HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT. (Hansard, 18 July 1913)

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I beg to move," That it is expedient to make provision for improving medical service in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith; and to authorise for those purposes the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of—

(a) a special Grant to be called the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant; and

(b) the salaries or remuneration of the secretary and of the officers and servants of a Board to be called the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board and of any expenses incurred by the Board in the execution of their duties."
I will not be rash enough to say that this is a Motion which I expect to be carried without opposition. It would be rash to say that of any Motion. But I should like it to be carried with the maximum of support. As the Committee is aware, the Treasury some time ago appointed a Committee to inquire into the conditions of medical service in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and that Committee revealed a state of necessity which melted even the heart of the Treasury. The Motion which is before the House is to provide a sum which will amount to a total of £42,000 a year, apart from questions of expenditure on officials, for the purpose of providing an adequate medical service in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Undoubtedly the provision of services for the purposes of the public health and Poor Law authorities has been a very great burden indeed upon the local authorities of Scotland, especially in the Highland counties. In many of those places the area was so wide to be covered, and the population was so scattered, that it was perfectly impossible that the 'burden could be met by the ratepayers. The Treasury now propose to give this Grant for the purpose of providing an adequate medical service in those districts, not only to those who are insured but to the whole of the population, and I hope the Committee will pass this Grant to-day. I would only point out that it is impossible to proceed with the Bill until this Resolution, on which the 1658 Bill is founded, is carried. When the Motion has been passed the Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible date, and I hope that in a few days it will be before the Scottish Grand Committee. As far as I know it is absolutely a non-controversial measure which is supported by hon. Members on the other side of the House as well as by Members on this side, and I trust that very little will need to be said in order to get the Resolution carried this afternoon.

§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
I do not rise to oppose this Motion, but I want to see a little justice done. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed this Commission of Inquiry in regard to the Highlands and Islands, it was accepted all along that the "Highlands and Islands" meant the Highlands and Islands enumerated in the Crofters Act, 1886. We all accepted that definition when we were speaking of the Highlands and Islands.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Including Argyll.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Argyll is a crofter district.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I beg your pardon. They never accepted it.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Of course I know there are Highlands and Islands outside the crofter districts, but the limit was for Highlands and Islands in the crofter districts, when the Commission was appointed to investigate. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the Commission, and its extraordinary character. The head of the Commission was Sir John Dewar who is a Perthshire landlord. What did they do? The first thing they did was this: In the absence of any definite indication in the remit as to the exact area to which the inquiry was to be confined it was decided to take evidence from the counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Orkney, and Shetland—those are crofting counties—and the Highlands of Perthshire. Why the Highlands of Perthshire? Why not Aberdeenshire, Morayshire, Fife-shire? Why stick in Perthshire? Of course we know why. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us why."] There were two Perthshire landlords represented on the Committee. I submit that we should stand by the Highlands and Islands as enumerated in the Crofters Act. The moment you go outside of those Highlands and Islands, and you go to those districts which are really deficient in medical service, then you 1659 must bring in the lot. For instance, the Scottish Commissioners submitted a scheme the other day and they propose to pay extra mileage to those Highland and Island districts, and they include Dunkeld of all places in the world. My point is you should stick to the technical Highlands and Islands, and I wish to protest against any other county being included in this Grant unless all the similar places in Scotland, which are equally deserving of inclusion, which is, in fact, for the application of medical benefit absolutely necessary, are joined in. I desire to refer to a case mentioned in the Report of the Administration of the National Health Insurance Act:— The parishes of Strathdon and Glenbuchat in Aberdeenshire, in which are the head waters of the River Don and its tributary the Buchat, had at the Census of 1911 a population of 1,354, of whom it is estimated that not more than 200 are now insured persons. There is no centre of population in either parish, and the only doctor resides near Strathdon Church, on the road from Alford to Tomintoul. The nearest railway stations are at Dinnet, on the Ballater line, and Alford, which is a terminus on the Great North of Scotland line. Dinnet is distant some seveneen miles and Alford twenty. Nobody is going to suggest that there is any district outside the technical Highlands and Islands included here which is anything like that. The Report continues:— In these secluded valleys the weather conditions in winter are of the severest character. The country is frequently under snow for several months in the year, when the ordinary road traffic is conducted by means of sleighs. When the medical profession in Aberdeenshire decided to join the panel, the doctor in charge of Strathdou and Glenbuchat felt himself in a difficulty. He drew I he attention of the county insurance committee and of the Commission to what he described as the exceptional conditions of his work. Over the wide area committed to his care there were only some 200 insured persons"—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not quite see the relevancy of what the hon. Member is now reading to the Resolution before the Committee.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I want to point out that there are other places admitted by the Insurance Commissioners to be as bad as anywhere in the whole Kingdom. My point is that if it is not going to be limited to the Highlands and Islands, as defined in the Crofters Act, I mean to oppose if—

