§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word "committees" to the word "a" in line 28.
I think the Committee will have already appreciated that, although Clause 1 of this Bill is a very important one. Clause 2 is important also. It will he necessary, in order to explain the meaning of this Amendment, to explain also the attitude of those of us who sit on this side of the House towards what is fundamental in Clause 2. The Committee will understand, of course, that Clause 2 deals with the administration of medical benefit under the National Health Insurance scheme; and the purpose of my Amendment is to challenge the power of the Minister of Health in connection with that administration.
116 I ought to preface my remarks, however, by saying that we are a little astonished that the Government have brought forward Clause 2 of this Bill at all, especially in view of the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission, which deals with this very issue. The Report of the Royal Commission, for instance, on the question of insurance Committees—a subject which is involved in Clause 2—is definitely in favour of the abolition of those Committees. It is not for me at this stage to give an opinion on the advisability or otherwise of the retention of insurance committees, but I should have thought that the Government, in dealing with this subject of medical benefit, would have waited until they were ready to legislate on what is really a very important issue indeed, namely, that of the insurance committees of this country. Those Committees are composed of thousands of people sitting in all the large towns and counties throughout the country, dealing with the administration of medical benefit locally. I ought to say, in passing, that the Minister appears to me to be seeking new and still greater powers under this Measure. That is the main reason why I am moving the Amendment.
I do not know whether our Scottish friends have appreciated the position of Scotland under this Clause, and I would, therefore, refer them to a few words in one of the White Papers, namely, the Memorandum explaining the Clauses of the Bill, and would direct their attention to what might transpire with respect to the insured population of Scotland under the Clause. The Memorandum says:Special provision is made to meet Scottish conditions, without, however, altering the maximum amount to be devoted to the cost of medical benefit.It will be very interesting, and I feel sure that the Scottish Members of the House will be very glad, to learn what are the special conditions that appertain to Scotland which require special treatment in this connection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Clause at the moment will tell us why it is that Scotland is singled out for special treatment under this Clause. I do not know where Wales stands with respect to this subject. I suppose that it goes in with England as usual. At any rate, that is a point—
§ The CHAIRMAN
As I read it, the Amendment of the hon. Member only deals with the administrative expenses of the Minister; it has nothing to do with the differential treatment.
§ Mr. DAVIES
It is necessary now that I should say a word or two as to the powers of the Minister in respect of medical benefit. The Minister in charge, when the National Health Insurance Act came into operation, had undoubtedly a very difficult task to per form in dealing with the question of medical benefit. It. will be remembered, by those who have taken any interest at all in the subject, that in 1911 the Minister was confronted with what was almost a strike of the medical profession in this country. The panel doctors demanded not the 4s. that was suggested to them but the sum of 7s. 3d. as a fee for attendance upon each of the insured population of this country, and they got that sum. The powers of the Minister ever since then have been, if I may say so, wielded with very little reference to the approved societies. They, after all, are the persons who are called upon to pay the moneys included in this Clause, and moneys which have always been paid in panel fees and for drugs, mileage and all the other expenses connected with medical benefit.
We challenge the Minister's power in this connection, because we believe that he ought to consult the approved societies more than he has already done. In consulting them as to the cost of medical benefit, some heed should be paid to the attitude taken by them in connection with agreements with the doctors. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Minister makes agreements, on behalf of all the insured population of this country, with thousands of general practitioners who are acting as panel doctors; and we are not satisfied that he has made the best bargain with them, or that he will do so in the future. I ought to add that a great deal of criticism is made, not only as to the attitude of the Minister in this connection, but as to the medical profession themselves who are giving treatment to insured persons under the scheme. For my own part, I must say that On the whole I think the panel doctors have done their work admirably; but I think, too, that they have been handsomely paid for their tasks. I do not think the Minister has 118 been at all stingy with them. So far as I understand the figures, they were paid, at the commencement of the scheme, the sum of 7s. 3d. per insured person. At the end of 1921 that sum had gone up to 11s In 1922 it came down to 9s. 6d. by arbitration, and, after further negotiations with the doctors, it fell to 9s. in 1924 and 1925, and remains at that figure now. These are some of the powers which the Minister possesses—to negotiate the sum of money that is to be paid from approved societies' funds to the doctors for services rendered to the insured population. A difficulty then arises—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not wish to stop the hon. Member, but I do not quite follow how he works in his argument with this Amendment. According to Clause 2 of the Bill, there may, out of the funds out of which benefits are payable, be applied for the purpose. of meeting the cost of medical benefit, including, among other things, any expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits, a certain sum of money. The amount paid to the medical profession would, however, appear to be alien to this Amendment. I will not say that it would be out of order on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but the Amendment is merely one not to make the expenses of the Minister a charge upon the approved societies' funds.
§ Mr. DAVIES
I will, of course, endeavour to keep within your ruling, but I would respectfully point out that one of the objects of my Amendment is to challenge the Minister's power to make agreements with doctors, because the panel doctors provide medical benefit under this Clause. and the National Health Insurance Acts. I will, however, try to confine myself to the real point at issue. What are the other services that the Minister renders in connection with the National Health Insurance scheme? He is, in effect, entitled to control the business of the approved societies; he is entitled to endorse schemes of additional benefits which they may put into operation, and he is entitled also to veto a number of proposals that the approved societies might submit to him from. time to time. He might say that additional benefit schemes proposed by approved societies are too limited or too generous. Consequently, 119 we ask the Committee to take out of this Clause the power that rests with the Minister to veto these proposals of approved societies.
§ Sir K. WOOD rose —
§ The CHAIRMAN
I was just going to raise that point. I understand the effect of this Amendment to be that the expenses of the Minister should not be charged to the approved societies' funds, and I presume, therefore, that there would have to be a sum taken for them in Committee of Supply. Certainly, however, if this Amendment were carried, the powers of the Minister would remain the same as before; the only difference would be that his expenses would not be taken from the approved societies' funds, and, presumably, he would have to come to Parliament for them.
§ Mr. DAVIES
Reducing the argument within the limits of your ruling, I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to put the whole charge for the expenses of administration in respect of the tasks performed by the Minister upon the Exchequer. This Clause throws upon the approved societies, for the first time, all the expenses of medical benefit.
§ Sir K. WOOD indicated dissent.
§ Mr. DAVIES
Yes. For the first time the total charges for medical benefit will now fall upon the approved soceities' funds. During the years 1924–25, a sum of money was available in what is called the Unclaimed Stamps Account, and it was from those moneys, although they actually belonged to the approved societies in law, that the difference was made up. The argument that I desire to put to the Committee is that the Minister is not entitled to throw upon the funds of the approved societies his own charges for administration. Those charges have been increased by Clause 1; and I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the alteration in the State grant covering all benefits provided by Clause 1 applies also to medical benefit, that is to say, the change from two ninths to the new figure. I know that it applies to cash and additional benefits; but I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee 120 whether the change in the rate of the State grant applies also to medical benefit.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that that has anything to do with the expenses of administration. As I understand it, the only point here is whether the expenses of administration shall or shall not be thrown on the approved societies' funds.
§ Mr. DAVIES
I understand—I am open to correction—that even the cost of administration of benefits by the Minister of Health on behalf of the societies will be subject to the State grant. At any rate, the administration costs of approved societies are subject to a State grant, and are subject to the changes about to be made by Clauses 1 and 2. Anyhow, I think we are entitled to press this Amendment, because the Minister has several other administrative tasks to perform which I have not mentioned. The Government up to now have not met us in any way whatsoever in this Bill.
I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came in a few moments ago when we were dealing with bankruptcy cases. I do not know whether that was ominous or otherwise; but I wish he had remained in order that we might put this other argument to him. We are not asking for very much by this Amendment. I do not know exactly what the cost would be: but I repeat that it is not fair to throw on to the funds of approved societies the whole cost of administration by the Minister himself. The Minister is entitled to appoint regional medical officers. When a panel patient makes a claim on the funds of an approved society, the society may not be satisfied that the claim is genuine. The Minister has set up what is called a regional medical officer's scheme; and the society and the insured person are entitled therefore, to make an appeal to the regional medical officer who is appointed solely by the Minister c f Health. As the Minister has set up the scheme of regional medical officers without consultation with the approved societies, the cost of administering that part of the business ought surely to fall upon the Minister himself and not on the funds of the approved societies. The Minister has still several other tasks to perform apart from that. He com- 121 municates with the approved societies; he scrutinises their rules and he determines the appointment of inspectorial staffs. I do not think it is fair, therefore, that approved societies should be saddled with the cost of appointments to the Civil Service staff. They are a very fine body of men and women who in the past have audited the accounts and inspected the business of approved societies. I have no complaint at all to make against the staff of the Ministry of Health who are transacting the detailed business at the centre under the national health insurance scheme. If the Minister appoints all these men and women as inspectors the approved societies should not be charged with the cost especially when he makes the appointments without reference to them.
