NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT [MONEY]. (Hansard, 18 July 1913)

§ Mr. BOOTH
It is now becoming one of the features of the consideration of money questions that the Opposition seem incompetent to perform their regular duties to the State. Here is a Bill which has been the subject of the greatest controversy, and when the House is asked to provide money of the taxpayers under this Resolution the whole force of the Opposition seems totally incapable of subjecting it to any analysis. The Resolution, which I understand will be the foundation of this National Insurance Act Amendment Bill, is entirely taken up, or at least the greater part of it, with Money Clauses. This Bill is different from most others in that the Money Clause is the first Clause, and is printed entirely in italics. I am not aware that any Bill has been brought before the House in which the first Clause was entirely printed in italics, and, therefore, I take it that unless we pass the Money Resolution, the Committee would be unable to make the slightest progress with this measure. That only emphasises the fact that the provision of money lies at the root of the matter. In regard to the terms given to the medical profession, I do not think there would be much difference of opinion, for we have not yet heard from any Member of the Opposition that 1596 they are prepared to take any exception to the Money Resolution in so far as it authorises the support of funds to go to the medical profession. I am not one of those who thought that the original sum was not on a fair basis. I think it was somewhere near what was a fair market price for the services of the medical profession. It is quite true that this Bill does considerably increase it, the consequence being that while some doctors undoubtedly are now working under conditions which are preferable to what they would be with smaller remuneration, many doctors who were fairly fortunately circumstanced would be enabled, by this Bill to double their incomes.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not debatable on the Resolution, and would come on in Committee on the Clauses of the Bill. We cannot have either a Second Reading discussion or a Committee stage of the Bill on this Resolution.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I quite agree with that, but surely the main object of this Bill and of this Money Resolution was to provide funds to enable the medical profession to work the Act. I submit that this Money Resolution is not really called for by the medical profession, and unless to meet the demands of the medical profession there would have been no Bill and no Resolution. The subject was not dealt with thoroughly on the Second Reading Debate, and although it is a vital part of the subject, no attention whatever was given to it by the critics. I think before the House authorises such large expenditure as this it is entitled to examine it from the standpoint of economy. The Bill, it is true, and to some extent the Money Resolution of the Bill, are rather vague, but at the same time it is common knowledge that the money is really required for this extra Grant to the medical profession in order to increase their remuneration, and otherwise there is no justification to be made out for this Money Resolution. My point is to ask frankly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to justify this Resolution. On those grounds I think the Committee—

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not permissible to go through all the various Clauses of the Bill as that would be a Committee stage of the Bill an the Money Resolution. This is usually rather a formal stage and in fact it is simply to authorise the Com- 1597 mittee upstairs to consider the matter. We certainly cannot take speeches which were omitted on the Second Reading Debate on the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I ask whether it is not in order on this stage to ask for what purpose this money is going to be spent before they authorise the expenditure of the money, and if they consider that the objects for which the money is going to be spent do not meet with their approval is it not in their power either to move Amendments limiting the amount of money to be spent or to vote against the Resolution altogether. If, as I think, I am correct in those two statements it is evident that it is necessary to show arguments why the money should not be voted; and in doing so we ought not, of course, to go into the details of the Bill, but still it would be impossible altogether to avoid some reference to what is contained in it.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Baronet is perfectly right. It is quite in order to ask for what purpose the money is required and to what extent it is required, but he is not right in his suggestion that it would be possible to argue the merits of the various proposals in the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not propose to go into the merits of the proposals in the Bill. It would be I submit in order to say, "We understand £500,000 is going to be devoted to a certain purpose. We do not consider that ought to be devoted to that purpose, and, therefore, on the argument as to how the £500,000 is to be administered we have the right to say we do not think so, and, for instance, that we do not think the doctors should receive no further remuneration and we are going to vote against authorisation."

§ The CHAIRMAN
The proper place to do that would be on Clause 1 in Committee on the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am not on the Committee on the Bill. There are only seventy-five Members upstairs on the Committee, and I unfortunately am not one of them. I desire to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this, as I believe he is an economist sometimes, but I should be precluded from making any protest whatever against the voting of the money.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The fact that the House has ordered the Bill to go upstairs to Grand Committee, instead of Committee 1598 of the Whole House, does not alter the case in any way.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
It might induce you to be a little lenient.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid we cannot alter rules to suit various occasions.