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Is this not a question for the Bill, and not for the Resolution. If the hon. Member wishes to extend the area to which the Money Grant is to be applied, his proper course is to propose an Amendment on the Bill, and not on the Resolution.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It has been ruled several times recently from the Chair on Money Resolutions that the merits of the Bill or matters which are subjects for the Committee here or upstairs are not relevant on the Resolution itself. It is quite evident that the arguments of the hon. Member ought to be properly addressed to the Committee upstairs on the Schedule to the Bill, defining what the Highlands and Islands are.

§ Mr. ESSLEMONT
May I ask when and why that ruling was given?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The question of the growing enlargement of Debate on Money Resolutions has been the subject of several rulings from the Chair during the last fortnight.

§ Mr. MOONEY
May I submit, with all respect, that your ruling would be a perfectly proper ruling if there had been a Bill introduced into this House? But there has been no Bill yet introduced. The Bill is to be founded on the Money Resolution. Is it not, then, perfectly in order to discuss an alteration in the area for which the money is to be granted? May I also ask whether the Secretary for Scotland was accurate in saying that unless this Money Resolution was passed, no Bill could be introduced? I submit that that is not a fact.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have listened with great respect to what the hon. Member has said because he has considerable knowledge of the rules of the House and of Committees upstairs, but, giving every consideration to that, I do not see any reason for altering my decision. If you once admit such a discussion as that, you at once open the way to a full discussion of the Bill. It does not affect my decision that the Bill has not been introduced, as this is a formal Resolution on which the Bill will be founded.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have decided the point of Order. I shall be happy to call on the hon. Member if he is going to discuss the Resolution.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
My difficulty is this: Here is a Resolution which I understood the Secretary for Scotland to say was for the Highlands and Islands. Here is a vote of money for the Highlands and Islands. If that is taken strictly, I under- 1661 stand that the Bill which is to be introduced is to be founded on the Dewar Report. The Dewar Report is confined to certain districts. That being so, if I move upstairs that the district shall be extended, I may be met with the statement that the Resolution only applies to those particular districts.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I did not put it in that way at all. The position is this: There is no Bill at present before the House. It is necessary to get this Resolution before we introduce the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am advised that that is so. No one has a right to assume what will be in the Bill. When the Bill is introduced there will be a Schedule which will include certain districts. It will then be open to my hon. Friend to move either that certain of those districts shall be excluded or that other districts should be added. That will not affect the total sum of money which the Treasury have agreed tc3 grant for this purpose.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
If my right hon. Friend will assure me that this money is not to be confined to the districts technically known as the Highlands and Islands plus Perthshire, I am content.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I cannot anticipate the decision of the Committee.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
But suppose the Committee say that Banffshire or some other district where similar conditions obtain shall be included in the Schedule, shall I or shall I not be met with the contention that the Money Resolution only applies to the Highlands and Islands plus Perthshire?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I can hardly express an opinion by way of anticipation on a hypothetical case, but I should think it would be:in order, if you have places which are not technically in the. Highlands and Islands, to move the inclusion of such places and to argue that they were on the same basis.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
May I ask whether the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman is correct, and whether it will be competent for any Member to move to insert parishes which are not named in the Money Resolution on which the Bill is founded?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
All that is mentioned is the Highlands and Islands.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Is there any Statute which gives a definition of these Highlands and Islands?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
was understood to reply in the negative.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
With all respect to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, when a phrase is used in a Resolution of this House, or in a Bill before this House without any definition to it, are we not referred to the definition of that phrase in other Statutes?