I should like to know what amount, if any, is charged to the funds of approved societies in respect of the salary of the Minister himself. It would be very interesting to know whether these few words, just covered up very nicely in Clause 2, mean that a part of his salary comes out of those funds; whether part of it really comes from the coppers of the 15,000,000 insured population. We are entitled to ask that he shall be here to-night to answer some of these questions. We know that his heart is not in this business at all. The power behind the throne is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In common parlance, he is the dark horse; and he, too, ought to be here to answer some of these very pertinent questions. Another duty that devolves upon the Minister of Health is the control of the Central Index Register. The hon. Gentleman is quite familiar with all these matters, and I feel sure he will be able to answer them, except, of course, that he cannot possibly give me the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a puzzle to everyone. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government can agree to this Amendment, because, after all, it is a very small favour indeed. The Government is taking several millions from the funds of approved societies by Clause 1.
The hon. Gentleman went. to the Press the other day or the Press came to him for information, and there was a very long article in all the newspapers of the country over his 122 name, making excuses as to why the Government was proceeding at all with this Bill.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Those would not be expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of benefits.
§ Mr. DAVIES
I was going to ask whether in fact any money is going to be taken under this Clause to meet the expenses of that interview.
§ Mr. DAVIES
Now I come to what, after all, is a very serious matter indeed. The Minister, as stated, has certain duties to perform on behalf of approved societies; and we claim that the charges now proposed to be included in this Clause are out of all proportion to the tasks he has to perform. After all, when the Government is reducing the State Grant towards the funds of approved societies, it ought also to reduce its powers pro rata over the administration of the societies. A few lines lower down in the Clause we have the amount stipulated which is to be taken for this purpose; and we protest because the societies could themselves perform these infinitesimal tasks very much cheaper. For instance, the appointment of regional medical officers might be done by the consultative council of the Ministry of Health. I understand that part of the cost of the meetings and the expenses of the consultative council may come within this Clause. I do not know whether it would not be right at this moment to ask, under the four heads I am going to mention, what is the probable cost of each, to the Minister.
There is the case of the regional medical officers. How many regional medical officers are there to be provided for? I know some charges are set against the: benefit fund account of the approved societies on this score; and it would be very interesting to know what is the proposed division of expenses as between the Minister and the regional medical officers. Then it quite proper to ask whether it is intended to increase the inspectorial staff. Can the Minister tell us how many men and women inspectors are employed under his control, because some of the charges for appointing and controlling these staffs may fall within this 123 Clause and within the limit of the words to which I refer. I should like to ask him, too, what proportion of the cost will go towards keeping what is known as the central index register. I understand that part of the money included in this Clause, and within the limits of these words, is to be spent on the Register. I have no fault whatever to find with the adoption of that Register. I think it is a very great improvement indeed in the administration of health insurance. The hon. Gentleman has a very alert mind. I feel sure that he can follow all these points in very minute detail. I wonder whether he can give information on my fourth point. I have mentioned three. What staff is there in the Ministry of Health dealing with correspondence as between the Ministry and the approved societies? If we can get to know what is the division in the cost on these four points we shall be very much enlightened indeed on the problem with which I have been dealing.
We have made some very useful suggestions, which have all been turned down. This is an Amendment which would do credit even to this Tory Government. I do not know whether they desire much credit. They have not got much now. They never had very much, and it has nearly all disappeared by this time. I am very hopeful that this small Amendment, which will cost very little, indeed, will be accepted by the Government.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I am very glad to do my best to reply to the rather detailed questions the hon. Member has put to me. I think his Amendment will hardly meet with the support he anticipates. He is challenging the insertion in Clause 2 of that part of the expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of certain benefits. The principles contained in Clause 2 are carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
§ Sir K. WOOD
There was no distinction, at any rate in my mind, to be drawn from the fact that some alteration might be made in the scheme in Clause 1. The Commission, I think, unanimously 124 came to the conclusion that as far as the cost of medical benefit was concerned it should now be carried by the funds of the societies under the National Insurance Act.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I only want to make one further observation on that point, and that is, that the very part which the hon. Member seeks to omit from the Bill is one of the recommendations which was unanimously recommended by the Royal Commission. Secondly, the whole of this Clause, including the part which the hon. Member seeks to omit, has received the support of the Consultative Council. The hon. Member asked me whether anyone had been consulted on this matter. Hon. Members may remember that before we rose for the Easter Recess a good many questions were put about consultation with the Consultative Council. As far as this part of the Bill is concerned, as the hon. Member knows, the Consultative Council were consulted, and they agreed that this should be inserted, including the portion which the hon. Member now seeks to omit.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
The hon. Gentleman must be fair. Is it not a fact that when they decided in favour of Clause 2, it was contingent upon Clause 1 being omitted from the Bill?
§ Sir K. WOOD
No, Sir. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) has just spoken about robbery. I would remind him that both proposals were considered carefully by the Consultative Council, and they rejected one and accepted the other. The proposals we are discussing to-night, including the part which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) seeks to omit, have the concurrence of the Consultative Council, They had the whole of the facts before them, and they decided as I have stated.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
Was not one contingent upon the other? Surely, if they accepted the principle of paying extra cost to the doctors, it was on the distinct understanding that their objection to Clause 1 was upheld.
§ Sir K. WOOD
That is not correct. Both proposals were considered. They knew what was proposed, and they agreed to the proposals contained in Clause 2, but not to the proposals in Clause 1. The whole of the proposals we are discussing to-night, including the part now proposed to be omitted, received the support of the Consultative Council. The hon. Member proposes to withdraw from the Clause the expenses of administration which are to he incurred by the Minister of Health in two important particulars. The first is the cost of the regional medical officer service. That service is very much valued by the approved societies. The hon. Member made a suggestion to-night which I have not heard before, and which certainly did not receive the approval of any large body of societies up and down the country, that these regional medical officers should be appointed by the Consultative Council. That is an entirely erroneous view of the functions of the Consultative Council. The Consultative Council, as he well knows, is simply for the purpose of being consulted on matters which arise from time, to time in connection with the administration of National Insurance.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The hon. Member must not say that. The Minister of Health consulted them, and they agreed with the proposal which is being made to-night. The Consultative Council have no executive powers, and I do not think they would desire to have the appointments of the regional medical officers in their hands. As far as I know, the approved societies are very glad that the appointment of the regional medical officers rests with what I may call the higher executive authority.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That raises the question of changing the law. The only question before us is by whom and out of what fund the expenses of administration shall be paid.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The only thing that I can say then in answer to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is that, obviously, as the Minister' of Health has to appoint the regional medical officers it follows as a fair and legitimate thing that the expenses must be paid as set out in the terms of the Bill. It would be 126 most improper and unfair to say that though the Minister of Health must appoint these medical officers he should not receive the cost of administration. The next question is the cost of the central index register. That register has to be set up by and administered by thee Minister of Health, and I am certain that few Members of the Committee would support the view that although the Minister of Health has to set up this index register and to administer it that he should not receive the expenses in connection with it. The appointment of the regional medical officers and the setting up of the central index register are functions which have to be performed by the Minister of Health and it follows as the logical and proper consequence that the cost of administration in both cases must be paid. I would like hon. Members opposite to realise that in both these matters the approved societies are wholly in agreement with the suggestions contained in the Bill.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
On a point of Order. Is it not possible to find out on this Amendment how much is being saved by the Treasury by what is remaining in the Bill
§ Sir K. WOOD
I gladly answer that question. The cost as far as the regional medical officers is concerned is 1¾d. per member per annum, and the cost of the central index register is ¾d. per member per annum. No part of the cost of the inspectorate or audit is charged, nor is the Minister's salary. None of that is charged against the societies. As the Debate has been somewhat limited, I have not gone into the matter as fully as the hon. Member would have desired, but I must say that it is no new thing to ask the societies to pay for these services. They have been doing so since 1922, in accordance with the provisions in the Act of that year and in accordance with the Cost of Medical Benefit Act, 1924. There is no reason for believing that the societies are not perfectly willing to continue to pay 127 these charges. The first objection that I have heard in this connection has been the speech made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton to-night and the Amendment he has moved. In these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, believing that it does not express the desire of any of the approved societies. They have been perfectly willing to pay these amounts since the year I have mentioned, and no intelligence has reached me that any of them has any objection to the payments being continued. They realise that good value has been received for the services which are rendered, and that in very many respects the administration of National Health Insurance has been rendered more efficient and the work of the approved societies rendered more easy by both the provisions affected by the Amendment.
§ Mr. SPENCER
May I put a question to the hon. Member? Will the words in the Bill carry any fresh obligation upon the societies; and if so, how much?
§ Sir K. WOOD
I stated a moment or two ago that the particular charges which the hon. Member seeks to eliminate by the Amendment have been borne by the societies since 1922. They are not fresh matters. The cost of regional medical officers and the central index register has been borne by the societies since 1922, and when that arrangement was made it was largely at the request of the societies. They considered that the regional medical officers should be appointed by the Minister.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
Does the hon. Member really contend that all the expenses of the Minister in this connection will be in respect of the regional medical officers and the central index register only?
