§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."335
§ 11 0 P.M.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
Ordinarily in the discussion that the Clause stand part, one is forced to recognise that in the main at least the arguments advanced from either side are understood and appreciated by the Committee as a whole. One can generally conclude that when the vote is taken on the issue that is put from the Chair, every Member in the Committee is not only in a position to vote, but votes with a full knowledge of the facts and, having heard everything that can be said against it, decides accordingly. But I am bound to draw attention to the extraordinary position of hon. Members opposite who will be voting sometime in the morning on this particular Clause. As far as any contribution from their side is concerned, there is not a Member who will be able to go into the lobby and say "I voted on this particular matter because of a contribution from any one of my colleagues." For reasons that I will explain later, that privilege, that opportunity, and, indeed, that necessary Parliamentary procedure, has been denied them by the Government. That in itself would be a difficult situation; that in itself would be something that we would be entitled to complain about, and in the ordinary way I would take up this attitude. Everything that can be said about this Clause ought to have been said already. But it must be remembered that the Government have got their second team on to-night, and my difficulty is that if I were sure that last night's team was here to-night, there would be no need for me to speak. But this is the extraordinary difficulty in which I find myself. I have got to repeat to-night—[Interruption,.] Let me put it this way. I am going to repeat to-night the arguments that could not reach the heads of the hon. Members last night. It is perfectly true that if we had relied upon argument, if our case had been listened to, and if hon. Members opposite had been given an opportunity to speak last night and every previous night that we have discussed this Clause, then my task at this moment would not be nearly so difficult as it is. But unfortunately, those to whom I have been talking for hours previously on this Clause have already been sent home.
I said earlier that it was the second "team" that had arrived. but when I see 336 the noble lady from Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) turn up at this stage of the night, I can only conclude that there is a certain part of the first "team'' ordered back. Therefore, I am quite sure that I shall get the sympathy of those on this side, and they will not only bear with me but appreciate my difficulty and my reluctance. There should be no Member opposite who could do other than sympathise with a Member on this side having to re-state something about which he thought he had already convinced other people. I felt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—yes, but people are saying "hear, hear" who never heard a word of it. My difficulty is to try to persuade them and tell them how I utterly failed to persuade people less intelligent than they. I must act on the assumption that the second team will be at least as docile and intelligent as those whom we have already failed to convert.
§ Mr. THOMAS
I immediately get an interruption. "All the same people." What you really mean is "All the same colour." I refuse to believe that all the intelligent people have gone. I am not going to treat the Committee with disrespect. When the hon. Baronet, the Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. KinlochCooke) reminds me that he is present, part of my case is going to show that when he was the Member for Plymouth— —
§ Mr. THOMAS
—for Devonport. Although you are both on that side, the disparity between you is so great that neither of you would associate with the other.
§ Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY
On a point of Order. May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will approach the subject of Clause 2?
I considered that the right hon. Gentleman was in the act of giving his preface to it.
§ Mr. THOMAS
If I tried to improve on your definition, I should fail and I accept it unhesitatingly, but I accept it because you, Sir, like myself, are a victim of this unfortunate method that compels you to listen to what I have already said.
§ Mr. THOMAS
If you had a majority decision I would save you that because I am quite sure that I should be safe, but, unfortunately I have got to rely on those people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I am not, treating the Committee with disrespect, I am giving a reason why the Government with their majority, instead of allowing their supporters to take part in the Debate, deliberately set themselves out to beat us down by numbers, and not by argument. We are not going to have it. It is not discourteous to the Chair to give a legitimate reason why I am departing from the ordinary procedure. When the vote is taken on this Clause the Committee will vote on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We have repeatedly stated—we may have been wrong—that not only were the Government taking the wrong course, and taking an unwise course in their own interest, but that they were robbing people. We have emphasised that statement and rubbed it in. We have said that the Government must be uncomfortable and their supporters disturbed, and that statement has been met by repeated denials from the other side. I want to show what an extraordinary situation has been created by this Clause. The Government have what is known as a publicity department. If any supporter of the Government feels any difficulty in being able to explain to his constituents what a particular Clause or Act means, the Government come to the rescue through the Publicity Department.
§ Mr. THOMAS
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) says that that may be true, but he exclaims, "God forbid," that they should come to his rescue. Therefore I leave the lion Member out, because he requires no assistance. That does not alter the fact that the Government have a Publicity Department. It functions when there is a General Election and when letters—imaginary letters—have to be published. We can only conclude that the Government 13 assume that a General Election is imminent, and that serious consequences will arise from this Clause. The Publicity Department has already been on the job. The department 338 adopts the usual method of introducing an imaginary constituent. They issue a pamphlet, in which they say that a constituent having asked a Member whether it is true what the Opposition say, they desire to supply to the Member, lest he should not be intelligent enough to give an answer, the answer that they thought he ought to give. The Publicity Department has already been on the job. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it from Eccleston Square?"]Oh, no ! We do not issue it until we want to convert other people. This is issued in order that the hon. Member for East Cardiff, if asked by any of his constituents—I see he is not in the first team—
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I am in the first team, and I heard all he had to say last night.
§ Mr. THOMAS
I apologise and congratulate him on his fidelity to duty. I can only conclude that he has heard from Cardiff and that he is going to reverse his decision. This Publicity Department, has sent out to each member a letter giving them instructions how they are to answer particular questions. This is what this Publicity Department says:The Opposition alleges that the Clause is directly contrary to the recommendation of the recent Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, that there should be no reduction in the State grant.In order that no two Members shall give two different answers, in order that there should be no confusion in the solidarity of the other side, it is suggested that this should be the answer:The Royal Commission did not make any such recommendation. They found that after making certain adjustments as regards assumed rates of interest and expectation of sickness, as recommended by the Advisory Committee, there would he a margin in the present weekly contributions over and above the sum required to meet the cost of the present statutory benefits. The Commission recommended that as the first call on this margin there should be placed on the funds of the approved societies the liability for the balance of the cost of medical benefits, which has been met hitherto for temporary sources, such as the proceeds of unclaimed health insurance payments. This recommendation of the Commission was agreed to by the Comsultative Council of the Approved Societies, and has been embodied in Clause 2 of the Bill. As to the balance of the margin amounting to about £2,250,000 a year, the Commission pointed out in their report that there remains the possibility of using the margin, 339 or part of it, to reduce the charge on the State. They continue "We do not regard it as falling within our province to consider whether such a reduction should be made. We have been impressed by the extent to which the original condition under which the State grant was fixed has been altered by subsequent events. The Government on examining the position decided that there was full justification for reducing the State contribution; and in the circumstances to which the Commission call attention, this was a proper purpose for which the margin should be applied '.I want to draw attention to the unfairness of that stereotyped answer. I have already made some comment on the feeling on the Government side and their anxiety when, at this stage of the Session on one Bill, they are compelled to put their Publicity Department on the job. Is there any Member opposite who would suggest that that statement which I have read is the basis of our opposition to the Bill? The statement is the most mean and contemptible travesty of the facts. Our objection to the Royal Commission was not on this ground at all Our complaint was that we on this side, having appointed a Royal Commission, and a promise having been given to the Commission that due regard would be paid to its recommendations, the present Government came along and prevented the House of Commons discussing the recommendations of the Commission. That is our only complaint about the Royal Commission. But that is not our ground of objection to this Clause; it is only a part of the ground. Our objection to this Clause is that it is a breach of contract, that it is a violation of every pledge and promise made to the insured persons, that this Government is taking the meanest opportunity in the name of economy to break a contract, and is robbing people of their just due.