§ Mr. BOOTH
The claim I wish to make, and I think I am entitled to make it, and I do not think I shall have any chance on the Grand Committee even if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to the Committee, of which I am not aware; is that the Grants to the doctors are now reaching the end, and I hope this will be regarded as a sufficient sum, and that no other proposal will be brought forward. That is what I want to get an expression of opinion on, and I think we are entitled to have it before we vote this large sum, to know whether, in the opinion of the Government this will really settle the controversy with regard to the remuneration, at any rate, for a reasonable time. I make that appeal because many of the doctors throughout the country, there is no doubt, find this remuneration under the Act is far handsomer than they expected. Doctors all over the country have stated to me that they had no idea that they would receive so substantial an income or they would have been satisfied before. Therefore I do not think I am unreasonable in asking the medical profession to accept these as really very handsome terms under all the circumstances, and to become the loyal servants of the Act, which should necessarily follow from the handsome remuneration given to them. I invite the Government to give the Committee their own opinion as to whether when this money is granted that the financial relations between the medical profession and the administration of the Act will be on a satisfactory basis. One point I think which is raised above all others by this Resolution is with regard to the alteration of the Sinking Fund. The position with regard to that Sinking Fund is important in itself, and also because of its bearing on the general finances, which come up for review from time to time in Committee. We are practically extending the Sinking Fund period from eighteen and a half years to twenty. That undoubtedly has the effect of postponing the receipt of the additional benefits which the younger lives have been led to expect. I think anyone below the age of fifty is not now much concerned under an Act where the benefits end at 1599 seventy with the administration of such an Act with regard to any increase of benefits twenty years hence. The people really interested in the extension of prolongation of the period are the younger lives, and many of those are not represented in this House. The point is whether we should not carefully consider whether any injustice really is inflicted upon those younger lives, particularly those under twenty-one, and people who have no representation in this House. I have gone very carefully into the atter, and I do not think it can be said that by prolonging the period of the Sinking Fund you are really taking something from those people which they themselves contributed. The youngest lives will get considerably more than is represented by their own subscriptions. The only correct way of putting it is to say that they do not get so large a share of the added bonuses from the employers and the State as they would otherwise do. It does not mean that the added benefits will be reduced, but there will be a postponement for eighteen months. Therefore claimants during those eighteen months, eighteen and a half or twenty years ahead, may have a grievance. But they would not be without benefits. They would get the benefits allowed under the Act, but they would not have the added benefits during those eighteen months. None of the money which the prolongation of the Sinking Fund postpones is a deduction from their own subscriptions. I know that it may be represented in the country that by the passing of this Resolution, and the prolongation of the Sinking Fund, they are being defrauded and money is being taken from them. But that is not correct. I do not find those hon. Members opposite, who are now present, and who follow this question closely, making those statements. When I read the speeches of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) I find a very marked difference as compared with the literature distributed at by-elections to which those hon. Members are not invited to give their support. I have noticed that when those hon. Members do not go to an election we may always expect a more furious tirade against the Act than when they are invited to speak.
But it will be suggested at by-elections that we are actually robbing these younger subscribers, instead of its being pointed out that they will not get the 1600 added benefits resulting solely from their subscriptions being supplemented by definite cash by the employers and the State. If it is explained to them that they will in any case get far more than the value of their subscriptions, but that in order to deal more generously with the older people their added benefits will be a little postponed, I do not think there will be any complaints. You cannot say that the older people are always concerned about the young, but you can say that the younger people are concerned about the aged. It is very rarely that a young subscriber is not related to some aged people who will get the benefit of this prolongation of the Sinking Fund. I have interested myself in scores of these young people, because it has been made a grievance in some quarters that they do not get full benefits under twenty-one years of age unless they have dependants. I hope the House will never consent to a young person in his teens with no one dependant upon him being entitled to draw the same sick pay as a married man with a family. I have had the opportunity of specifically testing scores of young workers all over the country, and never once have I found them coming forward with the complaint that they were being badly treated by the Act in this connection. It will be said that the prolongation of the Sinking Fund aggravates the position. Even since this proposal was made I have had a number of young people canvassed, but I have not found those who will have their added benefits postponed coming forward and objecting to this Amending Bill because it is too favourable to the old people. I have met only one man who objects to this prolongation of the sinking fund, and he is a man with four children under twenty-one at work and bringing their wages home. He is a strong-minded man, a man with a strong enough personality to persuade those four workers to turn out practically the whole of their wages every week. He is a strong advocate of full benefits being give to young people in their teens. But he is the only one I have met, and I leave the Committee to draw their own conclusions. I think it is a serious problem, which has not been as thoroughly discussed as it should be by statesmen and publicists, how far you are justified, after a man has passed the bulk of his years under a certain system, in bringing him into a compulsory scheme of this kind.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now discusing, not only the Amending Bill, but the original Act.

§ Mr. BOOTH
No, I beg pardon. I simply say that it is a question on which sufficient light has not been thrown, and from that standpoint this Amending Bill is justified. A young person of sixteen or eighteen will, under the guidance of the State, come into this scheme and live his life in accordance with it. I think it meets his wishes. He might have brought under the Act men over fifty, who are now dealt with in a special way in this Amending Bill—

§ The CHAIRMAN
That just proves my point. The hon. Member must remember that both Mr. Speaker and Chairmen have over and over again ruled that Money Resolutions are no substitute for or addition to the Committee stage of a Bill, and that they merely and generally empower the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I submit, Mr. Whitley, that the considerations I am now putting forward in regard to this Money Resolution are really on the main principle. I suggest that no Chairman in Grand Committee such as I have seen would for one moment allow me to make the same point that I am making here. I have not found one single Section in the Bill where the observations I am making on the general Money Resolution to be in order. I say that the State is only now by this Amending Bill justifying the rather strong action it took in bringing in the men over sixty-five—

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is the speech the hon. Member failed to make on the Second Reading.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Very well, Sir; certainly I obey your ruling. There is one point with regard to the distribution of the money which enables a contribution to be obtained which covers the time a man is out of work. It is one of the important features that my hon. Friends of the Labour party took considerable credit for, and which on their advocacy was brought in. There was justification for the move. That justification is that it will free the societies from the very awkward problem of deciding the enforcement of the subscriptions for arrears corresponding to the master's contribution. I say quite frankly that the money that is found by this Resolution goes further than I would go. If I 1602 could frame an Amendment limiting or dividing that amount I should do so. But I have no means of calculating the difference in the estimate or I would put that Amendment down. I do not know what support I should meet with, but this Resolution certainly empowers the society to forego entirely the master's contribution when the man is in arrear. I think the sanction of the Committee ought to have been asked to forego the amount in any case of necessity, or where the man cannot get work. But I have no means of making a calculation. If I could induce the Front Bench to say what the amount will be on this item representing the whole of the arrears and the masters' contributions, if I could see the estimates of the approved societies, then I think I should divide the Committee on that point. I do not think it is right in the public interest to propose to forego the subscriptions of a man even if the master's portion—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member knows that that could not be done by an Amendment to this Money Resolution; therefore, clearly it is out of place to discuss it. It could be done in Committee by amending Clause 3 of the Bill, and that is the proper place for the discussion.