§ Sir K. WOOD
Yes, I have given the hon. Member the particulars. The payment authorised in respect of the particular matters which he is raising to-night is 3d. I know he wanted to raise a much larger question, but the rules of Order prevent it. But these two 128 matters, that is the cost of the central index register and the regional medical officers, are those raised by this Amendment. They are not new matters at all, and so far as the societies are concerned the cost has been borne by them since 1922.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The reason is that for the first time we are asking that the whole cost of medical benefit, which includes these two services, shall be borne by the funds of the societies to a sum not exceeding 13s. per member per year; and that figure of 13s. includes the cost of the central index register and the regional medical officers.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
The hon. Gentleman has been at great pains this evening to tell us that the Consultative Committee has approved this particular proposal. If what he has told us be true, then the Consultative Committee did not need to approve or disapprove of this proposal, because it is already in operation.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I meant that the Consultative Committee approved the proposal that the whole cost of medical benefit should be thrown on the funds of the societies to a sum not exceeding 13s. per member per year.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
Quite so, but when the Bill was before the Consultative Committee, they were asked to express their opinion of the Measure as it stood, and it is natural to conclude that when they gave their opinion against Clause 1 and approved of Clause 2, that if the Government took their advice in the one case, they would also take the Committee's advice in the other. I should like to know what the Consultative Committee think of the Government taking their advice in respect of Clause 2 and rejecting it in respect of Clause 1. I do not think it is quite playing the game with the Consultative Committee for the hon. Gentleman to pride himself on the fact that he is following their advice in putting forward this Clause, when only the other night he was at great pains to argue exactly the other way. It must be the legal training he has gone through 129 recently. He is getting an adept at arguing either way. It is no use saying that the societies are already paying for the services; that is a perfectly fallacious argument. When they agreed to this arrangement, they were not being plundered to the extent of £2,800,000 a year. An entirely new set of conditions has arisen, and as by Clause 1 you are plundering and robbing the insurance societies, it is only perfectly natural we should want to relieve them of every expense we can. This is just as mean and despicable a piece of business as anything that has gone before. You are really making the societies pay for something for which the Department itself should pay, and for which, under normal circumstances, the Department, I should have thought, would have been very willing to pay. The fact that it is only a very small amount—
§ Mr. LANSBURY
An hon. Member who is more agile with figures than I am seems to have worked it, out, and apparently it conies to £156,000. That is more than I thought it was. But the point I want to urge is that the whole of the argument of the hon. Member is based on the assumption that the conditions are now the same as they were in 1922, and it is because the conditions are, entirely changed that I think we ought to insert the Amendment. This is just another example of the policy of the Government in regard to friendly societies and trade unions, and other institutions carrying on insurance work. Wherever it is possible the burdens are being shifted on to the shoulders of those who are least able to bear them. This £150,000 will relieve to that extent the people who pay Income Tax, and so on. It will lessen the amount of money that will be available in the way of surplus for further benefits and for extending generally the benefits of the Insurance Act. I am astonished at the men in this House who talk about the honour of ex-service men and about the great things that ex-soldiers have done. This is a proposal to rob ex-service men and their dependants who are contributors, of whatever is the amount that this will cost—it robs them of that amount of benefit per year.
130 It is a sort of psychology that baffles me altogether. I cannot understand the mentality of men who stand up in this House to plead for the ex-service man and then allow a proposition of this kind to pass. These discussions prove the utter falsity and cant and nonsense and humbug in all the protestations of love and admiration for ex-service men. Here a paltry and mean sum is to be taken from the Health Insurance Fund, and from men who only a year or two ago hon. Members opposite were flattering and describing as heroes. If hon. Members opposite are not ashamed, I personally am ashamed to be in an assembly where men allow party interests and the wiles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to induce assent to such a mean and despicable thing as is done by this Clause.
§ Mr. SCURR
I will not pursue the point of the last speaker, that the Government are trying to get the best out of both worlds. They had first of all a Consultative Committee and they asked for its advice. The whole Bill is laid before it, and when that Committee selects one portion and says: "We are prepared to accept a certain proposal if another proposal is dropped," the Government insert the condemned proposal and then comes along and claims that the Consultative Committee had recommended the other proposal. It is useless for hon. Members opposite to try to get away from that particular point. This is a breach of faith, in every sense of the word. There is a very important constitutional point raised by the insertion of the words which the Amendment would omit—any expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits.It is a great constitutional principle in this country that when expenditure is incurred by a Minister it should be incurred only by the authority of Parliament. When expense is incurred by the authority of Parliament, Parliament is able to criticise the Minister, to inquire how he is administering, and either to agree or disagree with him on the matter. Here these expenses are thrown on to a particular Fund in which there are the contributions voted by the State and other contributions paid by the insured person, and over these contributions Parliament has no control. The sum which 131 goes into the Fund is dependent on the number of subscribers to the Fund, and the administration is left at the sweet will of the Minister without our being able to exercise our function of criticising. It is a very serious proposition and one that ought to be answered by the Law Officer of the Crown. To deal with a point of this kind a Law Officer ought to be present.
I was not aware that my hon. Friend was going to raise this constitutional question. I intended to raise it at a later stage. Now that it is raised, we are entitled to put it very clearly to the Government. On the legal point as to the constitutional position of a Minister under this Clause, with the greatest respect, we cannot accept the judgment of the Parliamentary Secretary. The constitution of the country provides and pays Law Officers to answer purely legal points. They are not only the Officers of the Government but the Officers of this House. Therefore, I feel I must move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," because of the inability of the Government or of any representative of the Government to answer the legal point that has been raised.
§ Mr. THURTLE
I would not have intervened had it not been for the extraordinary defence used by the Parliamentary Secretary in seeking to justify this Clause. Being unable to meet the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) he fell back upon a Royal Commission. He said that the proposals which we seek to cut out of the Clause were recommended by the Royal Commission. That raises a very interesting point. Are we going to say that the recommendation of a Royal Commission must be accepted without question? We know the old saying that the King can do no wrong. Are we going to say that a Royal Commission can never recommend anything which can be rejected? We ought to have from the Government a statement as to their attitude towards the recommendation of Royal Commissions, since they have used that argument.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Because a Royal Commission has recommended something, and the Government support it, I do not think the hon. Member can argue as to the power of Royal Commissions in general.
That raises another question. When we debated the previous Clause we urged that the matter should be adjourned until the House had had an opportunity of considering the recommendations of a Royal Commission —the same as that with which we are dealing—which did not then make a recommendation that the Government had put into the Bill. The Minister, on the Clause with which we are now dealing, justifies the Government's action on the ground that it carries out the recommendation of the Royal Commission. My hon. Friend is drawing attention to that fact, and is surely in order not only in drawing attention to it, but in reminding the Committee that the House of Commons never had an opportunity of discussing the recommendation which is now put forward, and never had an opportunity of discussing the Report itself. In the absence of any such discussion by the House of Commons, I submit that my hon. Friend is entitled to advance the considerations which he was putting before the Committee.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If I were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's theory, I could conceive of almost anything being brought into a discussion of this kind. It is perfectly lawful to argue that it does not follow from the fact that a Royal Commission has recommended a certain thing that that thing is right, but when it is merely stated that a Royal Commission has recommended something, if it is to be said that an argument can be raised regarding Royal Commissions in general, then that seems to me an extravagant proposition, and one which would make all rules of order inoperative.
Perhaps the extravagance of the proposition is only measured by the meanness of this Bill. Our difficulty is in bringing to the attention of the Committee the remarkable situation concerning this Royal Commission. I agree at once, however, that it would not be in order to discuss all Royal Commissions in general, but my 133 hon. Friend was rather directing attention to the recommendation of a particular Royal Commission.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member merely intended to say that because a Royal Commission accepted a proposal, the proposal was not necessarily right that is perfectly in order, but so far as I could follow his argument he was going on to deal with Royal Commissions in general.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On the point of Order. As far as I could follow the Parliamentary Secretary his reasoning was that the Commission recommended this alteration and therefore the alteration was bound to be right. He argued that the Commission must be right because they had the evidence. The hon. Member surely is at liberty to argue that because the Commission heard the evidence it did not necessarily follow that we ought to take their view.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had pursued the argument that because the Royal Commission recommended the alteration therefore it must be right, I should have stopped him.
§ Mr. THURTLE
The point I was seeking to make was that when the hon. Gentleman said the fact that the Royal Commission had made a recommendation was a good and sufficient reason why we should accept it, he seemed to assume that that was a general doctrine acceptable to the House of Commons. I wished to examine the history of the House of Commons in the past to discover whether that doctrine had been accepted as sound or not, and I proposed to recall to the memory of hon. Members the recommendations of one or two previous Royal Commissions.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is where the hon. Member goes wrong. Had the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made the startling proposition that whatever a Royal Commission said was right, I should have intervened.