Curiously enough, the Government were not quite sure that their Publicity Department would reach all the Press. So they put the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the job. Imagine this curious situation: We had finished an all-night sitting without a solitary Government supporter answering us. Hon. Members opposite were gagged, or they refused to take part in the Debate; they acted merely as machines and trotted into the Lobbies. We finished that sitting about nine o'clock in the morning. We would have been 340 content to have allowed the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT to prove what took place. We would have been content to have said, "Let the people judge by the Debate." What was the position of the Government? They had already put the Publicity Department to work; they had started the printing machines; they had already manufactured imaginary answers to an imaginary constituent. But they were not quite sure of their ground even then. They put the Parliamentary Secretary on the job. He said, "While my chief is spending his holiday I must show myself; I must give some malice to my disgruntled supporters." So he called together the Press agencies, after the all-night sitting, and reported what had taken place. A new impression was created.
I do not see what this has to do with the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. THOMAS
With the greatest respect, Sir, it has. I submit it is not only relevant, but necessary to bring out the point. We discussed the Committee stage of this Clause all night, and next morning the Minister, who had not answered our case during the night, called together the reporters of the Press, and issued a statement which I am going to read.
The sitting to which the right lion. Gentleman refers was concerned with Clause 1 and not Clause 2.
§ Mr. THOMAS
That, Sir, is perfectly true hut unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the discussion of Clause 1 we gave the Government such a hammering that he anticipated difficulties on Clause 2 and it was on Clause 2 that he gave the interview. Whoever else may attempt to do so, he will not deny that he gave the interview on Clause 2. At all events he called this conference of Press reporters, and I can only conclude that his object in doing so was to try to remove the damage that had been done by the Parliamentary Debate showing the effect of Clause 2. Is it not significant—would it not strike you, Sir, as peculiar—that with a majority such as the Government possess, overwhelming in numbers, in brains and in beauty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw]—and in everything except 341 eloquence expressed, that such a course should be adopted. With all these advantages, with all these qualifications behind them—[An HON. MEMBER: "The beauty is not behind them, is it?"]—I am quite impartial, you can have it either way—as I say, with all these advantages they put the Publicity Department to work, having manufactured imaginary constituents and provided all the arguments. Still the hon. Gentleman said that was not sufficient and he decided that he must be "on the job" —at a peculiar time, too, because it will be remembered that one of the pleas made on this side was that the Easter Conferences should have an opportunity of considering the matter. That was the plea which we made and on which we divided, but the hon. Gentleman knew the danger, and prior to the Easter Conferences he decided that he must create some impression, and so he gave his views on the situation. Having given his views, I put it to the Committee that hon. Members opposite might say that our views are prejudiced owing to the keen feeling on the subject that we have expressed, but I am going to bring in to support my case his own supporters. This statement was examined, not only by impartial, but by some of the most distinguished actuaries in this country, not supporters of ours, not members of our party, but members of his party, his friends, his advisers, and, as I think he will admit, certainly authorities on the National Health Insurance Act. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was examined by some gentlemen whose views I will give first, and whose names I will give afterwards, but here let me state, so that there need be no misapprehension, that the quotation I am about to give is not new to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, because I think ho will agree that he has already received a document to this effect.
§ Mr. THOMAS
Every bit of it. This is the considered judgment, not only of politicians, but of people whose job it is to view, purely from an actuarial standpoint, the effect of the Government's proposals. This is what they say, and they have addressed it, not to me nor to my 342 hon. and right hon. Friends, but to the Minister of Health:Sir.—Our attention has been called to. the statement issued to the Press on the 3rd by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health regarding the effect upon the finances of approved societies of the provisions of Clauses 1 to 7 of the Economy Bill"—And that is the answer to the right. hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, because he was in some doubt as to whether it had anything to do with Clause 2; Clause 2 is between Clauses 1 and 7—The statement, dealing, as it does, with very intricate subject, is so misleading"—That is to say, the statement issued by a responsible Member of the Government, one of the Ministers responsible, is so misleading—that we, actuaries interested in approved society work, feel it incumbent upon us to record our dissent from the conclusions arrived at."—The actuaries responsible, not politicians, not party men, feel it incumbent upon them to record their dissent from the press interview given by the hon. Gentle-man—The real point at issue is the proposed reduction of the State's contribution to National Health Insurance by a sum of about £2,800,000 per annum, and the reference in the statement to the expenditure by the Government on other services, such as housing, maternity, and child welfare, is not relevant to the issue.That is to say, all the talk that we had on those subjects by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend was humbug—There can he no question that the withdrawal of this money from the approved societies is a breach of a Statutory undertaking.
The document from which the right hon. Gentleman is reading has nothing to do with Clause 2.
§ Mr. THOMAS
With the greatest respect, I want to submit to you—and I challenge contradiction — that the £2,800,000 with which I am dealing is dealt with in Clause 2. If you rule that it is not in Clause 2, I will withdraw at once, hut I do not think Members opposite will suggest that it is not in Clause 2. Surely I am not only entitled to point it out, but to draw attention— —
§ Mr. THOMAS
Certainly it does not withdraw Government grants; our complaint is that it is taking away Government grants. That is exactly our point. I am dealing exclusively at the moment with a peculiar situation, and I am trying to be as relevant as I can he. I am dealing with the statement by the hon. Gentleman on this Clause. Then it goes on to say:In support of this, it is only necessary to refer to Section 4 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, which makes it clear that there are three contributing parties, and sets forth definitely the State's contribution as to two-ninths"—
That has nothing to do with Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman has been long enough a member of this House to know what is in Order, and what is not. I must ask him to keep strictly to Clause 2.
§ Mr. THOMAS
Whatever differences I may have with the Government, however keenly I may feel that they are mistaken in their procedure, and whatever strong language I may use in complaint of their extraordinary methods in dealing with this matter, nothing would tempt me to trespass on your ruling or to take advantage of it. But I do respectfully point out—and I want to put this quite seriously—that it may appear we are adopting an extraordinary form of obstruction. That is perfectly true. We do not disguise that; we do not even apologise for it. What is more, I am not going to apologise for it. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of running foul of the ruling of the Chair, hut we may as well make it perfectly clear that we feel that this is such an extraordinary proposal and such a travesty of Parliamentary procedure, that there is no other course open to us. You were present, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, during the all-night sitting. You heard the discussion which took place on Clause 1 and Clause 2, and I have no doubt that but for the fact that you were in the Chair you would have felt just as surprised as we did when you heard a Minister go the length of calling on the Press for his defence. I have endeavoured to keep to the point, but here I am dealing not with politicians, but with actuaries. These actuaries say that with regard to the estimated surplus it is not clear as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary is speaking of 344 the whole surplus or the disposal of the surplus when he said that not a penny would be touched for economy purposes, but would be fully available for the insured persons of the country. They further state that if this refers to a disposal of the surplus, then there is an important discrepancy between that statement and the statement made by the Minister of Health, who said that the Bill does not touch surpluses.
