of this represents the cost of printing medical tickets and matters of that description, which I submit are not properly chargeable at all on the Estimates, but ought to be charged on the Insurance Fund, and that that really is part of the cost of administration of medical benefit, and to which the nation contributes two-ninths? There are the various documents which the doctors are required to deal with and about which we hear so many complaints from the doctors.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing in a by- 631 product which does not belong to this question. The Stationery Office has to carry out orders received, and other matters are not really relevant. The hon. and learned Gentleman must wait until the right hon. Gentleman is answering in another capacity.
§ Mr. CASSELI desire to know whether this is really a proper charge on public money, and whether the cost of administering the medical benefit does not fall on the insurance committees?
§ The CHAIRMANIf the Insurance Commissioners have given a wrong order it is on their Vote the matter must be raised, and not on the Stationery Office Vote.
§ Mr. CASSELMy point is that if certain documents which are necessary for the purposes of administering medical relief are issued, and have to be paid for, they ought really not to be charged upon the Estimates. I should like to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman what is the principle upon which some of the documents in connection with the administration of medical benefits and other benefits under the Act are to be charged to societies and to insurance committees or upon the Estimates. I desire to know how much is included which ought not properly to be chargeable to the approved societies or the insurance committees. You have all the forms sent out to the doctors for names of patients, description, prescription papers, and so on partly sent out by the Insurance Commissioners and partly by the committees. There are two forms—one for special drugs and one for ordinary drugs. It is important that the Committee should know whether any of the cost of those forms is included in this Estimate, because it raises a large question of principle.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is hardly a matter within the control of the Stationery Office. Whether the cost should be charged to the Insurance Commission might be a question to be raised on the Vote for the Insurance Commission, but certainly not on this Vote. I must ask the hon. Member to defer to my ruling.
§ Mr. POLLOCKIs not my hon. Friend in order in asking how this sum ought to be divided, in order to ascertain what different classes of items are contained in it, 632 with a view to making appropriate criticisms on other Votes? Unless he is able to elicit what are the items covered by this sum, it will be impossible to offer criticism in the appropriate place in respect of the expenses incurred in this Vote. I submit that my hon. Friend is quite right in getting details on this Vote, in order that they may be dealt with seriatim upon other Votes where they are properly the subject of criticism.
Captain CRAIGWill it not be very awkward if this discussion is ruled out of Order? This sum will not appear on any other Vote; consequently there will not be any other specific item upon which a discussion could be raised.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) contended that something is being charged here which ought to be charged to the Insurance Commission. That is a point which can be raised on the Insurance Commission Vote. I should certainly have raised no objection if the hon. and learned Member had simply asked whether there was included in this item any sum for cards dealing with medical benefits; but he was going into an elaboration of the simple question, which I think rightly called me to my feet. If he wishes to put a question on which to base future action, he may certainly do so.
§ Mr. CASSELMay I ask whether this item includes anything in respect of cards for medical benefit; doctors' day-books; doctors' prescription forms; forms issued to approved societies for keeping accounts; forms on which claims for the various benefits are made; or any other items of a similar nature?
Mr. MASTER MANThese are not primarily Estimates, but Supplementary Estimates, and supplementing to the Estimates that have already been voted. They are not split up into sub-heads. Nor in the original Estimates would there be an allocation of the various forms of literature the Estimate was supposed to cover, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman I am only anxious to give him the fullest information within the Rules of Order. All I can give him is a kind of estimate that has been made of the amount by which this is supplementary to the original Estimate, which was £36,800. The House agreed to these items. I cannot split them up smaller than to say in regard to 633 what has been spent on printing—I cannot deal with paper—that printing forms under Clause 78—I have not an estimate—would not, I should think, amount to three figures—certainly it would be a good deal less than £100. Supplementary expenditures are as follow: Leaflets and pamphlets, £14,000; forms and posters, £4,000; contribution cards, £11,000; contribution books, £8,500; index cards, £1,500; index and contribution cards, £2,000; cards for reserve values, medical benefits, and sickness disablements, £2,500; transfer division registers, £2,000; ballot papers, £500; miscellaneous stationery, £2,000.
All those, I think, were estimated for in the original Estimate, and the need for the Supplementary Estimate is that the exigencies of the National Insurance Act have compelled the Stationery Office to print a larger supply of all these items than was estimated for.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am not quite sure whether any supplementary money was required for the Irish printing, but all insurance work, so far as it can be, is printed in Ireland on the Irish Estimate—if included in the Stationery Estimate.
§ Mr. J. WARDIs it not a fact that the items read out by the right hon. Gentleman were necessary for the working of the approved societies, and if not supplied, as at present, out of public funds, would be paid out of the funds contributed by the members and the employers, and be tantamount to a reduction of the benefits?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat would be the case, but I am afraid the ruling of the Chairman has prevented me discussing that particular aspect.