In that case there is no need to prolong my remarks, but I trust what I have said will serve to 134 bring out in a strong light, the absurdity of the argument used by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that will be one other additional reason why the Committee should accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I intervene for the first time on this Bill, because I happen to be actively interested in approved societies and I have had something to do in an indirect way in connection with the work of approved societies on the trade union side. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that the Consultative Committee accepted this proposal. The Consultative Committee had before them the whole Bill, and they were charged with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is often charged with, namely, trying to make the best of what appeared to be inevitable. The approved societies recognised that the Government were intent on forcing through certain things, and, therefore, the Consultative Committee set out to modify the effects of the Government's decision as much as they could. The Consultative Committee did agree to this change, but they thought that having agreed to it, the Government would drop Clause 1. I think I can say for this party that if the Government promised to reconsider Clause 1 on Report stage, we would consider a compromise. We take up exactly the same position as the Consultative Committee. As a party we are not prepared to say that a certain thing is law and cannot be compromised. The mere fact that we have as our Leader here the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby showed that we can compromise. But it is not fair to say that the Consultative Committee agreed to this alteration unconditionally. They only agreed as a concession in return for an equally conciliatory spirit on the part of the Government in regard to Clause 1
The hon. Gentleman also said that the approved societies had already carried this burden since 1924, but the fact that they have done so, does not prove the burden is not one which ought to be carried by the State. It only shows that the societies have carried during that time a burden which they were never entitled to carry and never meant to carry. We are also told that a sum of £150,000 per annum is what the Govern- 135 ment intend to save on this matter. Somebody must be losing that sum. The Government admit that they are pressed for time in connection with this Bill. If this proposal means nothing, if as we are told there is nothing in it, and if they are pressed for time, why do they insist upon it? There is something in it. There is a saving to the Government of £150,000, and the Government have sunk so low that they are actually going to take paltry threepences from the approved societies to the extent of £150,000. As regards what the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) said regarding control of expenditure, nominally, at least, the House of Commons has hitherto retained control over Ministers in connection with spending Departments. Certain days are allotted during the Session known as Supply days, and the Opposition can pick and choose subjects for discussion on those days, but I do not see any method other than by questions once a week whereby this House can retain control of spending in connection with this matter.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I may answer that point now. The Clause saysnot exceeding thirteen shillings per year in respect of each of the total number …. of the persons who are entitled etc.Therefore, the hon. Member may rely on it that the sum of 13s. will not be exceeded.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I agree, and I knew about the 13s., but the point is that, although we come and say to the Government: "In connection with the Admiralty work, we have granted you £30,000,000, and we know you cannot exceed that without coming to us again for power," we still supervise how they spend the £30,000,000, but I want to know what power we have to exercise over the spending of this 13s. How is this House to control that?
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I have tried to find out as best I can, and I speak subject to correction, not having the Parliamentary knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be very difficult to get even the Ministry of Health Vote debated, and in any case, there is this further point to be raised, that on Supply days so little can be raised in connection with these 136 matters. On the Ministry of Health Vote, housing and the Poor Law are the two outstanding subjects each time, and they practically crowd other matters out. Here are the approved societies to have certain expenditure thrown on them without any body controlling the Minister in his spending of that money up to the 13s. If we had some body in this House which could control it, it would not be so bad. I would like the Under-Secretary to withdraw this proposal and let us, if we cannot have a big concession, have a small concession. During the passage of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Bill, both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary at times made concessions, and during almost every Bill some concession is made. We tried it on Clause 1 of this Bill, and we tried it earlier to-day, but on both occasions we failed. Now the hon. Gentleman says, with a wave of the hand, that this is a comparatively minor point. Well, if it is so minor, why not concede it, at least to show that he has still the traditional spirit of conciliation that Parliaments are supposed to have, and thus allowing the approved societies to retain the £150,000 which they will have to spend if this Bill becomes an Act?
§ Mr. HARNEY
I am at a loss to understand the extent of this Clause. The Clause seems to say that three items of expenditure, namely, medical benefit, the administration expenses of the insurance committees, and certain expenses paid by the Government, together not to exceed 13s. per man, shall henceforth be paid direct out of the benefit. I may be wrong, because I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter, but am I right in saying this, that originally 9s. 6d. was the statutory amount to be paid as medical benefit, that there was 6d. additional for administration expenses, that a few years ago the medical benefit was raised to 12s. 6d., that the 2s. 6d. additional had to come from somewhere, and that the source hit upon by the Government was this? There was, among the many funds that have grown out of this insurance system, one which, I think, was called the Sale of Stamps Fund. That was a Fund fed by three sources, namely, unclaimed stamps—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I would point out that we are now dealing with the administration expenses of the Minister.
§ Mr. HARNEY
I was trying to get down to finding out where was the economy, and I think, Mr. Hope, I am realty in order. The additional 2s. 6d. they got out of this specific Fund. Up to this moment, as I understand it, the additional 2s. 6d. medical benefit and the expenses that the insurance committees were put to were both paid out of this Fund. What is proposed in this Bill is that they should no longer be paid out of this Fund but direct out of the benefit. If that is so, it is as broad as it is long, because if you take more out of the benefit and less out of this Fund, which ultimately finds its way into the Central Fund, you do no harm, but I think this is intended to cloak something, and I want a very specific answer.
It occurs to me that what it is intended to cloak is this: It says "all expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits." Has that up to this moment been paid other than from the Exchequer? Up to this moment has the amount that is covered by these words, however it arises, come from arty other source than the Exchequer? If so, and if by this Bill it is intended to effect the economy by saving the Exchequer and burdening the approved societies, then we know where we are, but we want to have it made clear, and if that is so, as I shrewdly suspect it is, upon what ground of economy is it put forward, that you really economise if you call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay less but upon the community to pay what he has saved? Where is the economy? If it is really intended to do that, why cloak it in this plethora of words? Why cover it up in this mesh of figures that the actuary has produced? Why not simply and plainly say that the economy that you intend here is this, that up to now the approved societies have only been called upon to pay what is necessary to secure the benefits and the administration of these benefits, and the other expenses, incident, I suppose, to the printing of the stamps and cards, have been paid by the Department? Why is not that frankly and straightforwardly stated?
I suggest that the reason is this, that it is too mean and too paltry a thing to put before the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently has gone to 138 every Department in the State and said: "I must cut down." He paused before the Health Department, and the officers there pointed out to him: "Here is a system that has given birth to many funds and great complexities. You can very easily collar money there, and cover it up in a, mesh of figures and technical statements that will make it obscure to the public eye." But if the reality is, as I believe it is—and I hope we get an answer —that in this Health Department an exception has been made from all other Departments in the case of the incidental expenses due to printing and other things which fall upon the Government, and they are to be passed on to the particular service—if that is the Economy Bill, to pass on general Government administrative expenses a paltry item to this particular service, when it is not, done in any other service, then I think we are entitled to say to the country that the Government, in their distress, do not get the money from those who are able to pay, and who, if asked to pay, would be in a position to defend themselves, but these paltry sums are sucked from the poorest of the poor. Because a fund is made up of millions of pence, and therefore comprises a large number of accounts, the money is sucked from the poor, because it does not affect the constituents behind right hon. Gentlemen, and, secondly, because by reason of its complexities, the Government believe they can throw dust in the eyes of the country.
§ Sir K. WOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ Mr. HARNEY
(seated and covered): In this exceptional garb, Mr. Hope, I now address you. I asked, I think, quite courteously, certain questions which were coherent, I believe, to the right hon. Gentleman. Are we not entitled to a reply?
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 136.105
|Division No. 127.]||AYES.||[7.8 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fermoy, Lord||Merriman, F. B.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Fielden, E. B.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Finburgh, S.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Applin, colonel R. v. K.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred|
|Apsley, Lord||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Frece, Sir Walter de||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Gilmour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Murchison, C, K.|
|Barnston, Major sir Harry||Goff, Sir Park||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Grant, J. A.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Bethel, A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Neville, R. J.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(Wth's'w, E)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exetery)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Grotrian, H. Brent||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E-||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Preston, William|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Radford, E. A.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Raine, W.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Ramsden, E.|
|Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper|
|Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Haslam, Henry C.||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hawke, John Anthony||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Burman, J. B.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rye, F. G.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Cassels, J. D.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Homan, C. W. J.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l. Exchange)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hudson, R. s. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Huntingfield, Lord||Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n& Kinc'dine,C.)|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Hurst, Gerald B.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Clayton, G, C.||Jacob, A. E.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Couper, J. B.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Streatfeild, Captain S R.|
|Courthope, Lieut -Col. sir George L.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Templeton, W. P.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Loder, J. de V.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Waddington, R.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lynn, Sir Robert J.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Drewe, C.||Macdonald. R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||McLean, Major A.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Elveden, Viscount||Malone, Major P. B.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wells, S. R.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Margesson, Captain D.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. O.||Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Womersley, W. J.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)||Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Wise, Sir Fredric||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Withers, John James||Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)||Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Scurr, John|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Sexton, James|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hardie, George D.||Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Harris, Percy A.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barnes, A.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barr, J.||Hayday, Arthur||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, G. H.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromley, J.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Snell, Harry|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Buchanan, G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spoor, Rt. Hon, Benjamin Charles|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Kelly, W. T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Connolly, M.||Kennedy, T.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Kenyon, Barnet||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kirkwood, D.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Lansbury, George||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lee, F.||Townend, A. E.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lowth, T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dennison, R.||Lunn, William||Varley, Frank B.|
|Duckworth, John||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Viant, S. P.|
|Dunnico, H.||Mackinder, W.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||MacLaren, Andrew||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||March, S.||Warne, G. H.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Maxton, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Montague, Frederick||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Morris, R. H.||Westwood, J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Murnin, H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||Naylor, T. E.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Paling, W.||Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Potts, John S.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Groves, T.||Pureed, A. A.||Windsor, Walter|
|Grundy, T. W.||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Wright, W.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scrymgeour, E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES —|
|Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.|
Question put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 128.]||AYES.||[9.19 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Forrest, w.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Pannefather, Sir John|
|Allan, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Frece, Sir Walter de||Plicher, G.|
|Apsley, Lord||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Preston, William|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Balniel, Lord||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Radford, E. A.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Goff, Sir Park||Rains, W.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Grant, J. A.||Ramsden, E.|