On a point of Order. I submit that this argument has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions that his remarks on this point are not in order on this, particular Clause. I ask him now to keep in Order, and to carry out my ruling.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I wish to raise a point of Order. This is really a very important question because the ruling which you have just given, Captain Fitzroy, would limit the discussion, and I think my right hon. Friend should be allowed to call attention to this report of the actuaries. This report has been sent to the Minister of Health, and it does bear upon Clause 2 very directly. It is signed by most important experts, and it states that the effects are cumulative. It points out that the Economy Bill will impose an annual charge on these societies of about £4,700,000. They also point out that the loss is £2,800,000 in respect of the reduced State Grant, and £1,900,000, exclusive of the State Grant, the extra cost of medical benefit.
They point out that the operation of these two Clauses together is cumulative, that it takes £4,700,000 and that the surpluses will not bear the two. The whole document is based on the cumulative effect of the two Clauses, and unless we are in a position to point it out I think it would make Parliamentary discussion of this matter absolutely inoperative. I submit that it is really germane and that it would be almost impossible to point out the effect of Clause 2 unless the cumulative effect of the two clauses at this stage was also pointed out.
May I say I should not in the least have objected if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had 345 been discussing the particular passages in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has alluded. What I objected to was that he was reading out at great length and commenting on passages in the report which did not bear directly on the Clause.
§ Mr. THOMAS
On this point of Order, what would either you, Mr. Chairman, or the Government, have said, if, taking this document, which, I explained, was a document sent to the Minister in answer to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, I had merely read extracts? It was because I was anxious to be fair, and did not want to allow anyone to say I was partial and was picking and choosing, that I deliberately was reading the whole document. I said in my preface that I intended to show the conection between the two. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he would not object, I would respectfully paint out to you, Mr. Chairman, that it would have been fair that I should read the whole and not extracts.
I naturally do not want to exclude anything which is germane to the subject under discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman is confining himself to reading extracts from the Report relating to this Clause, he would be in order—if he confines himself to that.
§ Mr. THOMAS
You will appreciate the difficulty. I was making some connection between the two, but for the purpose of saving time I will skip over for a moment, and draw attention to what the Commission themselves say. I am now quoting from what the actuaries say, and drawing attention to what the Commission themselves say on this very important point. This is what they say:Their causes are far from clear to us, and their persistence seriously complicates the problem referred to us. We are required, in fact, to find the proper contributions for the sickness and disablement claims of women at a time when (a) the sickness claims of unmarried women…"—and here let me say there are two lady Members of this House. While I never draw any distinction between any Members of the House, I am quite sure both lady Members cannot have read this, or they would be very disturbed because of the 346 importance of this question for their own sex, and I want them especially to hear this. It goes on:the sickness claims of married women at the ages of chief importance are about 40 per cent, higher than the corresponding claims of men, and the disparity is increasing, (b) the sickness claims of married women arc double the corresponding claims of unmarried women and the disparity is also increasing, and (c) the disablement claims for both unmarried and married women are double the corresponding claims of men.Then they go on to say:it is clear that we"—that is the Commission"—cannot come to any final decision. The utmost we can do is to recommend for the time being a basis whichprimâ facieappears to make an adequate provision.I am dealing here with the Commission, and this is what they go on to show—that it is impossible to differentiate between Clauses I and 2, because the one works into the other, and what is taken in the one naturally has its cumulative effect on the other. This is what they say in answer to the hon. Gentleman:The Economy Bill will impose an annual charge on societies of about £4,700,000 per annum, being £2,800,000 in respect of the reduced State grant, and £1,900,000 (exclusive of the State grant) the extra cost of medical benefit.Medical benefit is Clause 2 of the Bill. We are dealing with medical benefit, and you cannot separate the one from the other. They go on:—In this connection"—that is, in connection with the medical benefit—we would refer you to the statement of the Departmental Actuarial Committee, of which the Government Actuary was the Chairman (paragraph 31 on page 345 of the Report of the Royal Commission).Let the Committee observe that what I am now going to quote is the view of the Government Actuary—not a supporter of any party, but the Government Actuary himself. This is what he says:—Expenditure at the rate…indicated would amount in total to about £4,500,000 a year (inclusive of State grant)"—that is, the State grant that is now being reduced—and, in the course of a quinquennial period, after allowing for the set-off accruing from the reduction of the contributions applied to the service of reserve values, a 347 total charge (with interest) of about £15,000,000 would fail to be met from the funds of the approved Societies. For the greater part, this sum would be met out of resources that, under existing conditions, would emerge as surplus at the quinquennial valuations. We are, however, constrained to point out that the imposition of the new burden would result in increased deficiencies where deficiencies now exist, or in the creation of deficiency in certain cases, where on the present basis surplus would have appeared. As the valuation reports have shown, the societies vary widely in their financial position, and only the margins which have emerged on the present basis have protected a number of them, with in the aggregate a substantial membership, from falling into a state of deficiency. The further expenditure contemplated by our terms of reference necessarily involves the reduction of these margins, and this is bound to have adverse results upon the solvency of the weaker units. It is impossible to form any definite opinion as to the membership of the societies which the new burdens would place in deficiency, one of the difficulties of the position being that the numbers would grow as the surpluses hitherto carried forward in sub-normal cases became exhausted and the full force of the new charges had to be met without the possibility of assistance from this source. We are led to expect, after making the best estimate of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burdens would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent, of the whole insured population. This is a grave prospect.12 M
This is a grave prospect, in the view of the Government Actuary. How does that square with the political Department's answer to its supporters? I want to know how it came about that, the Government Actuary having made this statement, the Government themselves allowed their Publicity Department to issue the statement that I have quoted. This is the conclusion of these actuaries:In conclusion, we wish to say that we entirely concur in the opinion expressed by the Departmental Actuarial Committee as to the gravity of the prospect, which, moreover, is in our opinion accentuated by the fact that so substantial a portion of the margin ascertained is proposed to he used in a manner quite different from that contemplated.That is signed, as I desire again to emphasize, not by politicians, not by members of our party, but it is signed first by Sir Joseph Burn, the President-elect of the Actuaries' Society, one of the most distinguished actuaries in this country, and the head of the great Prudential Society. No doubt he will feel it imcum- 348 bent upon him to take note of the Press statement of the hon. Gentleman, and to put his views upon it into writing. He is followed by seven others, all independent actuaries, all members of the Institute of Actuaries. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Read them !"] Sir Joseph Burn heads the list, and then come Mr. E. F. Spurgeon, Mr. Edward A. Rusher, Mr. Charles H. Ashley, Mr. Herbert H. Austin, Mr. J. Murray Laing, Mr. E. C. Farmer, and Mr. S. G. Leigh —all Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries, all men in responsible positions, all, I venture to say, members of any party but our own; but they all feel, as we feel, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has led his new party into a hole, and they undoubtedly feel that it is their duty to put, it on record that, whatever may be their political views, whatever views they may have upon the Government, they at least feel the moral obligation that they are trustees for these 15,000,000 people.