§ Mr. BOOTH
No; I submit, Mr. Whitley, that we could not move an Amendment to the Money Resolution remitting the money. It is not on a point of Order that I do not move. I was frank enough to say that if the Front Bench could estimate the difference in the amount I would move it as an Amendment. I could perhaps put the Amendment in this form: Not exceeding such a sum which would be the sum provided in the Bill, less the sum I am now attacking. I suggest on this Committee stage of the Resolution we ought to be able to put down and take a limiting Amendment—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not suggest that that would be impossible, but even then it would not be in order to discuss the details of the Clause.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am not discussing the details of the Clause. I have not yet indicated what the deduction is that I want to be made. What I am asking is: If the Government can give me an estimate in the course of the discussion, then I will try and frame an Amendment to meet the ease. The point is this: That many workmen are out of work and cannot pay up their arrears because they cannot find 1603 work. But where there is a single young man without wife and children—if he chooses to go and spend money on holidays—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I very much sympathise with the hon. Gentleman apposite who has not been able to make the speech he intended to make, and cannot through your ruling, Sir. Your ruling, it seems to me, makes it extremely difficult to go at all fully into this Financial Resolution, but I shall certainly do my best to obey it. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a great point of the prolongation of the Sinking Fund. The hon. Gentleman has a much wider experience of friendly societies than I have. But I certainly did not at all understand that the chief grievance brought against this Bill by those who are not satisfied with it is the question of the prolongation of the Sinking Fund. I have heard a great many grievances against the Bill, but that certainly is not the chief one—

§ Mr. BOOTH
I did not mean to say it was.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
This Financial Resolution is drawn in a very wide manner, but I think it is perhaps just as well. I do not believe that the House in the least knows what it will be pledging itself to if it passes this Resolution. I do not believe that any hon. Member knows what the cost of this Amending Bill is going to be. The Actuarial Report which has been issued by the Government with the Bill is a very able document signed by, I suppose, the most brilliant actuary in the country. It gives certain estimates of what these Amendments are going to cost during the next few years. With all respect to this very great actuarial authority I submit that the estimates in this Report are a very long way below what the cost of the Amending Bill is likely to prove in the future. I should like to give four instances to justify that opinion. The Chief Actuary on pages 2 and 3 of his Report tries to estimate the number of friendly society members over the age of sixty-five who will benefit by the proposal in Clause 1 of the Amending Bill as regards medical benefit. The estimate is 228,000 members belonging to registered societies which returned summaries of age 1604 to the Registrar. He then tries to allow for members over sixty-five belonging to societies which did not return summaries, and he deals with these by discounting them altogether—by setting them off against members over sixty-five years of age belonging to societies which have not become approved societies, and which therefore are entirely outside the scope of the Amending Bill.
I submit that is not a sound calculation. It is probable that the societies who do not make returns of ages to the Registrar include an abnormal number of societies charging a flat rate of contribution, irrespective of age, and all experience, I believe I am right in saying, goes to show that the average age of members of such societies and the proportion of their members of advanced age is exceptionally high. This fact seems to have escaped the Chief Actuary's notice, and would largely vitiate the system adopted in his Report of setting off such societies against societies not having become approved, and consequently outside the scope of the Amending Bill. Of course, the result would be, in this respect, a considerable underestimate of the liabilities of the State. In the second place, the increased benefits to insured persons over fifty years of age provided for under Clause 2 will probably cost a good deal more than estimated for by the Chief Actuary in his Report. Malingering is far more likely to occur at advanced ages than at earlier ages, for two reasons. Everyone knows that in advanced age it is far easier to similate sickness, and it is also far easier to exaggerate a slight complaint into one of sufficient seriousness to justify cessation from work, and at later ages there is a tendency for a wage-earning capacity to diminish and for unemployment to be more frequent, thus making it less disadvantageous, or even positively advantageous, to go off on the sick list. I should like to mention, as regards this particular danger of increased claims at higher ages, a passage from a book entitled "Malingering," by Sir John Colley, who, until recently, was Medical Officer of Health to the Local Government Board. On page 281, he says:— It may be contended that the amount which is received under the Act, namely 10s. a week, is a small one and not likely to tempt men in good employment to claim sick pay unnecessarily, but it must be remembered that there are amongst the insured a certain number of men who are getting beyond middle life, who for many reasons may he tempted to prolong illness that may befall them. A man who has been engaged in laborious and monotonous toil for fifty years or more finds it increasingly irksome, and naturally the desire to escape grows strong as time goes on. 1605 In these days, when the tendency is to speed up the rate of work, it is small wonder that a man so afflicted begins to turn his thoughts to how he can escape from his daily toil. This being so, however desirable it may be to give increased benefit to persons over fifty years of age, the Actuary's Report seems to me to fail to present a proper estimate of what the cost to the taxpayer is going to be. Now, in the third place, I submit that the estimates in the Actuary's Report in regard to Clause 3 of the Amending Bill dealing with the arrears of unemployed persons are wholly unreliable, and probably there is a large underestimate of the cost. The Actuarial Report says, on page 6:— Having regard to the regularity with which contributions appear to be paid by the great majority of the industrial population, it appears to be reasonable to assume that the excess of arrears over the standard number in the case of those societies which have such an excess will not aggregate normally more than the equivalent of half a week for the whole industrial population. But apparently the Chief Actuary has paid no regard to the fact that the period during which these contributions have been paid hitherto has been a period of exceptional prosperity and a period during which unemployment has considerably decreased. I do not think anyone will doubt that, especially after the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is always telling us how prosperous the country is and how little unemployment there is. Therefore, no one can doubt that conditions of exceptional employment or exceptional freedom from unemployment cannot possibly be regarded as normal. But the Chief Actuary has made his calculation upon that assumption, and he actually uses with regard to this period the word "normal," and therefore I submit his figure in this respect is probably an underestimate and one which ought to be carefully guarded against. I may mention that the effect of the error is carried out in the last sentence, paragraph 15 of his Report, where the Chief Actuary estimates the cost on the basis of regularity of contribution since the Act was passed, and which is regarded as a normal standard. Now, lastly, dealing with the same Arrears Clause of the Amending Bill, the Chief Actuary estimates mates the cost to the taxpayer in paying for the proportion of the employer's contribution, of which the unemployed persons are to be let off at £25,000. On page 7 of the Report he predicts that the new provisions will enable a substantial amount of arrears to be discharged which would otherwise be left unpaid. This, 1606 however, necessarily means that more members will be entitled to the full 10s. sick pay and 5s. disablement benefit, and as these benefits will not be reduced owing to arrears under provisions of the 5th Schedule of the original Act, in addition to the £20,000, the State will have to provide two-ninths of the cost of the increased benefits of the insured persons.
No reference has been made whatever in the Actuarial Report to the two-ninths additional charge which I venture to state must add considerably to the estimates the Government has placed before us. It is for these four reasons, amongst others, that I believe the cost to the taxpayer is very largely underestimated in the Actuarial Report, which accompanied the Bill. But to my mind quite apart from the soundness or otherwise of the Government estimate the cardinal defects of their financial proposal seems to me to be that beside being probably insufficient for the purposes set out it covers very little of the ground of grievances that exists among the insured community. I am afraid I am now approaching a subject upon which I may be called to order, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Whitley, whether I can discuss the cost to the taxpayer, largely due to the fact that the Government have done nothing to stop malingering in the Amending Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
So far the hon. Member has been quite in order in dealing with the Actuarial Report, and asking whether the cost is not underestimated, but now he is going to deal with other matters.

Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS
As there is provision for doctors and as there is provision made for Referees to be paid out of these funds, would it not be in order to discuss whether the appointment of Referees as a check on malingering is a wise method or not.

§ The CHAIRMAN
No, I do not think so. It might be done on the Second Reading or the Committee stage, but it does not come in to-day at all.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
That ruling will very much shorten my speech. I wish to deal with the argument that the prolongation of the Sinking Fund is the chief grievance.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I did not suggest that. I said that the only complaint on this particular point came from a man with four children who were working.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
The Government are directly forfeiting the funds of approved societies by the financial provisions of this Bill. They propose to pay a part of the employer's contribution which the insured person is to be let off if he happens to be unemployed. I submit that the approved societies will be very severely hit by that proposal.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I was actually making that point to the House, claiming that the approved societies were entitled to this subscription when a man was a single man on holiday, and I was asked to resume my seat.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Pontefract so prompt in my support. If the hon. Member had finished his sentence on the same lines I should have intervened, but I was waiting until he had finished his sentence.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
My point is that the Financial Resolution does not provide the amount which ought to be provided for the societies to meet this case. I submit that the Financial Resolution is not sufficient to meet the sums of money which the societies are going to be deprived of under the Amending Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must point out that the Resolution is drawn in the very widest terms. I do not see why what the hon. Member asks for cannot be effected by an Amendment of the Bill itself, and if so, the proper place to do that is in Committee.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
In Committee no private Member can possibly suggest an increase of cost to the taxpayer, and therefore I do not see how we could possibly have dealt with the point in Committee. Under the existing system, if unemployed members do not pay the full sevenpence when unemployed they fall into arrears, and if the unemployment goes on the benefits under the present system begin to decrease. Under Clause 3 of the Amending Bill unemployed members, by paying their own portion of the weekly contributions will not run into arrears. Therefore full benefits will be payable, and the approved societies are only going to be reimbursed under this Financial Resolution any portion of the employer's share if the average arrears over the total number of employed persons—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is arguing on the merits of the question, and 1608 that is not in, order on a Money Resolution.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I am afraid that ruling stops me making my point. I should like the Government to look into the actuarial estimates with their own actuaries. I cannot help thinking they will agree that the estimates were underestimated in respect of the cost which the taxpayers will have to bear.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I shall have to be very careful, otherwise I shall find myself, Mr. Chairman, transgressing your ruling. I rather welcome that ruling. I remember that in the old days, when the functions now discharged by Members of the Opposition were much more inadequately discharged by those sitting on this side of the House, including myself, I do not think we were ever allowed to discuss an enabling Resolution of this kind. I remember on one occasion being sharply called to order by Mr. Courtney, and I do not think my speech lasted more than five minutes. I do not know that I can go beyond referring generally to the statements made about the actuarial calculations. I ant not in a position to defend those calculations, and all 1 can say is that we took every possible precaution to see that the figures were accurate. The hon. Member who has just sat down has acknowledged that the actuary we employed is a man of singular ability and possesses as wide an experience of this branch of the subject as any other man in the Kingdom. But we have got beyond that, for we have an Actuarial Committee which further reports upon the advice given by our own actuary. That Committee is presided over by the president of the Actuaries' Society, and they have come to a conclusion on the point raised by the hon. Member. The examination was based strictly on Mr. Watson's Report on this very point, and they concluded, after examination, that Mr. Watson had given the proper proportion to the Government. After all, the best actuarial computation must necessarily be variable, and you cannot say definitely that the amount will not be exceeded. It is possible that, in some respects, the money will not be expended, but our experience in the past is that we do not save very much money on the best actuarial calculations. I was very much struck during the Debate on the Second Reading, when an hon. Friend of mine with actual experi- 1609 ence of the working of the Act gave an instance where the actuarial computations in some societies had not been reached. There is no doubt that under the German scheme the estimates were exceeded, especially in times of unemployment. In this matter I cannot go beyond saying that we have taken the utmost care to secure the best possible advice. If the hon. Member had submitted a counter report from an actuary, then I think it would have been incumbent upon us to submit the matter to further scrutiny and investigation. The hon. Gentleman has made a good many speeches, but he has adduced no evidence which would justify us in disregarding the Report.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I do not think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman can really be very satisfactory to the Committee from the point of view of the taxpayer, whose interests we are here to guard. What the right hon. Gentleman told us was that all he could do was to present the Actuary's Report, and to tell us he was very eminent, and that he himself was not in a position to defend the Report. My hon. Friend referred to several specific points in connection with that Report. Take one of them. The actuary's figures are based upon the unemployment, which we have recently experienced. My hon. Friend said that was not a fair basis to take. I should have liked to have heard the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that basis has been adopted. It may be that he could have given us some explanation as to why that basis has been adopted and not another, but the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt anything of the kind. He merely said, "If I threw an actuary's report at your head, and you do not throw one at my head, then I can do nothing further." We are not in the same position to lay reports of experts before the Committee as the Government are. They have at their disposal the best skilled assistance at the National Insurance Committee, but, when a perfectly definite point is raised on these actuarial figures with regard to the rate of unemployment, upon which the report is based, then I say that the Committee is entitled to some better answer than the answer we have received from the right hon. Gentleman, both with regard to that and the other points which have been made.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree that I ought to have, answered the point of the hon. Gentleman that the actuary had 1610 based his computation of arrears upon a period when unemployment is at the very least. I am assured that is not the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman will find from the body of the Report itself that Mr. Watson based it upon a normal computation. I could not believe that with such an expert as Mr. Watson such a thing as the hon. Member suggested was possible, and I am assured that it was net the case. I am assured that on the face of the document itself it appears that the period was normal—at any rate, the arrears were calculated on that basis.