|Bethel, A.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Grotrian, H. Brent||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E. (Bristol, N.)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Bourns, Captain Robert Croft||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hamniersley, S. S.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Harrison, G. J. C.||Rye, F. G.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Haslam, Henry C.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Broun-Linsay, Major H.||Hawke, John Anthony||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel CM.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. M c l. (Renfrew, W)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co, Down)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n& Kinc'dine.C.)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Roman, C. W. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Huntingfield, Lord||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hurst, Gerald B.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Streatfelld, Captain S. R.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Strickland, Sir G.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Jacob, A. E.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Cope, Major William||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Couper, J. B.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Waddington, R.|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Huff)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||McLean, Major A.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Malone, Major P. B.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Margesson, Captain D.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Drewe, C.||Meller, R. J.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Duckworth, John||Merriman, F. B.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Withers, John James|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Elveden, Viscount||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Murchison, C. K.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel sir Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Neville, R. J.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Broad, F. A.||Charleton, H. C.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bromfield, William||Clowes, S.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bromley, J.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Barr, J.||Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.|
|Batey, Joseph||Buchanan, G.||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Connolly, M.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Cape, Thomas||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||John, William (Rhondda, Witt)||Smillie, Robert|
|Gallon, Hugh||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Snell, Harry|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Dennison, R.||Kelly, W. T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dunnico, H.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Kirkwood, D.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lansbury, George||Sutton, J. E.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lawson. John James||Taylor, R. A.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Lee, F.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby).|
|Gillett, George M.||Livingstone, A. M.||Thurtle, E.|
|Gosling, Harry||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Greenall, T,||Mackinder, W.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)||March, S.||Viant, S. P.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Fontypool)||Maxton, James||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Groves, T.||Montague, Frederick||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Grundy, T. W.||Morris, R. H.||Warne, G. H.|
|Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Murnin, H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Oliver, George Harold||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Paling, W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Hardie, George D.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Harney, E. A.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Potts, John S.||Williams, David (Swansea, E)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Pureed, A. A.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Hayes, John Henry||Scrymgeour, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Scurr, John||Windsor, Walter|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sexton, James||Wright, W.|
|Hirst, G. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.|
|Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sitch, Charles H.|
§ Question put accordingly "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."142
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 140.145
|Division No. 129.]||AYES.||[9.27 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Chapman, Sir S.||Frece, Sir Walter de|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Fremantle, Lieut-colonel Francis E.|
|Apsley, Lord||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Clarry, Reginald George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Balniel, Lord||Clayton, G. C.||Goff, Sir Park|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Grant, J. A.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)|
|Bethel, A.||Cope, Major William||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Couper, J. B.||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristrol, N.)|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R Skipton)||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Gunston, Captain O. W.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Brass, Captain W.||Crookshank, Cpt, H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Curtis-Bennett, sir Henry||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnet)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hawke, John Anthony|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Henderson, Capt. R, R.(Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks Newb'y)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Drewe, C.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Burman, J. B.||Elveden, Viscount||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Everard, W. Lindsay||Homan, C. W. J.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Cassels, I. O||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)||Fermoy, Lord||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Fielden, E. B.||Huntingfield, Lord|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Nuttall, Ellis||Streatfeild Captain S. R.|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Pennetather, Sir John||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Jacob, A. E.||Pilcher, G.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Kennedy, A. B. (Preston)||Preston, William||Templeton, W. P.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Price, Major C, W. M.||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Radford, E. A.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Raine, W.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Ramsden, E.||Tinne, J.A.|
|Little, Dr. E. Graham||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Rice, Sir Frederick||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Lord, Walter Greaves-||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Waddington, H.|
|Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Ropner, Major L.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Lynn, Sir R. J-||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Rye, F. G.||Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|McLean, Major A.||Salmon, Major I.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur O. Steel-||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Malone, Major P. B.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Meller, R. J.||Snaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)||Wilson, sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Merriman, F. B.||Shaw, Lt.-Col A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Shepperson, E. W.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streathem)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Withers, John James|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Skelton, A. N.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Morden, Col. W. Grant||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Moreing, Captain A. H.||Smithers, Waldron||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Murchison, C. K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major sir Harry Barnston.|
|Neville, R. J.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Ammon Charles George||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark. N)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Potts, John S.|
|Barr, J.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Purcell, A. A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hardie, George D.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Harney, E. A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Harris, Percy A.||Scurr, John|
|Bromfield, William||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sexton, James|
|Bromley, J.||Mayday, Arthur||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)||Hayes, John Henry||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Short Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hirst, G. H.||Sinclair, Major Sir A.(Caithness)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Clowes, S.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Smillie, Robert|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith Rennie (Penistone)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Snell Harry|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Connolly, M.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jones Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sullivan, Joseph Sutton J. E.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Kelly, W, T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Kennedy, T.||Thurtle, E.|
|Dennison, R.||Kirkwood, D.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Duckworth, John||Lansbury, George||Townend, A. E.|
|Dunnico, H.||Lawson, John James||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lee, F.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Lowth, T.||Viant. S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lunn William||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen|
|Forrest, W.||Mackinder, W.||Warne, G. H.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||MacLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, U.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gillett, George M.||March, S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gosling, Harry||Maxton, James||Westwood, J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Montague, Frederick||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.||Morris, R. H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Greenall, T.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottanham, N.)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colnel)||Murnin, H.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Groves, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.|
|Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)||Wright, W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Wilson, R.J. (J arrow)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.|
§ Sir R. HAMILTON
I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out the word "threepence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one penny."
The object of this Amendment is fairly obvious. It is to reduce the sum of threepence in respect of the expenses of the Minister to one penny, which would mean, I think, a saving of about £120,000 to the societies. On an earlier Amendment to the Clause I asked for information as to the actual expenses which were included in the expenses incurred by the Minister. and was given a figure amounting, I think, to one penny per person for regional medical officers and the central committees. I understand that since then a further question has been asked as regards other costs to the approved societies in connection with the printing of stamps which I understand hitherto has been a Departmental charge. I should like to know whether it is intended that this extra charge is to be put also on the approved societies. The answer I got earlier was fairly concise. It was that. there were no further charges to he incurred other than those of the regional medical officers and the central committees. But I think that this Committee should know what those charges amount. to, and whether the sum of threepence is not considerably in excess of that which is necessary.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)
The answer to the hon. Member is quite short and quite clear. In this question there are included only two kinds of expenditure. One is that connected with the regional medical officers, and the other one is the expense incurred in connection with the central committees. There is no other charge whatever. The proposal to reduce the amount which may be paid to the Minister from threepence to one penny is apparently based upon no sound foundation whatever—no logical foundation. It is not suggested by the hon. Member that one penny would cover the cost of these two services, and what he is asking us to do is to make a present to the approved societies of the difference between threepence and one penny. In other words, we are to alter the practice which has hitherto prevailed under which 146 the Ministry of Health has been compensated for its expenses in this respect, and we are to throw upon the Exchequer the portion of that charge which hitherto has rested upon the approved societies. No reason whatever has been adduced as to why this transfer should be made, and in the circumstances it is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
If no reason has been adduced in favour of this Amendment, we will endeavour to supply it, because there are a number of my hon. Friends who are very familiar with this question, and who will be able to give the Minister an opportunity later of answering. But we at this time are entitled to say to the Government "Are you going to give us anything?" Here we have been day after day, hour after hour, pleading the cause of these people. We have not been met by arguments from the other side. It is quite true that we have had the consolation of seeing their numbers gradually but surely diminishing, but we have not yet had any concession of any sort of kind given to us. Now the right hon. Gentle. man gets up and says "No; there is no logic nor commonsense in this matter. On the contrary, I cannot understand any practical person supporting it." I will give the right hon. Gentleman the reason why I and my friends not only support it, but will go into the Division Lobby in favour of it. This is merely an attempt on our part to prevent the Government's Continuing this policy of bleeding the approved societies. It is quite true that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton) never attempted to say what he, indeed, did not want to say, that this penny would meet the whole of the charges. That is not our case. Incidentally, there has not been sufficient evidence to show that that is not so, but that is not the point. The point is that the Government already have robbed these societies to such an extent that we are now going to minimise their loss as much as we can. We do not pretend that this penny is sufficient to bear the charges. Whatever the Advisory Council may have said on the general question that is embodied in this Amendment, the fact remains that they merely said it on 147 the understanding and on the assumption that it was a compromise on the general situation.
Surely we have reached the stage when the Minister might make a concession. I am appealing to him at this moment. Here he is, the victim of an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real genius of the whole piece simply troops in when there is a religion, and the Minister of Health bas to sit there, knowing perfectly well that all that we are saying is true enough, and that if he and his friends were on this side they would be just as bad as we are. Surely, therefore, the time has come when we are entitled to point out that here is a simple proposal involving only £125,000. That is the sum total. If we talked about£125,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer we should insult him. We are trying in this Amendment to save the situation. We are faced by the big battalions of the Government, not by arguments, but merely by brute force. They will go into the Lobby against us, and it is for all those reasons, and many more that will be adduced, that I support this Amendment.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on previous Amendments has argued in favour of this Clause because it has been agreed to by the Consultative Committee, but it has been pointed out in the course of the Debate that the Consultative Committee agreed to this Clause on the assumption that Clause I would have been deferred. It seems to me that the Government would have been able to make out a better case for this Clause if they had accepted the Amendment moved by the Opposition prior to the Easter Recess to allow Clause I to stand over until this time, when the approved societies would have had something to say about the thing as a whole. It may be argued that the saving of this £120,000 is comparatively little to the approved societies, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now scraping in all directions to save a few thousands and, if a few thousand pounds are valuable to him, they are equally valuable to the approved societies. We will find that in this Bill he has stooped so low as to save £350 on an election in the Shetland and Orkney Islands, and, if ho has stooped so low as 148 that, surely we ought to do something to save this money for the approved societies. Under the 1924 Bill the approved societies undertook to save the State from the new charge made by the doctors, and they came to the rescue of the Exchequer by taking that burden upon themselves. That ought to have earned them some consideration, and they ought to have been saved this small amount.