I hope I have not delayed the Committee too long. I feel so keenly that I am tempted to go on. I feel that I have already dealt miserably inadequately, and certainly not at the length I should have liked, with this important subject. May I again restate shortly the position? First, we shall be voting that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. When the record of the OFFICIAL REPORT is looked up, it will be found that the great bulk of those who constitute the majority never heard a word of the debate. It will be shown that some of those that did listen to the debate were so tied up with party loyalty and the influence of the Whips that they had to disregard their own consciences and their duty to their constituents. It will be shown that, while we shall be defeated, they have had to get out another pamphlet to explain the matter. We have pleaded with the Government, and they only say "No, no, no !"They are adamant; they definitely refuse us any concession. I am not going to ask them to make any concession. I refuse at this stage to ask them to give us anything. We have tried to save them, but they are hopeless.
If I were to make one request it would be this, that if the Government are so sure and feel that their political campaign, their Publicity Department, are so satisfactory that they can rely upon 349 the judgment and the impartiality and the sense of their supporters, why do not they put it to the test by taking off the Whips? Why do not they give their supporters a chance to go to the approved societies and say, "In spite of everything else, I was true to my pledge." No, they will not, because they are afraid of the situation; because they dread the consequences; because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has sampled every party and ruined most of them, has shown himself the dominant force. We shall go into the Lobby regretting the obstinate attitude of the Minister of Health, knowing that he is voting against his conscience, knowing that he at least knows something about it, and that he, unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would like to do the right thing by the approved societies. We shall go into the Lobby regretting his and his colleague's answer and actions, sorry for the supporters who, lamblike, are to follow him, but confident that when they get to their constituencies they will he making some other excuse than that used in the pamphlet. For all these, and many more reasons that my friends will be able to express, I feel that reluctantly, much as I would like to support the Government, much as T hate the idea of voting against them, and feel that I would like to help them, because they will not help themselves, there is no other course than to let them take the course that will be disastrous to them.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I rise merely to ask one or two questions of the Minister of Health, and more particularly to raise a question with the Secretary for Scotland. My object is to question the Minister in charge with regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. I would have thought that, on this Clause, we would have had present the Secretary for Scotland or the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. I must confess that, in this matter, I have not attended to my duties as I might have done, but all day I have tried to find the exact meaning of Subsection (3) of Clause 2, and I have tried to find the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, who is always willing and able to give us any information on Scottish health questions. But I have not been able to locate him, and I want to ask for some explanation of this 350 Scottish question. I was going to put down an Amendment asking that this part of the Clause be struck out altogether, and then I was advised that it was of some advantage to Scotland. On the other hand, I have a communication from certain people in Glasgow stating that this is taking something from Scotland that we already have. One of the reasons why I did not put down an Amendment was that this might be of advantage to Scotland, and some English Members might have been tempted to go into the Division Lobby to take away what might have been an advantage to Scotland. I have not taken much part in the Debates on this Economy Bill, and it is only because this morning I received a letter from certain insurance people in Glasgow that I have raised this question. Here is a Scottish question being discussed, and I must frankly say that the Minister of Health, during the Widows' Pensions business, was extremely courteous in going into all questions and having Scottish officers present when Scottish questions were raised. But on this occasion that has not been done. I hope the Minister of Health will explain this subject to the Scottish Members, who have purposely waited for an explanation.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I will do my best to answer the question. If the hon. Member will look at Sub-clause 3, he will see that there is a special provision for Scotland which says;(a) in addition to payments to he made under Sub-section (1) of this Section out of the sum applicable as provided by that Sub-section"—That is, 13s.there may be paid thereout any expenses of the Scottish Board of Health in cornice-Lion with the provision of a medical service for insured persons in such districts of Scotland…as may be determined by the Board to be necessitous, and references in the said Sub-section (1) as applied to Scotland to expenses incurred by the Board shall be construed as including the expenses aforesaid.In that sum of 13s. there are two items which particularly affect the sparsely populated areas of Scotland. One might be called expenses for the mileage of doctors. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will remember that in the original negotiations with the doctors a very thorny question was raised in connection 351 with allowances for mileage where there were sparsely populated areas. This is particularly the case in Scotland. In allocating the 13s., inasmuch as in Scotland the drug bill is less than that particular item in this country, this Clause allows out of the 13s., a special assistance to be given to the doctors in particular areas in Scotland where an allowance is necessary and desirable on account of the sparsely populated character of the country. This is a special arrangement for remuneration over and above what would be given in this country, and the necessary adjustment is made to keep it within the 13s. As far as this Sub-clause is concerned it is put in at the request, I understand, of the Scottish Board of Health, in order that further arrangements may be made with the medical men there to meet the difficulties that may arise in sparsely populated areas.
§ Mr. THOMAS
However much we may disagree with the action of the Government, we always appreciate any effort to give information. We have very grave doubt about this Clause and what it means. The Parliamentary Secretary himself is not quite sure about it. Will he explain what is meant by the words he omitted(other than the highlands and islands within the meaning of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913.)We shall soon be voting on the question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." My Scottish friends do not want to be accused of going into the Lobby and voting for something that is an injustice or something that they do not understand. Therefore could not we at this stage have a Scottish Law Office present? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has given an explanation as far as he was able to ascertain the facts, but he was not quite sure about them. Therefore, on a matter affecting Scotland and particularly in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is in some doubt.—
§ Sir K. WOOD
I endeavoured to answer seriously the question, and I hope the Committee will appreciate the reply I gave. It is, I believe, perfectly correct, and will no doubt be confirmed by other Members. In England the figure of 3d. is allowed, but in Scotland this amount 352 can be exceeded, and the arrangement thus made is continued in this Clause. With regard to the words(other than the highlands and islands within the meaning of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913) as may be determined by the Board to be necessitous, and references in the said subsection (1) as applied to Scotland to expenses incurred by the Board shall be construed as including the expenses aforesaid;—that is a special provision for the part of the country that is very sparsely populated. An Act is already in force which covers this part of the country and the present Clause only continues its operation.
§ Mr BUCHANAN
I do not know anything about this matter and I should like to be informed. If this is merely continuing a practice incorporated in other Acts, why is it necessary to include such a provision in an Economy Bill. But I should like to know the particular districts to which this applies. I understand that owing to the sparseness of the population a doctor would not be covered by the normal fee of 9s., as sometimes he has to travel 30 and 40 miles to visit one patient. It may take him the whole day. But, to what parts of Scotland does this apply, and if it is not economy, why put it in an Economy Bill?
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I share the doubts of my hon. Friend, and should like to know whether there has been any consultation with the Scottish Societies on this matter. In paragraph (b) it says:the maximum sums as respects the administration expenses of insurance committees and the expenses of the Board shall he such sums as may respectively be prescribed.I want to know prescribed by whom, by the Scottish Board of Health?