§ Mr. STEPHEN COLLINSI would ask hon. Members opposite to pause before they go to a Division. They complain of the under calculating and the flood of literature. I think there was a great deal of reason for it. There was misrepresentation and lying statements made—
§ The CHAIRMANOrder, order.
§ Mr. MORTONI want to ask a question concerning economic dealing. I notice that with reference to items sent out in connection with the Insurance Act, there is a considerable piece of paper accompanying 634 each bundle, on which is printed, "With the secretary's compliments." I have no objection to the "Secretary's compliments," but it involves an absolute waste of money for printing. I dare say that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will not care to be economical with regard to such a small sum, but I would like to remind them of the old adage, "Take Care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves." I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to kindly consider this matter. I am mentioning it entirely in their interests. The Insurance Act must be expensive to work, but I hope he will reduce the expenses as far as he possibly can.
§ Mr. NEWMANIn the original Estimate the Government were so very careful as even to put in an item of £1 in connection with a change of colour in some documents and when they were so careful as that in the original Estimate, I confess I am surprised we get so little information in connection with this supplementary item a £60,000, which shows a rise of £87,000 in two years.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CASSELThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions I put to him. I should like him to get some fuller information, because I intend to use it on future Votes. I want to know whether the doctors' books are included in this Vote. We are dealing here with £1,000,000 of money of the nation. It is our duty as trustees of the national funds to see that no part of the expenditure is put upon the nation that does not properly fall upon it. For my part, I should like to spend as much for the benefit of the societies and the Insurance Committees as is possible, but if we are to do that we must do it deliberately and knowingly. If two-ninths of the cost is to be defrayed by the nation, I say it is our business to see that the nation is not charged more than two-ninths. It is our duty to investigate the accounts properly. I notice that the original Estimate for printing and stationery for the National Insurance Act was £28,000. The condition of these Supplementary Estimates and the very slight information we have had leaves the matter in a most unsatisfactory state, and unless we probe this question fully we are not doing our duty as trustees of national finance. One of the reasons why the expenditure is going up is because we are not doing our duty by 635 inquiring more into these matters. It is our duty to see that this expenditure is properly allocated. The original Estimate was for £28,000, and this included £5,400 for the Joint Committee, £17,600 for England, £2,000 for Wales, £3,000 for Ireland, and I have not got the figures for Scotland. We do not know in the least why there is this increase, and if we pass it without any protest we are not doing our duty.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWe have been told that these additional amounts are for unforeseen liabilities in regard to the administration of the National Insurance Act. If you turn to Class VIII. you will find that the Supplementary Estimate is for "the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1913, for Grants-in-Aid of National Health Insurance (United Kingdom), in addition to the sums payable under Section 3 of the National Insurance Act, 1911." I take it that these sums for stationery must be for matters dealt with under some Section other than Section 3. I understand that the Government have put off the other Vote until to-morrow, and I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what is the amount in this item which is attributable to National Insurance printing, and under what Section of the Act of last year the expense is incurred?
§ Mr. STEPHEN COLLINSI am sure all hon. Members on this side and many hon. Gentlemen opposite agree that the Government were most anxious to give all the information possible and the fullest explanation in connection with this Act. Many hon. Members and many other good people outside did not understand the Act. They could not see the bearings of it, and the Government had to print extra literature to inform the people and adopt many other methods. May I give just one illustration of the difficulties the Government had to contend with. There was one great trade union—
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid the hon. Member cannot have been present during the whole of our proceedings or he would have observed that no question of policy arises. The Stationery Office carry out the orders sent to them and the hon. Member must raise those points on some other Vote.
§ Mr. S. COLLINSThank you; I am sure the Government did all they could.