The Bill is mean in every detail and mean in its baseness. The whole thing is despicably mean for all its savings are all being saved at the expense of the poor people in order to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer from re-establishing the tax on unearned incomes which he took off last year. The basis of the whole thing is an attempt to save the rich at the expense of the poor. We are justified in the line we have taken because we are doing our best to save a few thousands from the clutching hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill is mean in its business, and in all its details, and the more the details are considered the meaner its proposals become. I should have imagined that this Amendment would have appealed to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who protest so lavishly about their desire to establish good relations between the "Haves" and the "Have-nots," when the "Haves" are constantly taking away the little bit that the "Have-nots" have. The Government are truly Biblical in their action for they take for their motto:Unto him that bath shall be given, and from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath.We are justified in the line we have taken and in exposing the utter meanness of the Government in the attempt to protect their rich friends at the expense of their poor dupes.
§ Mr. HARRIS
I support this Amendment, which is one of substance and principle. The Government came in with a scheme of compulsory insurance. A system of insurance existed long before the Government scheme, but the State intervened to make the contribution compulsory and the Central Department exists, not in the interests of the beneficiaries or of the societies, but in order to watch over the share of the State. It does not therefore seem reasonable, fair 149 or proper that the whole cost should be put upon the approved societies. A case can be made for the approved societies bearing part of the cost, but it does not seem equitable that the whole of the cost should be put upon them. There ought to be a more equitable distribution of this charge between the State and the approved societies. If it were not for the unselfish and even voluntary work of the members of the approved societies, much more work would have to be done by the State which would have to engage endless officials and that would entail a heavy charge on the National Exchequer. To put the cost entirely on to the approved societies is against the whole spirit of the Act of Parliament, which was to give the whole of this money to the societies to distribute in benefits. The Minister must make out a case to show why the cost of the administration of a big scheme of this character, in which the State is largely a partner and in which the State is responsible under the Act of Parliament, should be put upon the approved societies entirely, and why some share should not be put upon the taxpayer.
The Minister of Health asked us to give some logical reason why a penny should be substituted. He tried to point out that there was no obvious reason why the State should bear any larger proportion of the expenditure than the amount which he specifies in the Clause. Surely he has not taken all the facts into consideration when he makes that statement. The Government are reducing this Fund by £2,800,000 annually. It is a joint Fund made up from three sources, and one of those three sources not only backs out and reduces the amount of the total available every year. but also proceeds to put on an added charge for the services it renders. The equivalent of this suggestion would be if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to put another 3d. in the £ on the Super-tax to meet the cost of collection. This is just as much a tax on the working people as any other tax. Yet the Government say that the people must continue their payments, while the Government reduce theirs, and that, not only must the total amount available for benefit be reduced, but on top of that the Government will withdraw the small amount that they are giving. That seems to be the limit of 150 meanness which a rich man's Government can devise.
Whenever approved societies are mentioned, there is a tendency on the part of hon. Members opposite to speak of them as if they were some large corporate body. They wholly forget the units of which the societies are actually composed. This proposal means that you are giving only £120,000 a year to provide slightly better benefits and attention for the people who need those benefits very much indeed. The present medical service which is extended to the masses of the people of this country has been given in return for a constant and steady drain upon the wages of the workers and upon their prospects of getting employment by imposing a poll tax per head upon them. They get in return a very inadequate service, and when, after four years, in spite of increased expenditure and very loyal and voluntary service to the community the approved societies are beginning to get on their feet again, all those working people who have made the scheme a success find themselves hopelessly handicapped in this way. In regard to what is in moral if not in legal terms a deliberate theft from these people, after breaking he most sacred pledges, when we propose to give them some little service to mitigate those hardships we are told that ours is not a logical proposal and cannot be accepted.
I have not noticed that logic has played a very great part in the speeches of the supporters of the Government in this Parliament. There cannot be any logic in a proposal to deprive the poor of their benefits in order to relieve the Super-tax payer and enable him to take his money abroad for investment. I suggest that here is a chance for hon. Members opposite to save their political lives to some slight extent. When the Division records are examined—and there will be no divisions more closely scanned than the divisions on this Bill—when the electors hear about the steady tramp of rich men to rob the poor, they will say at the next election, "We will return somebody with less money and more sense." Why is the majority smaller on every Clause of this Bill than on any other subject which this House has discussed? Simply because every hon. Member opposite who represents a constituency where there is a pre- 151 ponderance of working people knows that they will be able to say, "You robbed us of £2,800,000 in the interests of your own pals but you only gave us £120,000 back in service."
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
I listened to the Debate on this particular Measure, both on the occasion of our very long sittings, and also this afternoon, and I have listened to a good deal of criticism of the Government. I think the Government are at least entitled to some recognition from this side of the House of the difficulties with which they are confronted. There is no doubt that any Government, faced with financial stress and endeavouring to balance its Budget and trying to run the nation without overburdening it with taxation, is justified in looking round for places where there is unexpended money or surpluses which could be used to help the nation through its time of stress. The only difficulty that we experience is the direction in which the eyes of the Government are turned to find that money. A precedent is now being set up for future governments, and this will be some guide to the Labour party as to what they can do in similar circumstances, although, I think, we should look in other directions than the savings of the working people in order to ease the financial position. It is good to find surplus money and to use taxation generally to meet our difficulties. But it is a tragedy that we on these benches should have to fight as we did before the Easter Recess and as we are doing now, in order to save funds which have been carefully conserved and built up by the sacrifices of the working classes. If I happen to be looking for expenditure that was not necessary or instances where money was being wasted, I should look at some £10,000,000 a year which is being spent now upon fox hunting, and about £4,500,000 a year which is being spent upon grouse shooting. Now the Government is taking money which should be devoted to securing the health and welfare of working people.
The Minister of Health has rather questioned the wisdom of taking twopence of this threepence, which would apparently not be sufficient to meet the requirements. If an argument is wanted 152 why we should be pressing to have the change made which is suggested in the Amendment we are now considering, I would ask how has the surpluses of the approved societies been built up? happen to be the secretary of one of these societies myself, and I was recently told by the chief administrative officer of the Ministry of Health that the organisation which I managed was one of the most economically managed in the country. How have we done that? Simply by spending our money wisely in management by adopting economical methods, and by conserving our funds generally. The amount of £60,000,000 which has been referred to is about £4 per head of the members of approved societies. That is going to be filched from us in the future. We have devoted, and shall continue to devote, some amount of our administration expenses to carefully conserving even that which is left to us. The word "robbery" has been used a great deal, and one right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway rather apologised to the Committee for speaking plain English. I am pleased that some of my hon. Friends on these benches did so, for I regard it, in plain, blunt English, as being a robbery of carefully-conserved funds amassed by working people organised in friendly societies and trade unions for their own benefit, and, incidentally and in the long run, for the benefit of the nation.
That is being taken from us. The Amendment asks for this relief in respect of our administration expenditure, which is greater, possibly, than it might otherwise be if we left things slack and did not conserve the funds and take care of the general expenditure, and so permit of these surpluses. This relief would be some measure of requitement for our expenditure on administration in conserving the funds, which has made it possible for this Government to rob our hen-roosts. Therefore, the Minister need have no qualms of conscience on account of the fact that the penny may not meet the requirements, and it would be something to assist us to meet our requirements in this direction, as some balance to the sacrifices that our people in approved societies have made. I do not want to speak too strongly about it, because there has been pretty strong speaking, if it had any effect, though I am sorry to say it has not had the effect 153 that it should have. I would, however, mention again the silence from the opposite benches, which has shown that, apart from the Ministers of the Government, Members of the Tory party have not a word of justification to say in support of this Measure or any bearing it has on the future welfare of the working people.