§ Sir K. WOOD
I will be glad to reply to these questions. The reason why the paragraph is included is that in a previous Sub-clause we made arrangements with regard to the limitation of medical benefits to a sum of 13s., and in order to meet the special case of Scotland and the difficulties which arise there, it is necessary to put to this paragraph. To my own knowledge there have been representations from Scotland as to the difficulties in these sparsely populated areas. With regard to what particular areas are 353 affected, the answer my hon. Friend will see is in the latter part of sub-section (3):such areas as may be determined by the Board to ho necessitous.With regard to the point as to (b)—shall be such sums as may respectively be prescribed"——who prescribes that? The answer is, the Scottish Board of Health.
§ Mr. THOMAS
Again I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has done his best to explain, but the remarkable thing is that he has now rather suggested that this is a concession. When I look at the Clause, my reading of it is:In addition to the payments to be made under Sub-section (1) of this Section out of the sum applicable as provided by that Subsection, there may be paid thereout any expenses of the Scottish Board of Health in connection with the provision of a medical service for insured persons in such districts.I cannot reconcile that with some concession, and I still would like to see. some Member of the Scottish Office who will explain the situation.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I would like to add a word or two to what has been said with regard to the Highlands and those sparsely populated districts. My hon. Friend has explained quite fairly what took place in 1911. It was obvious that it was no use giving Cs.—afterwards by agreement it was, I think. 7s. 6d.—to doctors for a patient when you are dealing with a very sparsely-populated district like the Highlands, when the doctor might take a whole day to get to his patient, and sometimes might have to travel in conditions of very great peril to his life. Therefore, we had to make special arrangements for giving a sum of money to the doctors under the name of travelling expenses. I understand that here it is proposed that the 13s. which is to be inserted as a maximum in this Clause should be used, as far as the Highlands are concerned to increase that sum; but, in addition to that, there is something saved on the fact that Scottish doctors do not drug their patients as thoroughly as English doctors do. I think they deserve an extra fee for that. But I want to point out that this is not anything which the Government is giving.
It is important to understand that they are voting here the reserves of the friendly societies—the contributions made 354 —and that it leads the friendly society and trade union funds a step nearer bankruptcy. When they talk about boons to the Highlanders, they are just boons at the expense of the Highlanders themselves and the expense of the rest of the industrial community and others in Scotland and England and Wales. I am a Highlander myself, and we have exactly the same difficulty in the Highlands of Wales. But there it is all done at the expense of the funds contributed by the miners, the quarrymen, railwaymen and the agricultural labourers; and there is no grant from the Government. On the contrary, the Governmnt are taking away a very considerable sum of money, while imposing additional burdens, and they say "Look at the boons we are conferring on you in the Highlands." It is a great sham and a fraud. That is why I ask, if I may say so, in reference to the Highlands and in reference to other parts of the country, that we should discuss exactly what the Government are doing here. We owe a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for calling attention to the important document just issued. This document was sent out by the Minister of Health within the last couple of days. Why was it sent?
This is one of the most cleverly drafted Bills ever seen in the House of Commons—and I have seen a good many in my time. It is drafted with the object of concealing what the object of the Bill is and what its purpose is. So cleverly is it done that even approved societies, composed of men who have been engaged all their lives in this task, did not really know what the full effect of it was. When they had their doubts about the matter they were told that that was not so. They probably had a copy of the Publicity Department's explanation. The approved societies said: "We will submit it to actuaries who will be able to dive into its depths." They discovered this for the first time: Not only does it reduce the income of the societies by £2,800,000, but it imposes a burden of £1,900,000, and the aggregate loss which is inflicted is at least £4,800,000. The societies did not themselves fully realise it until they had the explanation in this document. The Minister of Health was unable to give an answer when the approved societies came to him.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that I gave no answer. He is quite 355 entitled to say that my answer did not satisfy them.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have no doubt at all, from the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, that he is always able to say something, but there is a vast difference between that and giving an answer. And the right hon. Gentleman has not explained that. Does he challenge this document and the statement read by my right hon. friend? What does he mean? £2,800,000 is being taken away and there is £1,900,000 of a new liability added here. The report to which they called attention here was that this was an original liability, and without taking £2,800,000 away, ten per cent. of the assets, the societies will be in a deficit without this. In addition to that, they point out the fact that there is an increasing liability in respect of a large section of insured persons—increasing in respect of women, and, as the Royal Commission pointed out, in respect of the men who were beginning to feel the effects of the War, which had shaken their constitution. Here you have a, sum which is inadequate to meet the benefits declared; it is very doubtful whether you have a sufficient sum The sum £2,800,000 has been taken away and 121,900,000 additional liability has been imposed. I ask the right hon Gentleman what answer he has to make to this serious document., which comes from people who, as was pointed out, have not sent it in as a political criticism but have sent it as a number of expert advisers of bodies that represent millions of insured persons who depended upon the guarantee of the State. They have had no explanation that satisfies them. If the right hon. Gentleman has an answer he ought to give it here.
Let me point out another thing in this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has here a sum of 8s. per head. Is that the sum he is going to give them? is that the basis of the new arrangement with the doctors? If so, have the approved societies been consulted about that? You are leaving them in a state of very doubtful solvency. It is all very well for hon. Members to smile, but they themselves are very anxious about, it I have seen a letter written in reply to the right, hon. Gentleman not merely by these actuaries, but by a very able secretary of the Scottish Farm Labourers' Society (Mr. 356 Lord). It appeared in the '' Scotsman" a few days ago. He says that by 1931 these societies will be unable to pay their benefits. They say they will be able to pay this £1,900,000 and the other benefits already declared out of their surplus, but that is paying out of the accumulated capital, which you are not replenishing. That is wasting your capital. If a man has saved a thousand pounds, of course he can go on spending that for two, three, or four years, but at the end of that time it has gone. That will be the position here. These, accumulated benefits, according to Mr. Wood, will have been dissipated by 1931 in the case of the rural workers. There will be no funds, and existing benefits will have to be reduced now in order to prevent bankruptcy in 1931, or they can go on till 1931 on the chance that some other Chancellor of the Exchequer will put back the money which the present Chancellor has taken away. That is a very unsatisfactory state of things.
I ask the Minister of Health "does this 13s. which you have in this Clause represent t he amount which the Minister of Health has decided should be paid to the doctors, or is it merely a maximum which they have put there for the purpose of complication without consulting the people who are primarily concerned at all and who have to pay it '' On the other hand, if it is merely a figure to form the basis upon which you are to negotiate, what folly, if you are going to negotiate, to put in 13s, in respect of payment ! That is not a good way to start negotiations. I should like to ask, first of all, whether the Ministry ever made an arrangement with the doctors upon the basis of 13s.; and I should also like to ask, in the second place, whether they consulted the approved societies with regard to that figure at all. Then I should like, further, to press the point already pressed by my hon. Friends of the Labour party, whether the money which has been given to the Highlands is money to which the Government are contributing one sixpence in addition to what they are giving now, or whether, on the contrary, they will not be deprived of the part of £2,800,000 to which they are contributing at the present moment.