§ Mr. HENDERSON
May I quote something?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On the point of Order. Of course, the Committee upstairs can legislate as they like, and they can decide what the Highlands and the Islands mean.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I have been in Committees where we have been met—

§ Mr. MOONEY
I understand, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, your ruling to be that we cannot discuss the limitations of this Money Resolution, or of Bills founded on Money Resolutions, until this House or this Committee has the Bill before it? If the Bill were before us, very probably we should amend it, but this House knows nothing whatever about the Bill, and we have to accept the statement of the Secretary for Scotland. It is a narrow technical point as to what is the meaning of the Highlands and Islands. If you are going to grant money now, you will be met upstairs by the fact that discussion as suggested will not be in. order.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is obvious that we cannot go outside the limits of the Money Resolution. What I am protesting against is the extension of the Debate upon this formal Money Resolution into the general merits of the Bill which is going to be introduced. I cannot, and I do not want, special references such as the hon. Member commenced his speech with. That course leads to the elaboration of arguments which are more proper to Committee upstairs, and not upon the Money Resolution. It is, I agree, difficult to define the line, but there must be a line defined, and I have only been endeavouring to keep Members within limits which have several times been laid down.

§ Mr. GRETTON
On a point of Order. Would you consider the difference between 1663 a Money Resolution relating to a Clause in a general Bill which requires money to put it into motion and a Money Resolution upon which a Money Bill is to be founded? I submit that the two cases are quite different. In the case of a Resolution upon which a Bill is to be founded, there is nothing else but money in the Bill which is to be introduced. In the case of a Bill that is casual, the discussion, I submit, is allowed to take a wider range. May I also point out that the rulings that recently took place here in regard to Bills that contain a Clause enabling money to be spent—

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
I have allowed a pretty wide range to be discovered.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
As I have already said, I have not the slightest hostility to the Vote, and I am content to sit down if I am assured that I shall not be stopped in Committee by the scope of this Resolution. If the Secretary for Scotland can leave the destination of the fund open, and so alter the Resolution, I should be content. I only want to see that the Grant is not confined, and that other deserving districts can be included, and, if that is so, I shall be quite content.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
As to the point my hon. Friend has raised, the position is this: The thing to be determined by this Vote is that the sum to be devoted to particular purposes is a certain fixed sum, but it will not determine what the definition of medical services is, or what the purposes of the medical services are to be, nor the exact definition of the area. It will be quite open to my hon. Friend to move what he wishes on the Schedule to the Bill. It will be quite open to him to contend that certain areas ought to come into the Bill, or that certain areas ought to be excluded from the Bill.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but what made me anxious was that I already saw that there was to be an allocation of £10,000 for medical services as emanating from the scheme of the Scottish Committee. If we are not bound by that, and the question is open, as my right hon. Friend said, I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting him.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I am the last person in the world to try to discuss this measure at the present time, and 1664 any remarks I have got to make will be very short indeed. If anyone was inclined to take offence at what the hon. Member for Aberdeen said in his opening words, that impression would be removed from the mind of any sensible person by his last words, because they show he does not understand the Bill at all. The £10,000 of which he speaks comes under the Insurance Act, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill under discussion.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Has the Noble Lord seen the Bill?

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
No; I am not like the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I do not know what it really includes, or does not. What I am pointing out is that the £10,000 is entirely separate, as anyone may see who reads the leaflets showered upon us under the Insurance Act. The hon. Member for Aberdeen just now mentioned the name of Sir John Dewar, the hon. Member for Inverness and other Members of the Commission. He said the reason Perthshire had been included was because there were two landlords on the Commission. That is really a very silly idea.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Give us another reason.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
The reason was that the Member for West Perthshire was doing his duty, and looking after his constituency which is more than can be said of some other hon. Members. If the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire had been taking the same interest in this matter as the hon. Member for West Perthshire, East Perthshire would have been included. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire is under a misapprehension entirely. I thought from the first that it was a great pity to confine these proposals to the crofting Highlands, and they ought to include other districts. I think it is a great pity also that hon. Members opposite did not fight for their own districts as well. The work ought to have been done long ago, and it is too late now. There are parts all over Scotland that want special legislation in this particular line.

§ Mr. MOONEY
I would like to ask how the remarks of the Noble Lord are in order upon a Money Resolution?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I allowed some general reference by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, and I have 1665 allowed some by the Noble Lord, but I must say that I think he is now going too much into detail and that is not in order.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I only wish to answer certain points. We have now to return to the money question and see what we can get. We certainly want the money in the Highlands. Only a certain amount is allowed to us, and if hon. Members in other parts oppose this Resolution and try to cut out certain parts like Perthshire, it means that there will be less money for those in the South.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is obviously a point for the Committee.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I hope hon. Members will do what they can to allow this Resolution to pass as it is no n^, and if 'we are to have any discussion, let us have it upstairs.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I wish the Noble Lord opposite would not address hon. Members on this side of the House as if he were addressing his retainers on his ancestral acres. It may be somewhat creditable to the Noble Lord to endeavour to get an intelligent idea of the business which is before the House, and when he corrected me, with a courtesy which was creditable and characteristic of him, in regard to East Perthshire, it very soon transpired that he himself did not know what evidence had been taken by the Committee. The speech of the Noble Lord seems to me calculated to be of very ill service to the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. If the temper in which he approaches this question were representative of the temper in which it was approached by others, then I think the Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom will look with ill-favour upon Grants of this character.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
May I inform the hon. Member that I was replying to certain charges against the bona fides of certain members of the Committee?