It is paltry to think of a nation which now has to balance its Budget in thousands of millions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hundreds of millions!']— I am talking of the balancing of its Budget, and I say again that it is particularly paltry on the part of a party which has no argument for taking, from the funds accruing by scientific and careful management by working-class organisation, now two or three millions, now a few hundred thousand pounds, when very many millions have been taken to ease people who have not so much sympathy with approved society members, because very few, I am
§ afraid, on the opposite side of the House, have to rely for their medical care on approved societies. Therefore, as they are not hit by it, they have not the sympathy that they would have if it were another 6d. on the Income Tax. I would suggest to the Minister, although I am afraid it will not have the weight that it might have, that, having taken the major portion, he might leave us this little bit by accepting this Amendment, so as to show at least a desire to meet some of our protests on this side, and not to carry everything by weight of numbers and absence of justification.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 139.155
|Division No. 130.]||AYES.||[10.10 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T,||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Cope. Major William||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Couper, J. B.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Apsley, Lord||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)||Hawke, John Anthony|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Balniel, Lord||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)|
|Barnett, Major sir Richard||Curzon, Captain viscount||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Bethel, A.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Holt, Captain H. P.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Drewe, C.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Duckworth, John||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Bowater. Sir T. Vansittart||Eden, Captain Anthony||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Brass. Captain W.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Huntingfield, Lord|
|Brings, J. Harold||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Elveden, Viscount||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Jacob, A. E.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Falls, Sir Bertram G.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Fermoy, Lord||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Fielden, E. B.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Forrest, W.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Burman, J. B.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Frece, Sir Walter de||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lord, Walter Greaves-|
|Campbell, E. T.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Lougher, L.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Goff, Sir Park||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Gower, Sir Robert||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Grant, J. A.||Macdonald, R- (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||McLean, Major A|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon.F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hammersley, S.S||Meller, R. J.|
|Merriman, F. B.||Rye, F. G.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Salmon, Major I.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. ft. (Ayr)||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Morden, Col. W. Grant||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Waddington, R,|
|Moreing, Captain A. H.||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Murchison, C. K.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Shaw, Lt-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Shaw, Capt W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Neville, R. J.||Shepperson, E. W.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Skelton, A. N.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Pennefather, Sir John||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Plicher, G.||Smithers, Waldron||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Preston, William||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)||Withers, John James|
|Radford, E. A.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Raine, W.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Ramsden, E.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Wood. E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper||Strickland, Sir Gerald||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Rice, Sir Frederick||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Templeton, W. P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ropner, Major L.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Amnion, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hayes, John Henry||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, G. H.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromley, J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snell, Harry|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kelly, W, T.||Stewart, J. (St Rollox)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kennedy, T.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Kirkwood, D.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities]||Lansbury, George||Taylor, R. A.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lawson, John James||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, F.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Dennison, R.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dunnico, H.||Mackinder, W.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||MacLaren, Andrew||Viant, S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||March, S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Maxton, James||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Montague, Frederick||Warne, G. H.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morris, R. H.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)|
|Gillett, George M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gosling, Harry||Murnin, H.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Naylor, T. E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Oliver, George Harold||Wiggins. William Martin|
|Greenall, T.||Palin, John Henry||Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Paling, W.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, T. (York, Dan Valley)|
|Groves, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Potts, John S.||Windsor, Walter|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Purcell, A. A.||Wright, W.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hardie, George D.||Scrymgeour, E.||Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.|
|Harney, E. A.||Scurr, John|
|Harris, Percy A.||Sexton, James|
§ Question put accordingly, That the word 'threepence' stand part of the Clause."156
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 142.159
|Division No. 131.]||AYES.||[10 19 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Frece, Sir Walter de||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis I.||Pitcher, G.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, w. Derby)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Apaley, Lord||Golf, Sir Park||Preston, William|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gower, Sir Robert||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Grant, J. A.||Radford, E. A.|
|Balniel, Lord||Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w. E)||Raine, W.|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Grotrian, H. Brent||Ramsden, E.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bethel, A.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Hammersley, S. S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rye, F. G.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Harrison, G. J. C.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Hartington, Marquess of||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kenning ton)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Haslam, Henry C.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hawke, John Anthony||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M,||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Heneage, Lieut.-Cot. Arthur P.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Burman, J. B.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Campbell, E. T.||Huntingfield, Lord||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sdan, E.)|
|Cassels, J. D||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Jacob, A. E.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, N. (Ladywood)||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Templeton, W. P.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitcheil|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Tinne, J. A.|
|Clayton, G. c||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Cope, Major William||Lougher, L.||Waddington, R.|
|Caliper, J. B.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||McLean, Major A.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Malone, Major P. B.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Davidson. J. (Hertf'd, Hemil Hempst'd)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Meller, R. J,||Wilson, sir C H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Merriman, F. B.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Drewe, C.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Withers, John James|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Womerstey, W. J.|
|Elveden, Viscount||Morden, Cot. W. Grant||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Murchison, C. K.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.J.)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Fermoy, Lord||Neville, R. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Fielden, E. B.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.|
|Foster, Sir Harry t.||Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Batey, Joseph||Bromfield, William|
|Ammon, Charles George||Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Bromley, J.|
|Barker, C. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)|
|Barr, J.||Broad, F. A||Buchanan, G.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hore-Belisha, Leslie.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Clowes, S.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Cluse, W. s.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smillie, Robert|
|Connolly, M.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Snell, Harry|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kelly, W. T.||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Kennedy, T.||Stamford, T. w.|
|Dennison, R.||Kirkwood, D.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Duckworth John||Lansbury, George||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Dunnico, H,||Lawson, John James||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lee, F.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Lowth, T.||Taylor, R. A|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lunn, William||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Fenby, T. D.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Thurtle, E.|
|Forrest, W.||Mackinder, W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||MacLaren, Andrew||Townend, A. E.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||March, S.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Gillett, George M.||Maxton, James||Varley, Frank B.|
|Gosling, Harry||Montague, Frederick||Viant, S. P.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Morris, R. H.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Bret-nail, T.||Murnin, H.||Warne, G. H.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Naylor, T. E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Oliver, George Harold||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Groves, T.||Palin, John Henry||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Potts, John S.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Pureed, A. A.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Hardie, George D.||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Harney, E. A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Windsor, Walter|
|Harris, Percy A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wright, W.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scrymgeour, E.||Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Scurr, John|
|Hayes, John Henry||Sexton, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Hirst, G. H.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out the word "twenty-seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-eight."
This Amendment will at least give the Minister an opportunity, now that the wider issue has been debated in this House and by the approved societies throughout the country, of retrieving the very disastrous move he and his party made less than a fortnight ago. On that occasion we pleaded very strongly that the approved societies should have an opportunity during Easter to meet and discuss their position in order that they should know exactly how their members felt about it before they were robbed. I am not too happy in using the word "robbed," for I say frankly and seriously, as one who has worked the National Health Insurance Act as an executive officer for a number of years and who knows the approved person as well as it is possible for any man to know him, that if the Minister of Health had had an opportunity of working the 160 Act in the same way as some of us have he would never have dreamt of taking away potential benefits from people who can least afford to lose them. Throughout this Debate not the least bit of notice has been taken of the most important person in the whole business; and that is the approved person.
I remember that when I was appointed as an approved society secretary 1 was asked to meet an old and experienced public man, and he said to me, "Do not forget that your first consideration is the approved member. Neither character nor name for yourself ought to be considered. The first persons to be considered are the sick and the ailing, for whom you are administering the Act." I say that to take away a large amount of money, as the first Clause of this Bill does, and to pile on top of that about another £2,000,000 in extra cost to the society—it may be in agreement, but if the agreement were analysed, it would be found to be an agreement conditional upon Clause 1 not being accepted. The Par- 161 liamentary Secretary shakes his head. Probably I have been in as many negotiations as he has, and when I have taken an agreement to be accepted I have always understood that if one part of the agreement was not accepted, the whole of the proposals were withdrawn. But these were not negotiations. They were a bombshell thrown at the Consultative Committee, and then the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary came to this House and said, "We think that the approved societies' Consultative Committee are perfectly right. They are really good chaps to take on this extra cost of medical benefit, and we ask the House to agree with their point of view." But when the Consultative Committee disagreed with the action of the Minister regarding Clause 1, the Ministers say, "Oh, the Consultative Committee are wrong. We must have this £2,000,000."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I understood that the hon. Member was moving the Amendment to leave out "twenty-seven" and to insert "twenty-eight." He is now straying from that point.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
If I have transgressed the rules, I apologise. I am trying to give the Parliamentary Secretary, who is taking main charge to-day, and the Minister, an opportunity of retrieving the disastrous position which they reached less than a fortnight ago when they made it legal to rob the Insurance Fund of £2,800000. Now they are trying to put an extra cost on the insurance societies of £2,000,000. They cannot retrieve the position by giving back the £2,800,000, but they can make it £2,000,000 per annum easier, and I am asking this Committee to postpone the effect of putting the extra £2,000,000 burden on to the approved societies for a year, in order to give the societies an opportunity of looking around. I take it that I am consistent with the rules in drawing attention to what the Minister has done and trying to warn him that the way of transgressors is hard. I am trying to convince him and to persuade him, and possibly some members of the party opposite, to vote for the Amendment.