§ Mr. CASSEL
The right hon. Gentleman has now at least made an attempt at an explanation, and, although it is not very satisfactory, it is better than having no explanation at all. I should like to deal with another question, and I hope I shall not be transgressing the stringent rule which you, Sir, have laid down. I object to the unlimited character of this Resolution when taken in conjunction with the unlimited character of Clause 1 of the Bill, and I say that, having regard to Clause 1 of the Bill, this Resolution ought to be limited. But, wide as it is, at the same time it is in one point too narrow. The main object of this Bill was to remedy the technical defects which were pointed out last Session in connection with the Supplementary Estimate. There was a Supplementary Estimate put forward to enable the extra 2s. 6d. per insured person to be paid to the doctors, and that was subsequently carried out in the Appropriation Bill. The point was raised that that was not the proper way of dealing with this matter, and that Section 3 of the National Insurance Act ought to be amended, because it laid down the proportion in which the State, the insured person and the employer ought to contribute. It was primarily to amend that defect this Bill was brought forward. I submit, first, that neither the Resolution nor the Bill are wide enough to carry that out; and, secondly, that the Resolution and the Bill are so wide as to make it possible by mere Estimate and the Appropriation Act to convert this into a purely non-contributory scheme. I certainly am not prepared to assent to a Resolution which, read in conjunction with the Bill, has that very wide and far-reaching effect. If this ever were made a non-contributory scheme, it ought to be done by Act of Parliament, and we ought to do nothing which enables it to be done by mere Estimate and Appropriation, 1611 This Resolution, coupled with Clause 1, will have that effect unless the Resolution is limited.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Member is correct. That is a very serious point, and it ought to be met by an Amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill either in Committee or on Report.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I am not prepared to assent to a Resolution of the unlimited character in which this Resolution is framed on that ground, and that will be my ground for suggesting that the Resolution ought to be limited to a specific sum. During the last Session we had the Supplementary Estimate:— That That a sum, not exceeding £1,825,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in cause of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1913, col. 863, Vol. XLVIII.] That Supplementary Estimate was brought forward on 11th February of this year, and, when objection was taken to doing this by Supplementary Estimate instead of a Bill, the Speaker gave this ruling on the same day:— I do not think it is really a question for me to rule upon. The matter has been very clearly put in the Debate we have had. I think it must be evident that this procedure does vary Section 3 of the Insurance Act. The question then arises, does it vary it to such an extent as to become illegal? That would be a question for the law—as to whether the Appropriation Act, when it appropriates this sum, will overrule the Insurance Act or not, and upon that the House will receive the report and advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is the officer appointed by the House to consider and to see whether all sums paid out are paid out under proper authority. The House would be advised by him in due course. I think it was well pot when it was said that it was a constitutional question for the House itself, and the House must decide it. I do not think I can do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1913, col. 898, Vol. XLVIII.] After the ruling, the Prime Minister said that he would regularise it in the next Session of Parliament. By this Resolution and by this Bill you are not regularising it, in the first place, because it is not retrospective, in the second place, you are going infinitely further, and if the Resolution is not limited—unless it is limited to £3,000,000 or £2,500,000—I think £2,500,000 would be sufficient—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently does not see the point. The Resolution has nothing to do in that regard.

§ Mr. CASSEL
That is what I complain of.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Clause in the Bill can do it, and therefore the remedy must be applied to the Clause. That is the proper place for doing it.

§ Mr. CASSEL
My point is that the Financial Resolution should be limited so that we should not have an opportunity of even considering the point. If it were limited to £2,500,000 or £3,000,000 it would never be possible to pass the Clause in its present form, and my object is to prevent the Committee having any opportunity of passing it. What is the use of having a Financial Resolution unless it is to be limited? If you tell me I am out of order in suggesting that the Resolution should be limited I must bow to your ruling. But I do think we are entitled to say that a Financial Resolution should be limited in order to restrict the powers proposed to be taken. My point is that this Clause goes so far that it actually enables this scheme to be made a wholly non-contributory scheme, and I do not want a Committee of this House to be authorised to pass a Clause so far-reaching in its effect. I therefore submit that at the earliest moment the Financial Resolutions should be limited in such a way as that the Committee should not have power to pass such a Clause, and under the circumstances I submit I am fully entitled to point out the effect of passing the Resolution in its present form, that effect being that it might enable the passing of the Clause to which I object. I can only make my point clear by referring to the words of the Clause, and what that Clause provides is this—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Gentleman is extremely ingenious, but this does not provide a foundation for discussing the Clause to-day. He is entitled, it is true, to say that the Resolution is drawn too widely, but he is not entitled to use it as an opportunity for discussing further Amendments which may be proposed on the Clause itself.

§ Mr. FORSTER
But surely my hon. and learned Friend is quite justified in giving, reasons for wishing to limit the Financial Resolutions?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, but he has not indicated the nature of the limit yet. As I said before, opportunity must not be taken of this occasion to debate the merits of the various Clauses of the Bill. That, of course, must be done in the Committee stage, and it is out of order now.