§ Mr. PETOI understood on the previous Vote that you ruled out of order the question whether any check whatever had been placed on the Stationery Department, and that we were wholly limited to the question whether that Department had correctly executed the orders they had received, and if they had correctly executed those orders, that we could raise no other question whatever. Now I understand you have a little enlarged your ruling, and that on this Vote I am at liberty to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he took any steps whatever, in view of the enormous increase in the cost for printing and paper which was obviously inevitable, to ascertain if this great quantity of printing was really required, and whether it would be any effective help to the friendly societies, trade unions, and other organisations that had to administer the National Insurance Act. I entirely agree that we do not want to throw any expense that should be a public charge on to the funds of the trade unions or friendly societies, but these societies have had to encounter a veritable snowstorm of paper and printing which has simply confused the issue, wasted public money, and made it more difficult and not more easy to put the Act into execution. Did the hon. Gentleman by the simple means of sending a postcard to the societies concerned ever ask whether they required a ton or two of literature? If there had been no response to such a postcard the cost of the paper, the printing, and the carriage of the ton or two of literature could have been saved. My experience is that those responsible for the administration of the Act, as soon as they had arrived at a formula, issued an edict to print so many million, and everybody, whether he wanted them or not, was bombarded through the Press or the post, or by horses and carts, with what they considered was the necessary supply of this particular formula. I do not consider that is the proper way to spend public money. I do not believe it helped one iota in the smooth working of the Act; and I believe, if they had taken the ordinary precaution that every business firm in the country would have taken, and had found out whether the printed matter was likely to receive consideration or do the business any good, they would have saved a large amount of the expense. It is putting the cart before the horse to get an idea, put it into print, and force it upon everybody 637 whether it is good for them or not. I believe that with ordinary business management and judicious expenditure of public money we could have done for £5,000 quite as much work as has been done for £60,000, with a saving of the actual despair of the wretched recipients of this mass of literature, most of which went into the fire or the waste paper basket. They were inundated with this stuff every day in connection with the Insurance Act. Whether it is proposed to reduce this Vote by £100, or £1,000, or £10,000, I shall vote for it.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Member has spoken under a misapprehension. The Stationery Office has nothing to do with the giving of orders. In this case the Stationery Office acted under orders given by the Insurance Commissioners, and properly delivered what is was asked, and therefore the Department properly to be criticised is not the Stationery Office, but those who gave the orders, the National Insurance Commissioners, for whom I answer in this House. I do not think the hon. Member has any case to bring forward—if he had I should regard it with great interest—where the Stationery Office, as a business concern has made mistakes in executing the orders given. So far from that being the case, most of hon. Gentlmen opposite, I am glad to say, have gone out of their way to emphasise the excellence of the work of the Stationery Office. Therefore the only criticism that has been made is one which it would be impossible for me to answer in this Debate. The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is perfectly right in his assumption that the money voted for the Stationery Office dealing with the expenses of the National Insurance Commission has nothing to do with Section 3. That Section merely deals with the proportion of benefits to be paid out of the public funds. If he will look at Section 57 he will see that—
Any expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Commissioners in carrying this part of the Act into effect to such extent as the Treasury may sanction shall be defrayed out of monies provided by Parliament.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs that Clause 8. I asked a question about the £1,800,000 and was refused an answer on Friday by the Closure.
§ Mr. MASTERMANPerhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will raise it on the 638 Report stage. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) put a question, and as he was allowed to put it I suppose I may be allowed to answer it, as to whether certain forms and books were paid for out of Government money instead of out of the moneys of friendly societies. He was very indignant because the Government provided the money for the doctors' day-books instead of the friendly societies.
§ Mr. CASSELI was not expressing indignation; I was simply asking a question with reference to the cost of doctors' day-books and medical cards—whether they were included in this Vote or not?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI thought I had heard some criticism of them being included. The whole question is whether they should be allocated to be paid out of Government money, the funds of the insurance Commissioners, or should be paid out of the Insurance Fund, which ultimately means the approved society. These doctors' day books are not kept in the interests of the approved societies. So far as the friendly societies are concerned, they need not be kept. They are kept in the public interest and in the national interest, so that we may have statistics of disease and may be able to find more adequate methods of coping with disease. The information will come to the central office of the Commissioners and it would be unfair to throw the cost upon the friendly societies.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs the National Insurance Commissioners' Office a Government Office?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThey are answered for by the Government in this House. I would not like to give it as a legal opinion, but I should say they are.
§ Mr. MORTONWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to economy in dealing with this fund?
§ Mr. MASTERMANAny suggestions for economy I will most gladly consider.
§ Mr. CASSELCan the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the prescription forms, and the forms for obtaining the benefits? There are about six or seven forms to be sent in before benefit can be claimed.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe differentiation which has been carried out is that the Government fund shall meet all expenses pro- 639 perly appropriate to the Insurance Commission, and which are required by the Government. I think that both the prescription forms and the certificates, in so far as they are national, will be paid for out of Government funds, while all those which are purely local and which are required by the friendly societies will be raid for by the friendly societies.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not wish to press the reduction of this particular item to a Division. I think it will be necessary to offer some protest against the Vote as a whole. One can see from the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury that any attempt to reduce this particular item would be open to misrepresentation as tending to put charges upon the friendly societies; therefore I do not intend to press the reduction to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHI understand that we are asked in this Vote for money to provide the doctors' books. What is our position with regard to the medical men who receive the books, and, through great pressure of work, are not able to fill them in?
§ The CHAIRMANThat does not arise on this Vote.
§ Mr. H. SMITHMay I submit, Sir, with great respect to your ruling, that it is not out of order, on a Vote to provide the books, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the books we are providing are being used? If these books have been thrown away, obviously it would be in order. If the books are not being used, it is equally in order.
§ The CHAIRMANThat would carry us a long way. The hon. Member might, for instance, have the view that they were being misused.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIn regard to Item F, are we to understand, in respect to the goods ordered under that item, that the best article is selected?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIf the right hon. Gentleman's imagination does not enable him to understand the point, I think I must explain it to him in private.
Question put, and agreed to.