There has been a very marked and conspicuous difference 357 between the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Borough (Mr. Lloyd George), to which we have just listened, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), to which we listened at the resumption of the proceedings this evening. The right hon. Member for Derby took up one hour and five minutes of the time of the Committee, and openly admitted, indeed, boasted of the fact, that his purpose was obstruction. After an admission of that kind, one hardly feels that it is necessary to make any reply to the entirely irrelevant points he brought forward. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has adopted an altogether different method. He has made a serious contribution to the debate, and has brought forward arguments which, I think, call for some reply. I shall be very happy to try and justify his tribute to me that I can always find something to say, and I hope that in this case I may be as successful as he is in producing an answer. I want first of all to point out to the Committee what is really the foundation of the argument addressed to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He is not now saying that it is immoral to rifle the pillow of the sick man, but he is saying that the effect of our proposals is to pat the societies into a dangerous financial position, and in support of that argument he adduces a document that has been circulated and signed by certain distinguished actuaries. Therefore, what I have to answer now is the charge that the proposals contained in this Clause 2 added, if you like, to the proposals contained in Clause 1, are such as are going to put the societies into a dangerous financial position.
In considering the justness of that charge let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what was the recommendation of the Royal Commission. We must remember that the Royal Commission also had the advantage of actuarial assistance. They had the advice of the Actuarial Committee, among whom were gentlemen at least as distinguished, I think, in professional capacity as those who signed the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. That Actuarial Committee made certain calculations, showing that there was under the present contributions a margin over and above what was necessary for the 358 statutory benefits. While they were careful to point out in their report all the difficulties that they had in making those calculations, all the possibilities and dangers they thought ought to be guarded against, they included safeguards which in their opinion were sufficient to make it unnecessary to have any anxiety about the future. Take the question of women, which was one of the most difficult questions they had to consider. They took all the difficulties into account, and, after having done so, they gave a scale which they felt they could confidently recommend to the Royal Commission for a comparatively limited period of years. But if the actuaries who have signed the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred did not agree with that view, the Committee have got to consider whether they will take the opinion of the actuaries who signed the document on behalf of the approved societies, or whether they will take the opinion of the Government actuaries who associated themselves with this report. Having raised the recommendations of the Actuarial Committee—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The Commission reported on the assumption that the contribution of the State continued for the same period, and this document to which I have referred is on the assumption of the withdrawal of the;£2,800,000.
The Royal Commission, then, having accepted a recommendation of the actuarial committee, found that there was a certain margin available, estimated at £4,500,000 a year. What did they recommend should be done with that £4,500,000? The first charge they said should be to put on the funds of the societies the whole cost of medical benefit. What remained after doing that? They said there were various alternatives and different methods by which that might be dealt with, one of which was to reduce the State contribution, hut, as they did not consider it was any part of their duty to say whether or not the State contribution should be reduced, they went on the assumption that it would not be reduced and showed what benefits could be given. The first benefit to which they referred was allowances to dependants. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of that benefit as one of which the Government 359 were depriving the insured persons, and I took it that he would be in favour of accepting the Royal Commission's recommendation and making those allowances to dependants. That brings me to this, that the financial position of the societies, if the recommendation of the Royal Commission had been accepted, would have been exactly the same as it is to-day, when we have ourselves adopted a different view and taken the same sum of money. That absolutely demolishes the argument of those who say we are jeopardising the financial position of the societies when they themselves were ready to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman made one statement which, I think, was based on a misunderstanding of the actuarial committee's report. He said that 10 per cent. of the societies would be thrown into deficiency without this imposition of extra charge for medical benefits on the societies. He was mistaken. What they say is that the extra burden—the whole £4,500,000—might place 10 per cent. of the societies in deficiency. They go on to make a recommendation, which is that which we have debated and will be found in a later part of the Bill.
I come to the other points about the 13s. The right hon. Gentleman says: "Does it represent a sum agreed on with the doctors as a composition fee for the future?" I must say that I am a little surprised to hear that suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sur-surprised that he should ask such a question, since he must be so familiar with the working of the Insurance Act, and I do not think 13s. has ever been suggested as a proper or necessary fee for the doctors. I wonder whether he was under the same impression as the hon. Member for the Shipley Division (Mr. Mackinder), who said over and over again yesterday that this Bill was securing to the doctors a fee of 12s. while it was taking away benefits from the poorest of the poor. The Bill, of course, does nothing of the kind. This 13s. is a composition sum. It includes the composition fee which is the subject of agreement with the doctors. Nine shillings goes to the doctors out of the 13s.
Comparable with the 13s. the present amount, do you mean, chargeable out of the Fund? Ten shillings is the comparable amount, and the extra charge which comes out of the Fund is the difference between 10s. and 13s.
No, what the hon. Member for Shipley Division said was that 12s. was going to be secured to the doctors.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee exactly what is to be done with the remaining 3s.?
It is a little difficult to answer all these questions at the same time. I am going to explain how the 13s. is made up. There is 9s. for the doctors. There is 4½ d for mileage charge, 2s. 9d. for the drugs, 6d. for the expenses of the Insurance Committees, and 3d. for the Minister of Health in respect of regional medical officers and central administration. That makes 12s. 10½ d There is a margin of 1½d. left over, which is put in because, as was pointed out in the report of the Royal Commission, the cost of drugs, which is put at 2s. 9d., has been rising in the past, and there is no certainty that we have reached finality in the cost of drugs. But it is provided in the proviso of Clause 2 thatif the aggregate sum paid for any year to insurance committees and the Minister under this Section in respect of each of the total number aforesaid is less than the sum applicable as aforesaid in respect of each of the said total number, the balance shall be carried forward and be treated as being applicable as aforesaid in any subsequent year.So nothing is lost if the margin is carried forward in case the price of drugs continues to rise. It will be seen that this 13s. is nearly related to the actual cost of the medical benefit. It is, in fact, a strict following of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and while statements have been made as to the consent of the Consultative Committee to this proposal, the approved societies themselves did not consider that these benefits chargeable to the funds of the societies were in any way 361 unreasonable. I have shown that the charge of financial unsoundness cannot stand with those who are prepared to accept the views of the Royal Commission, and I hope I have given a satisfactory explanation of the composition of the 13s
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
[HON. MEMBERS:"Divide!"J It is quite evident, from the demand that we have had for an immediate Division, that hon. Members regard a speech from those benches as something which contains the last word of wisdom and which entitles the House immediately to disperse and wend its way to its various habitations. But I think the speech which has been delivered by the Minister of Health, and for which, I suppose, we should be thankful in these days of small mercies, opens up a field of discussion which should not be closed to the Committee.
The comment made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the Minister of Health, although he may have nothing to say, is always capable of saying something, has been borne out by his speech. One of the principal points in discussion was whether or net something was being taken away from the approved societies by the provisions of these two Clauses. The accusation was made that the Government contribution to the approved societies is being reduced by £2,800,000, and that an additional burden of £1,900,000 is being placed on the societies, and that these sums, added together, make up an additional burden on these societies of £4,700,000. The right hon. Gentleman gave us that delightful speech without telling us whether or not he disputed that statement. Does he dispute that £2,800,000 is being taken from the approved societies Does he dispute that additional burdens amounting to £1,900,000 are being placed on the approved societies, and that these two added together make a sum of £4,700,000.