§ Mr. FORSTER
We have given evidence of our entire willingness to obey your ruling, but I do submit it would not be fair for my hon. Friend simply to say that the Financial Resolutions should be limited without giving some reasons for it. I do not say he need go into minute details, but at any rate he should give some details.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think he has put before the Committee the claim that the width of this Resolution and the width of Clause 1, in his view, is dangerous to the whole finances of the insurance scheme, but I do not think he is entitled at the same time to elaborate and put forward Amendments to Clause 1. This is not the occasion to do that.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Of course, I must bow to your ruling, bat in general terms I submit to the Committee this, that you are by this very wide Resolution imperilling this whole scheme in the future. If the right hon. Gentleman will read through Section 1 he will agree that the effect of what we are doing to-day is to authorise by merely giving power in general terms, which we may or may not discuss, for the conversion of the whole of this scheme into a noncontributory scheme. You are making provision for certain moneys to be used after the moneys provided by Parliament have been exhausted. The effect of Section 3 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, would be that all the costs of administration shall be provided out of moneys voted by Parliament, and if the moneys voted by Parliament are insufficient then in regard to any balance there shall be this provision. That is how by this Section you are dealing with national insurance, and it is because I object to that that I think this Resolution ought to be limited. It is extremely difficult for me to mention actual figures, because we have no actuarial calculations, and that is one reason why we should like to have more precise and more considered actuarial reports than those which have been laid before the House and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to defend, or rather has said that he is not in a position to defend. I do submit to the Committee that it would be a very dangerous thing to pass a Resolution of such a very wide description. At this stage we should do something to limit the Resolution in such a way as to ensure that nothing shall be done in this Bill which will have such a dangerous and far-reaching effect. Let me say, if I may, one word only with reference to the exempted persons. You are 1614 providing for them £19,000 a year additional money out of the taxpayers' pockets, and there has been no attempt on the part of the Treasury to justify that. These exempted persons are persons who are rather unfortunate.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)
If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to discuss the ease of the exempted persons I must have a right of reply. He is, I submit, now discussing a Clause of the Bill.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Before I am prepared to assent to a Financial Resolution I must have some justification for the expenditure of £19,000 a year which has never been put before us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else. You are asking us now to assent to the voting of £19,000 a year out of the taxpayers' pockets, and before I agree to that I want to know why it is necessary.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Committee is not asked to assent to the expenditure. It is simply asked to assent to the Committee upstairs considering the matter, and after that on Report and on the Third Reading the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The House is not now asked to assent to the expenditure.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I suppose we are doing something here.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Whatever we do is subject to future review by the House itself.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Before we authorise it to be considered, surely it is only fair we should have some general idea.

§ Mr. BOOTH
We got it on the Second Reading.

§ Mr. CASSEL
No, we did not. The other day we were told that the Financial Resolution is part of the Second Reading, and that is the reason why time was allowed for the discussion of the Financial Resolution on the Home Rule Bill. The Prime Minister himself said that the reason he allowed us time for discussion on the Financial Resolution on the Home Rule Bill was because the Second Reading was only passed subject to the consideration of the Financial Resolution. We went very fully into the finance of that Bill on that occasion. If the authorisation stage is wholly unnecessary, the sooner it is done away with the better. If it is of value, we are entitled to have some justification of 1615 the proposals for spending the taxpayers' money. It is in the taxpayers' interest that this stage is taken, in order that their interests may not be touched without full consideration. I submit that I am entitled to ask the Government how they defend the proposal to give £19,000 a year to these exempted persons. I think these exempted persons are in a very fortunate position. They have independent means, from a pension or other sources. They are quite independent of doing any work. The other class of exempted persons are those mainly dependent upon others.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now going into a discussion of one of the Clauses of the Bill. If you rule it in order, I should like to be protected in answering it, but we shall get into a detailed discussion of every Clause of the Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. and learned Member now understands what I have said. The Committee on the Bill is the place and the time for raising these criticisms. He cannot do it on the Money Resolution, which does not effect anything, but merely empowers the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Clauses.

§ Mr. CASSEL
May I respectfully ask you what can be the slightest value of this stage at all?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will look up what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) with regard to these money stages. That would give him a very clear view of the scope of these Money Resolutions. They are, of course, a relic from the time when this House was protecting itself against the Crown. It is now practically a formal stage.

§ Mr. CASSEL
May I ask why, on the Home Rule Bill, we were allowed to raise the whole financial position arising under that Bill? You tell me I am not entitled to ask what justification the Government have for giving £19,000 a year out of the taxpayers' pocket to these persons who are exempted from insurance on the ground that they are not very well off. Do I understand that to be your ruling?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Member is fully entitled to ask that question on the right occasion. This is not the occasion.He will surely see that if it 1616 were permissible, a detailed Debate of every Clause in the Bill dealing with money would be possible upon an occasion like this. That I cannot allow. If I allow the hon. Member to discuss it, I must allow a dozen others the right to similar discussion.