The Amendment would defer the placing of an extra burden of 2s. 6d. per year on approved societies. One could argue, and I feel almost inclined to argue, that the 162 position of the doctors is being made quite safe by Act of Parliament. I was in the early negotiations, when we tried to arrange terms with the doctors. They are now going to reach the magnificent sum of 12s. per year per approved member. I remember that in Bradford we had nearly a battle royal with the doctors. As a matter of fact, we got to the stage when we issued advertisements to have doctors for the whole of the city, instead of having most of them placed on the list of approved doctors. The doctors would not have it, and since then they have been steadily improving their position. Now they are going to have a legal minimum wage fixed by Parliament on an undertaking entered into with the consent of Parliament. They can go to 12s. a year for each approved member whether they attend that approved member or not. I would like to go into other questions, such as the question of the drugs they may prescribe, but I fear it would be out of order to do so.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I am trying to show the Committee in the short time at my disposal that it is extremely wrong to give the doctors by Act of Parliament at least 12s. per year per member while the approved members themselves are being robbed of £2,800,000 arid having an extra £2,000,000 of cost imposed upon them. If you, Sir, rule me out of order on that point I shall have to bow to your ruling. I submit, at, all events, that we ought to give the approved societies an opportunity of realising on a 12 months' experience what the effect of this Measure is going to be. We know with certainty they are to have £2,800,000 stolen from them, because this Committee has passed the Clause which allows the Minister—or I should say the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does not wish to do so, and he must feel very uncomfortable at being made the scapegoat for Winston. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put it to the Minister of Health that to deprive the societies of the £2,800,000 is quite sufficient for one 163 year without imposing the further charge of £2,000,000. I do not know what the experience of other hon. Members has been during the holidays, but I have had large numbers of letters and interviews and communications of various kinds on this subject.
Hon. Members on this side have not had a single threat as to what will happen to them if they do not oppose this Bill, because it is well known in the country that we are opposing it. The Minister has no right to accept the Consultative Committee's recommendation in one Clause, while refusing to accept their recommendation in another Clause, because those recommendations were given as a whole. If the Minister will only take the opportunity which this Amendment offers he will he adopting the right course. Regarding a previous Amendment the Minister said there was no reason or logic in proposing that the sum of 3d. which is to be allowed to the Minister for expenses should be reduced to 1d. What is the logic of the Minister's proposal I During the many years in which I was an approved society secretary my accounts were carefully scrutinised by the auditors. Who passed the auditor's expenses?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
This is not an argument for postponing the Clause, hut an argument against the Clause altogether. The hon. Member must confine himself to postponing the operation of the Clause for one year.
On a point of Order. Is it, competent for an hon. Member to show that, in his opinion, general evils will follow certain acts? Surely he is entitled to point out that those general consequences ought to be postponed for 12 months.
With great respect, I would point out that it may have been irrelevant before. I am accepting your point, but surely, whatever may have been said, on an Amendment that definitely says that this shall not operate for 12 months, it is in order to raise all the consequences and to show that they at least ought to he postponed. It may be that 164 my hon. Friend has perhaps taken a long time to reach that point, but I am sure that that is where he is trying to arrive.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It would not be in order to repeat the Debate we have already had in order to show that this Clause should be postponed. If we had the same Debate on each Amendment, we should never get on.
That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite —after all, they are prevented from expressing their opinions—but it does not prevent us from expressing ours. The difficulty of repetition in this Bill is that every Clause is taking something from the approved societies. We have now reached a stage where the accumulated effect has been explained hour after hour here, and we now want to say to hon. Members and to the Minister: "Now that you, by the force of your numbers, say you are going to do all these things, in spite of our opposition, you at least ought to say they shall not be done for 12 months."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member should confine himself to saying that it should not take effect till 12 months have passed. That would he sufficient, but he cannot repeat the arguments that have been used against the Bill on previous Amendments.
On a point of Order. This is a subject upon which a number of us feel keenly, and if we are led to understand by the Government spokesman that these Clauses are the result of certain negotiations with the representatives of other interested parties and of certain recommendations by a special Consultative Committee, arid if my hon. Friends are able to advance reasons why we do not believe that these negotiations have reached a conclusion, and that the other parties wish to continue them, are we not entitled to represent that as a reason for delay until these negotiations are brought to a more satisfactory conclusion?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Those were not the arguments that were being used when I called the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) to order.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I desire to adhere strictly to the ruling of the Chair, but I think it is hardly fair to say that we are 165 using arguments which have been used in previous parts of the Debate when the very point that I was raising had not been touched upon by a single speaker. As a matter of fact, I was on my feet to raise that particular point when the Minister gagged us. I was not wanting to raise the whole matter. When I spoke of the Audit Department being a cost of insurance, that was a point not raised by a single speaker. Therefore, I am not raising old matter which has been raised in Debate, and I am trying as hard as I possibly can to give, reasons to the Minister why he should postpone this Clause 12 months, to give the approved societies the opportunity of saying what effect this £2,800,000 robbery would have upon them and upon the course of their work. The Parliamentary Secretary shook his head when I said that the acceptance by the approved societies of Clause 2 was conditional on Clause 1 being rejected. May I ask the Minister if he is prepared to consult with the Consultative Committee, now that Clause 1 has been passed, to see what their opinion is about Clause 2? May I give that as an additional reason why the Minister should accept this Amendment, and give the approved societies an opportunity of expressing what they really Think about Clause 2 I suggest that that is an additional reason why the Minister should accept this Amendment, and why the postponement of the extra 2s. 6d. per member should be deferred for another year, and let him have an opportunity of consulting again with his Consultative Committee, now that they have the opportunity of meeting the approved societies, now that the Executive Committee of the approved societies have had the opportunity of meeting in conference, and now that some hon. Members opposite have had the opportunity of hearing the point of view as expressed by the approved societies in their annual conference. It was proposed to make it legal that the doctors should be able to have 12s., that the insurance Committee should be able to have 6d., and that the Minister should be able to have 3d.—all these to be taken out of the weekly contributions of the poorest of the poor, and while the workman or workwoman who is ill, the workman whose cost of living, cost of necessities, cost of every- 166 thing that a workman or workwoman needs is going up, at a time when they need it the most, the position of a person who is better off is to be stabilised and fixed as a national legal minimum by Act of Parliament. I say it is monstrous that any Minister of any standing should come to the House of Commons, should be dragooned by an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think the hon. Member can complain that that is not a repetition of arguments we have already heard. He must confine himself to the particular Amendment.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I was simply trying to use it as an illustration, and not as an argument. It will lead me to be very watchful and wary of Members opposite who use illustrations, and the Chairman of the Committee does not take them as arguments. I am quite prepared to stay and fight this Bill for a few more all-night sittings. I have had the experience of being an insured person and also of administering the Act, and I think it is a monstrous proceeding to take £2,800,000 and then—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is using the same arguments. I shall have to ask him to resume his seat if he does not obey the ruling of the Chair.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I want to give reasons why they should postpone the additional burden on an approved society of £2,000,000 net after they have robbed them of £2,800,000. I put it to the Minister that that is quite a sufficient dose in one year, and I respectfully ask that they will accept our Amendment and given an opportunity to the approved societies to consult with their members. If the approved societies have not an opportunity to consult in conference, representing different approved societies, it is pretty true to say that the person who matters the most has not been consulted yet, and that is the approved member. When all is said and done, this Act was not instituted for Cabinet Ministers, doctors, or insurance committees; it was instituted for the approved members, and for this reason I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment to postpone the working of this extra burden on the approved societies 167 for another 12 months in order that they may consider their position, and, having considered their position, may make representations to the Minister.
I rise at this stage to ask the Minister whether he does not think the Amendment of my hon. Friend was at least worthy of a reply. After all, when an Amendment is moved, and arguments in support of the Amendment given, the least we are entitled to expect is that the Minister responsible will either, on behalf of the Government, accept the Amendment, or give, alternatively, the benefit to the Committee of his reasons why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I put it to the Committee that that is the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. It is not only the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, but it is common courtesy due to him. I refuse to believe that my right hon. Friend failed to continue that well known Parliamentary practice for the reason that he may have assumed my hon. Friend went out of what he believed to be the legitimate rights and merits of the question. I cannot conceive that that would be his reason for not following that well-established practice. If that be not the reason, then I can only conclude that there must be some other reason, and I assume that it is this.
We are asking in this Amendment that an opportunity should be given to the only people who will be affected to consider the whole circumstances. Why should it be urged that this is not a fair proposition when there is not a Member on the Government Benches or on their side of the House who has said a solitary word to his constituents either in election addresses or since dealing with this proposal? The first point I make is that it is a violation of every election pledge made, and it is one on which the people ought to be consulted. There was a Royal Commission appointed by our Government and not by yours. You had nothing to do with it, but you got the benefit of it in as much as the approved societies agreed to take over a liability that was legitimately the State's. We said to them, "In return for your concession, we are prepared to have a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of national insurance."
If the hon. Gentleman will talk about things he knows, I will tell him things he does not know. I was entrusted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and the then Minister for Health (Mr. Wheatley) with the responsibility of conducting the negotiations with the approved societies. I was empowered to say to them that if they would come to the State's assistance and meet this tremendous liability, we would undertake on our part to have the whole question of national insurance reviewed by a Royal Commission. That was the bargain I made with them. Surely we are entitled to say that, if those were the conditions and the bargain, those people who are so vitally affected should at least have an opportunity of considering what the Report says.
If this Amendment were accepted by the Government, it would serve two purposes. It would give an opportunity to the approved societies not only to consider the Report, but to do something far more important- than that. They would see that if the Government's intention is to go on raiding the funds then they would have to adapt themselves to the circumstances and prepare their machinery for it. Is it unreasonable to make that request? Is it not true that a request for postponement, for some further reconsideration, has already been made to the Minister by the representatives of practically every approved society in the country? Some comment was made earlier in the day about the difficulties of hon. Members in the Division Lobby, anti the absence of hon. Gentlemen taking part in the Debate. I venture to say that their post-bags during the last few days must have clearly indicated the tremendous feeling that exists. Will the Government put it to a fair test by taking their Whips off?
§ It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.