1.0 A. M.
One might be tempted to believe, from the very plausible speech to which we have listened, that actual benefits were being conferred on the approved societies by the Government. Does he seriously ask us to believe that we can penalise the societies to this enormous amount without prejudicing the future prosperity of the societies and those for whom they exist? He gave us a very detailed explanation 362 of how the 13s. is to be distributed. He showed us that there is really nothing to complain about in this 13s. I think we have here a fine example of the old assertion that figures may be made to prove anything. The hard fact that will face the average man in the street is that the claim for medical benefit on the funds of the approved societies is being increased by this Measure from 10s. to 13s.; that an additional 3s. is being imposed, and that it is this additional 3s. that is responsible, to some extent, for this £1,900,000 to which reference has been made. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to favour the Committee with an explanation of what additional interest the insured people are to obtain for the additional 3s. which each of them has to pay. It is not sufficient to say that so much is going to the doctors, so much to the chemists, so much for transport services and so much for administration expenses. I think the Committee is entitled to know what the people who are paying the 3s. are to receive, which they are not receiving now. At the present moment, so far as the Committee has been enlightened by the right hon. Gentleman, the insured people are receiving exactly the same services for 10s. as they are promised for the 13s. which they are to pay in future, surely it is not unreasonable, when you impose on that very worthy section of the community with whose interest we are dealing an additional financial burden of this amount, that we should have from the people responsible for the Bill some attempt to justify this additional imposition. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain that, because there is really no justification for it.
To ask us to believe that we can impose a burden of £4,700,000 on these societies without injuring the societies is not flattering to our intelligence. The right hon. Gentleman explained that the Commission made no recommendation regarding the State contributions to the insurance funds. That is quite true, but surely he is not justified in saying that the Royal Commission took up a neutral position on this important point. Making no recommendation, surly means that the Commission felt that thestatus quoshould be maintained and that the present contribution of the State to these funds is justified by the necessities of the 363 approved societies. But the Royal Commission did make recommendation. One of the recommendations was that there should be a considerable extension of what are called additional benefits, and when they made a recommendation for the extension of the policy of additional benefits, they contemplated the existence of funds that would pay for the additional benefits. They implied, by the very recommendation that these additional benefits should be granted, that the amount now being contributed by the State in order to enable the present benefits to be paid and which shows a surplus, should continue to be paid by the State but that in future, instead of going to build up a surplus, it should be expended in additional benefits that would go to the members of the approved societies.
While the right hon. Gentleman is very careful to try to shelter himself behind the recommendations of the Royal Commission when he is dealing with one part of his Measure, he carefully ignores the fact, and desires the Committee to ignore the fact, that he is running directly contrary to the recommendations of the Commission in the section of his Bill which we are now discussing. He is heaping up expenses on the societies; he is diminishing the State contributions to the societies, and he is, in that way, preventing the societies from carrying out the policy of additional benefits which was one of the main recommendations of the Royal Commission. Another thing which he carefully ignores is the fact that while certain interests, including the medical profession, are to get more, the whole of that additional expenditure is to come out of the pockets of the poor.
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the medical profession are to get more in consequence of this Clause? If so, that is a misunderstanding.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
They are to get more than they would have got out of the old contributions of the societies.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
No, but the sum they are getting now is the sum fixed while this matter was being discussed by 364 the Royal Commission. The settlement of this point, was one of the things that gave rise to the appointment of the Royal Commission. They could not continue to receive this sum they are getting now out of the amount that is now being paid by the insured people, and therefore, in order to save any reduction of the additional sum that was put on within the past couple of years for medical services, the right hon. Gentleman takes the other course and increases the amount to be paid by the insured people to a sum that will enable the demands of the other section to be met. That is the policy which is being pursued, and it is that policy which has led to the necessity of the additional levy of three shillings per member on the members of the approved societies. I think that proves beyond the shadow of doubt that this scheme puts a levy on the poor for something which is all going to people who are not members of the approved societies. You are taxing the poor to give additional remuneration to the medical profession. I am not arguing that they are not entitled to the additional remuneration; I am not arguing that nine shillings as a capitation fee is too high, but I am arguing that is unfair, when you decide to increase the capitation fee, to include in the same provisions proposals, not for an additional Government grant that would enable you to increase it, hut proposals to reduce the existing Government grant, which was based on a lower capitation fee than the one now to be paid. There is a real injustice there, and however much the right hon. Gentleman may indulge in sneers at our claim that the insured people are being unfairly and unjustly treated by the Bill, the hard fact remains that they are being compelled by this Measure to hear the whole of the additional burden, and to bear it out of a fund to which the State will contribute less than it contributed when the charges on that fund were lower than it is proposed to make them now.
The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt at all, or very little attempt, to reply to the charges that were levelled against him with great force by my right hon. Friend who is the acting leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. They drew attention to a document of first-class importance in a discussion of this kind. I could not imagine a more 365 weighty document being introduced than the one that was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The Minister of Health when he came to deal with it, tried to ride away on the [...]lea that it was merely a case of actuaries differing, and that the Committee would have to make up its mind Whether it believed the Government actuaries or whether it believed the independent actuaries who were unfettered in giving a judgment on the financial provisions of the Measure before us. I do not want to rush in where angels fear to tread, but I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it was only common courtesy and fairness to this Committee that a document of that kind should have been presented to it, and that this Committee should have a special opportunity to discuss the provision of a document which has such an important bearing on a matter of this kind affecting the welfare of at least 15,000,000 of the population of this country. It should not have been left to the right hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion, to have enlightened the House on the views of these eminent professional men on the provision of the Bill before us. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was not very flattering when he described the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) as being a waste of time. Indeed, if any part was a waste of time—imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, it was when he proceeded to flatter my right hon. Friend by spending the first ten minutes of his speech in assuring the Committee that he was not going to waste the time of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had done nothing but draw the attention of the Committee to the contents of this memorandum in the sixty-five minutes which he devoted to the opening of this discussion, it would have been very well spent time. But I am submitting that he did much more than that; that he threw a flood of light on the provisions of this Measure, particularly on Clause 2, combined with the pointed questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He succeeded, and surely it is to the benefit of the House, in getting some information as to this Measure from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and from the Minister of Health himself.
366 Other questions were put that have an important bearing on this Clause to which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to give some explanation to the Committee. The hon. Member for Gorbals put, a question as to what was meant exactly by the expenditure authorised by the Scottish Board of Health for the administration of medical benefit in certain sparsely populated districts of Scotland. I noticed that when the right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was dealing with this he appeared to assume that this referred to the Highlands and Islands. It is true that in the original Act special provision is made for dealing with difficulties of administering the Act in a district like the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Everyone is familiar with that, and if it had been merely a continuation of that policy everyone would have known what it meant. The right hon. Member for Derby has asked me to explain it to Members who do not know what is geographically meant by the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, but I will assume that the Members of this House know that it is a statutory part of the country in many ways, and that they have had ample explanation of what is meant geographically by the reference in this Measure.