§ Mr. CASSEL
If we are not entitled to ask any questions as to why any of the financial provisions of the Bill are to be authorised, I am bound to say I cannot see the slightest use in continuing the discussion.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
There is one point which I think will be in order. I desire to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will have circulated, before the Committee stage, a statement showing the proportion of the total cost of the exempted persons, and the apportionment of that cost between moneys provided by Parliament and either the draft on the Sinking Fund, or payment by increased reserved values. I do not want the Secretary to the Treasury to say that it is already in the Actuary's Report.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I am very sorry, I did not hear the question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I will put it in another way. At the end of the Actuary's Report there is a tabular statement showing the State charge in each of the three years for each one of the separate Amendments made in the Bill. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to have circulated not only the amount of the State charge under its various heads, but, under the same heads, the total charge expressed in annual value, not expressed in addition to reserve values. If the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean, I need not explain it.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I do.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
In the statements which have been circulated it is said that the abolition and reduction of benefits for entrants at the ages of fifty to sixty-five is paid for as to £99,700 by a State Grant, and as to the balance by an addition to the reserve values of £2,462,000. I want that expressed not as an addition to reserve values, but as an annual charge. I think it can be done. I have already had some answers from the Secretary to the Treasury, but they conflict, there being a discrepancy of £10,000 a year. It is not very large, but, as a 1617 matter of fact, the account does not balance. I have a form in which the information might be given, and I will show it to the right hon. Gentleman. I want briefly to refer to the form of the Financial Resolution. When the original Insurance Bill was introduced, it was based upon a Financial Resolution different from that now before the Committee. It authorised payments towards contributions of the cost of benefits. The effect of that Resolution was to prevent us, while the Bill was under discussion in this House, from moving any Amendments which increased the benefits, because, if we moved them, the State charge would be increased. That Resolution held good until we came in November to Clause 59 of the Bill. The Government had effectually muzzled us and prevented us from moving any scheme for a rearrangement of the benefits. I myself was shut out with regard to a proposal I put down for doing away with the deposit contributor class on the very ground of that Resolution. In November that Resolution was altered, and another was passed, similar in form to that now before the Committee. It was then too late for us to bring in any practical Amendments to the Bill, because by that time the Government had the Closure working, and the only place where we could have pursued our Amendments was a Schedule, and the particular Schedule was passed without discussion under the Closure, and we were prevented from moving Amendments which would otherwise have been open to us owing to the wider form of the Financial Resolution.
I am reciting these facts because the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) began his speech with a sort of challenge or expression of surprise that the Opposition has not already spoken on the Financial Resolution. The same form of criticism may easily be made, "Why does not the Opposition, now that the form of the Resolution is wide and will enable them to propose extensive Amendments, come forward and propose those Amendments now?" I can quite imagine hon. Gentlemen opposite saying, "Members of the Opposition have been talking about Amendments. Now is their opportunity. Why do not they do it now? I call attention to the form of the Resolution because now, although we are given some freedom, it is almost impossible to exercise it without pulling the whole Act to pieces, because already it has taken form and contracts have already been made upon it.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I sympathise with the hon. Member in that he anticipated an objection which some of us would naturally lodge against the line of argument he was pursuing. As far as we can understand, the reason he gave for not moving Amendments is that thereby the whole structure would be pulled to the ground. I remember last year how much he was at a disadvantage in bringing forward a scheme which he had spent so much time working out and was prevented from explaining it to the House. With that fresh in my mind, I am a good deal surprised that he did not eagerly make use of this opportunity to move a number of Amendments. I should like to reply to the general criticism of the hon. Member (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson). His general complaint seems to be that the provision made under the terms of this Resolution would probably prove to be insufficient, and the grounds which he took for supporting that contention were four. One of them was in regard to the question of arrears. I have gone through the Actuaries' Report very carefully, and it seems to me that the hon. Member missed a very important point which is brought out quite clearly in the Actuaries' Report. The last sentence of the first clause of paragraph 13 on page 5 reads in this way:— Further provisions are made with respect to the ascertainment of the normal rate of remuneration on which the part representing the employer's contribution is made to depend. There were two contentions advanced by the hon. Member in support of his proposition that the amount allowed in connection with this proposal was insufficient. They were, first, that proper regard had not been paid to the good state of trade during the time in which the Act had been in operation, and, therefore, the amount of arrears was above what would have been found to be normal. But the hon. Member was thereby overlooking what had been expressly stated in the Actuarial Report, that regard had been paid to the normal state of affairs, and that the state of affairs existing during the last twelve months would only be regarded as part of the whole which would contribute to the normal. The other contention, which, of course, is in itself incapable of proof, though I must say there seems to me to be a good deal of presumption in favour of it, was that in consequence of increasing the rate of benefits to those over fifty years of age we should have an increased amount of malingering, and, there- 1619 fore, an increased amount of claims. He also said that the amount of arrears which would normally exist would be diminished, because, with this contribution on account of the employer's cost, an increasing number of persons would be able to pay up their section of arrears when the State lad paid the employers' for them. Private Members have not access to the Mind of the Government actuaries, but I should have no doubt the actuary must have borne that very important consideration in mind.
I should like to traverse the contention of the hon. Member with respect to the claim he makes in connection with malingering. The contention which he advances to show that the provision made for giving additional benefit to those who are fifty years of age was insufficient would be found to be due to the fact that over fifty years of age malingering was easier to carry out, and that it was easier at that time of life to exaggerate the signs of illness. I think there is a great deal of exaggeration as to the effect which malingering will have on this Bill. I do not think it is really creditable to many of the insured persons that these reflections are cast upon them in this respect. The amount of malingering is infinitely less than is represented in some quarters, and the Government can rely upon the common sense and honesty of the average man to keep it within limited proportions. But the contention of the hon. Member was that the provision of this sick benefit to persons over the age of fifty would lead to an increased amount of malingering, and that, therefore, the provision was insufficient. I would suggest that the hon. Member is incorrect in that. The person who is much more disposed to malinger is the person who in younger than fifty. It is the hysterical female—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is trying to follow a path which is closed.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I was afraid I might be called to order for following some of the paths which have been opened up to us. So far as my experience goes, I think the effect of this provision upon malingering will be relatively insignificant, especially having regard to the considerable amount of sickness which is allowed in the actuarial calculation for persons of that time of life. Another objection which has been put forward is on the ground, I believe, of the prolongation of the period, of redemption. I have a number of 1620 Amendments which have been suggested by a society professing to represent societies. I do not know what authority attaches to this particular organisation, but I know that what they ask for is a system of increased benefits which will prolong the Sinking Fund by seven and a half years. This contention was put forward by those who are acting in the interests of the societies, and I must say, seeing the benefits that insured persons can get at sixteen, to make the time extend to twenty years, and two or three months from eighteen and a half years, is not an undue extension, and not in itself in any way unreasonable. The main objection of the hon. Gentleman, in addition to those I have mentioned, was that the scope was not wide enough. All that we have to do is to sit on these benches and listen to the speeches of our political opponents, because they answer one another with surprising regularity. We found the other day that we were told in one quarter of the House that there was already in consequence of malingering a tremendous increase in the amount of sickness claims, and a few moments afterwards another hon. Member on the other side got up and announced that the fact was precisely of the opposite character.