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I was dealing with the taunt which the Noble Lord levelled at my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson). My hon. Friend was anxious that certain areas which were necessitous from the medical point of view should be included within this Grant. The Noble Lord's reply was that if the hon. Member had looked after his constituents this would have been done. Yes, 1666 but did the Committee come to this decision on the strength of representations from hon. Members of this House or on the merits?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is not relevant to the Resolution before the House.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I think that it is. We are considering now the question of placing a charge upon the Exchequer for certain areas in the Islands and Highlands. We are told that certain areas have been selected because hon. Members have looked after their constituencies. I have the right, therefore, to question the wisdom of making such a Grant when that has been the motive which has determined the choice of areas. That is the point which I make.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
May I disabuse the hon. Member—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I allowed considerable latitude to the Noble Lord, and I have allowed the hon. Member to make a general reference in reply, but I cannot allow the matter to be discussed further.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I am endeavouring to keep myself to the merits. A light has been thrown by the Noble Lord's speech on the considerations which have determined the selection of areas which are to benefit by this Grant, and it seems to me that we are entitled to look very carefully, and with a jealous eye, upon any Grant made to favoured areas in consequence of these considerations.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member can put that point before the Committee. I have allowed him to make a general reference to what the Noble Lord said, but I must ask him not to pursue that line of argument.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Am I not entitled to make a general objection on the ground that we now know the reason the Grant is made?

§ Mr. MALCOLM
You have made your general objection.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I was called to order w hen I had made it; and I am pointing the moral, if, indeed, there is a moral. If it goes forth from this House that. Grants are to be recommended by Commissioners because of the pressure brought to bear 1667 upon them by Members of this House, it will be introducing an intolerable system. It means simply and solely that it will afford a means to hon. Members of corrupting their constituents, and I am surprised, in view of the high standard set up by the Opposition, that this doctrine should be enunciated.

§ Mr. WATT
I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen. I desire, too, to protest against the money being used in East and West Perthshire, and I do not think under the circumstances I shall be ruled out of order. Everyone who knows anything of Scotland must know there are other parts of Scotland which have the characteristics of crofter counties which are not technically in the Highlands. I want to know why exception has been made in the case of Perthshire. We have been told by the Noble Lord the hon. Member for West Perthshire it is because he attended to his duty to his constituents. It is extraordinary how this Radical Government is open to the influence of Conservatives. There are other districts with the characteristics of crofter districts which are being excluded from this Grant. I want to know the reason—why? Is it because those other parts of the country return Radical Members to this House, while West Perthshire returns a Conservative?

§ Mr. BOOTH
I wish to ask if the Chancellor supports the definition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. Will it be in order to expend this Grant in districts not hitherto known as the Highlands and Islands. I understood the Secretary for Scotland to say, that "medical" is not defined. Neither is "Highlands and Islands." While it is not defined, the Grants are exclusively limited to the application of some form of medical service, and it is a definite item in that sense. I would ask whether the term "Highlands and Islands" does not mean that the Grant must be to the Highlands and Islands in the same way as it must be only for medical service. Am I to understand that claims from Berwick-on-Tweed and Berwickshire can be considered in connection with this Grant? If districts other than the Highlands are afterwards brought in will it not need another Money Resolution in order to justify the diversion to some areas not contemplated by the words which appear on the Paper?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is a point that should not be put to me, but decided by the Chairman of the Committee. Nothing that I could say upon it can bind him, and I must respectfully decline to say anything which will in any degree limit the power of the Committee or its Chairman. Therefore 1 cannot give the hon. Member the answer he desires.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I only wanted to make it clear. It was specifically stated by a distinguished Member of the Cabinet, and it will be quoted afterwards, because that statement was made and not challenged by you. I am perfectly content with the position you, Sir, take up, that you are not a party, through being in the Chair, to a statement made from the Front Bench.