§ Mr. FORSTER
On a point of Order. Shall I be entitled to pursue this line of argument and develop the whole question?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have already pointed out once to the hon. Member that he seems to be following a path which is closed. When other Members were dealing with that point I had to tell them that this was not the occasion to discuss it.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I will not pursue the matter further. I was pointing out how interesting it is to find the objections of one hon. Member answered by another hon. Member on the other side. I see that I should be transgressing the Rules of Order in dealing with that point, and therefore I will say no more on that head. Speaking generally, I would suggest that the grounds brought forward by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) are in themselves by no means sufficient, especially if you compare his contention with that stated a few minutes later by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) who showed perfectly clearly that, if everything which the hon. Member for Salisbury said was perfectly true, it would be met by the fact that the Resolution is not limited in its scope.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The points raised by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), were really very interesting, and the hon. Member for Salisbury raised points which we shall have to get thoroughly discussed at the proper time. I hope that on some of the points which the hon. Member for Salisbury indicated, we may be able to satisfy him that the suggestions of the Clause are for the advantage of the National Insurance Act. But the Resolution now before the House is in the form of an enabling Resolution. It is to enable the Committee to get to work, and until it is passed the Committee cannot begin work. It is known as the standard form in this House. There are no limitations and no conditions to the ordinary standard form, and I think I am right in saying that such Resolutions go through unopposed after eleven o'clock at night in order that the Committee may get to work. That, I believe, is the normal procedure, and except for the promise made to the hon. Member for Colchester as to giving him further information on the actuarial position, which I wish to meet, I do not think that there is anything further I can say which would be in order in regard to the matter. The Committee ought to get to work as soon as possible. We hope to have the advantage of such criticisms as have been more or less tentatively advanced to-day, and we hope to meet them, or to modify the Bill in order to meet them. They are all detailed criticisms of the Bill, and it seems to me that they have nothing to do with a mere enabling Resolution.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I am glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said with reference to the very important argument laid before the Committee by my hon. and. learned Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). I am sure the Committee would not wish to make any radical departure from the original Act by anything in the nature of a side wind. I think my hon. and learned Friend was well advised in bringing up the question as to the basis on which the scheme is established. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that the point shall receive the attention of himself and his colleagues in Committee. I think, under these circumstances, my hon. and learned Friend should rest content.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
As a new Member of Parliament. I have tried to learn something about Parliamentary procedure this afternoon, and I hope I have profited to 1622 some extent by the discussion, but I cannot quite understand why this Resolution has been put before the House, and in judging of it I feel, at any rate, I ought to satisfy myself that I have good reason for voting for it. It is:— That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911. Therefore, on the general question, I am not very much concerned what are the provisions in some particular Act which does not come within the terms of this Resolution. Much less am I concerned as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement which has been issued on the actuarial calculations based upon some particular Bill. As I understand it, this Motion means that we are to authorise ourselves, if we choose later on, through some Bill which is not mentioned, at any time during this Session in any Bill and in any way to spend money under the provisions of the National Insurance Act. I do not know why such Resolutions are necessary, I suppose they are necessary, because of some forms of the House, but as a practical man, I cannot understand why, when this House is committed to a great scheme, such as that outlined in the National Insurance Act which requires money to be spent upon it, we have to go through what appears to me the farce of authorising ourselves to consider whether we shall spend money or not. I have tried this afternoon to see what can be the possible good, apart from the forms of the House, of passing such an authorisation as this. We are going through the solemn farce of saying that if we subsequently vote money, we can do so if we think fit. I am one of those who will support if necessary any form of the House to pass this Resolution as it stands. Parliament has committed itself to the National Insurance scheme which does involve the payment of public money, and which from time to time will need Amendment, and the payment of more public money. I am perfectly content to leave it to Parliament as the time arises to say what money shall be spent.
Therefore, I have no interest in the suggestion which has been made that we should limit the authority which we are to exercise ourselves to a certain definite amount. It is quite clear that if the forms 1623 of the House need a Money Resolution, a Money Resolution connected with insurance is necessary this Session, because last year, as was pointed out, a large sum of money which was not authorised in the Act of Parliament was granted by the Government for the purpose of the National Insurance Act, and I understand that the main reason why we are dealing with national insurance at all this Session is that the Prime Minister pledged the Government to give the House an opportunity or regularising, as he called it, that payment, so that if that is to be carried out we must pass an Act of Parliament which is to provide for moneys being spent under the National Insurance Act. If that were not necessary, if there were for any reason a suggestion that the Grant should not be continued, I, for one, think that it would be a deplorable thing, because we have found by practical experience, whether we blame the medical profession or we do not, that money is necessary to provide for the efficient administration of the medical benefit, and therefore my argument in support of this Motion is that it is clear that although no definite Bill is referred to in this Motion one is absolutely necessary this Session, and therefore a Resolution such as this, if the forms of the House require it, must be passed. And so far from having any sympathy whatever with any attempt to tie the hands of the House in the matter of the money which we shall vote for the National Insurance Act, I take entirely the opposite view, that no fetters of any kind should be imposed. If that is the suggestion that is made, it means that the Opposition will find themselves in the position in which they found themselves before, that they will be able to go to the platforms at by-elections and say, "We were anxious to do this, that, or the other thing, but by some arbitrary fixed Resolution, for which the Government are responsible, we were unable to do for you what we think should have been done." At any rate no limit is to be placed on the moneys which are to be voted under the Amending Bill which comes before the House this Session, and I think that Parliament should have the freest hand when amending the Act in spending any money which the House of Commons thinks necessary for the purpose.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that Resolutions of this kind need not be discussed. I myself moved two Resolutions, 1624 including an Amendment to a Resolution of this sort, and I have had on a recent occasion the pleasure of reading to the Government the speeches which they made when they were in Opposition upon similar Resolutions. They were very long speeches and much time was taken up by them and they were devoted to showing the absolute necessity for discussing these Motions when brought before the House.