But what I want to draw the attention of the House to is that this Clause 2 goes far beyond the provision that is made in the original Act for dealing with the Highlands and Islands. If it was confined to the provisions of the original Act then the House would know exactly the extent of the additional financial burden that is being placed on the funds of the approved societies. Let me emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon says, that it is ridiculous to say to the Scottish Members, "We are conferring a boon on certain parts of Scotland. "You have no right to use the word "we" in this respect. It is not we who are giving an additional boon, but we are withdrawing our money, keeping it in our pockets and imposing an undefined additional expenditure in regard to medical benefit in certain districts of Scotland. The Government are evading their obligations in Scotland. It does not apply to the Highlands. We have not a Scottish 367 representative here. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is the Solicitor-General."] I am glad we have one Scottish Member here. I hope the House will, and I think the House is entitled to, have an explanation from a Scottish Member of the Government as to what is meant by this provision. I will put this to the Solicitor-General for Scotland: What part of Scotland or parts of Scotland would come within the terms "sparsely populated areas," leaving out the Highlands and Islands? It would be interesting to the Committee and certainly would enable us to give a more intelligent decision if we knew how much of Scotland might be reasonably expected to be included in the areas in which this additional expenditure might possibly be granted or acquiesced in by the Scottish Board of Health.
I would very much like, if we could, to have an answer from the Solicitor General now before I continue. If he will give any indication of a desire to enlighten the House I will be very pleased to withdraw temporarily and to allow the House to have the benefit of his advice. I can only assume that the Government have no answer to give. The probability is—and it is supported by the absence of Scottish Members from those benches—that they are taking no interest in this Measure at all. They do not seem to know that they are interested in the very Clause which is being discussed now. It is clear that one Minister has been disturbed in his slumbers, but, at any rate, he has not recovered sufficient vitality to answer Scottish questions in the House. In these circumstances, we can only endeavour to examine this proposal in the light of such information as has been given to us, and to grope oud way through this Clause, and try to extract from it some little understanding of what it actually means. The one thing that is really plain is that it does not mean the Highlands and Islands only. It goes beyond the Highlands and Islands. We may take it that it does not include the industrial centres. It does not include England at all. I shall be greatly surprised if English Members allow this discussion to be closed without some explanation of how England stands—England which has to contribute to the pool out of which this additional expenditure has to be met. They will 368 probably ask whether there is no equivalent grant for England.
I am not to-night under any obligation to speak for England. Had I been on the other side of the Table in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the. Minister for Health, responsible for the administration of this scheme in England, and representing an English constituency, I would certainly have felt it my duty even as a Scottish Member to have had a clear definition and understanding as to why additional payments towards medical benefit were to be made to certain districts in Scotland at the expense of England, and I should have asked why England was left entirely out. But I will leave that to the right hon. Gentleman to explain to his constituents in Ladywood, when he goes to explain the other provisions of the Bill. As I said, the Highlands and Islands are specifically excluded from the additional expenditure for medical benefit provided in this Bill. Are we to take it that the larger centres are excluded? It will not apply to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Dundee, or to any of the Clyde-Forth areas. But will Perthshire be included in this; will Caithness be put in, and will Argyllshire come in? We are entitled to know, because if we do not know we cannot estimate the additional expenditure. It is impossible that even an approximately reasonable estimate of what is the additional expenditure will be available until we get some indication of what is in the mind of the people who framed this Measure. On the other items of expenditure, the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is clear. He can tell us of the thirteen shillings. But the expenditure to which I now draw the attention of the Committee is not included in the thirteen shillings at all, and the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to explain a single particle of the expenditure, or, if he is, he is so ashamed of the provisions that he will not explain.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
§ Question put,"That the Question he now put."
§ The Committee divided Ayes, 191;Noes, 110.289
|Division No. 137.]||AYES.||[8.7 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. w. Derby)||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Caine, Gordon Hall||Dixey, A. C.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Campbell, E. T.||Drewe, C.|
|Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Eden, Captain Anthony-|
|Astor, Viscountess||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aaton)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Elliott, Captain Walter E.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Ellis, R. G.|
|Balniel, Lord||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J A (Birm.,W.)||Elveden, Viscount|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Clarry, Reginald George||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Bethel, A.||Clayton, G. C.||Fermoy, Lord|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Fielden, E. B.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Couper, J. B.||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thl'd., Hoxham)||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Goff, sir Park|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Grace, John|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Grant, J. A.|
|Burman, J. B.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Gretton, Colonel John||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Malone, Major P. B.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Skelton, A. N.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Margesson, Captain D.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne. C.)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D' A (Brecon & Rad.)||Meller, R. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Meyer, Sir Frank||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Harland, A.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Willsden,E.)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant||Storry-Deans, B.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)||Stott, Lieut-Colonel W. H.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Hennesay, Major J. R. G.||Neville, R. J.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Nuttall, Ellis||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Homan, C. W. J.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Penny, Frederick George||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Waddington, R.|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Perring, Sir William George||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Hopkinton, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Philipson, Mabel||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wells, S. R.|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Preston, William||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Huntingfield, Lord||Radford, E. A.||White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Raine, W.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Remnant, Sir James||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Rentoul, G. S.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Rice, Sir Frederick||Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Jacob, A. E.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Ropner, Major L.||Withers, John James|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A..||Womersley, W. J.|
|Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Little. Dr. E. Graham||Rye, F. G.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Salmon, Major I.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Loder, J. de V.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Lougher, L.||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D, T.|
|Lumley, L. R.||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Sandon, Lord|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|McLean, Major A.||Savery, S. S.||Major Cope and Mr. F, C. Thomson.|
|McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Day, Colonel Harry||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Dennison, R.||Hirst, G. H.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Duckworth, John||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Barr, J.||Duncan, C-||Hore-Belisha. Leslie|
|Batey, Joseph||Dunnico, H.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Broad, F. A.||Forrest, W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Bromfield, William||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||John. William (Rhondda, West)|
|Bromley, J.||Gibbins, Joseph||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Gillett, George M.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Buchanan, G||Gosling, Harry||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Cape, Thomas||Greenall, T.||Kelly, w. T.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Kennedy, T.|
|Clowes, S.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Cluse, W. S.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Kirkwood, D.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Grundy, T. W.||Lansbury, George|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Lawson, John James|
|Compton, Joseph||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Lee, F.|
|Connolly, M.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Lowth, T.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lunn, William|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Hardie, George D.||Mackinder, W.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Harris, Percy A.||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hayday, Arthur||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Townend, A. E.|
|Montague, Frederick||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C P.|
|Morris, R. H.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Viant, S. P.|
|Murnin, H.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Sitch, Charles H.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Oliver, George Harold||Smillie, Robert||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Owen, Major G.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Palin, John Henry||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Paling, W.||Snell, Harry||Whiteley, VV.|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Potts, John S.||Stamford, T. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Purcell, A. A.||Stephen, Campbell||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Rees, Sir Beddoe||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sullivan, Joseph||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Ritson, J.||Sutton, J. E.||Windsor, Waiter|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Taylor, R. A.||Wright, W.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Scurr, John||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Sexton, James||Thurtle, E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Tinker, John Joseph||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.|
Question put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 138.]||AYES.||[1.30 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Radford, E. A.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Raine, W.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Atkinson, C.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Balniel, Lord||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ropner, Major L.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Harrison, G, J. c.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hartington, Marquess of||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bethel, A.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Rye, F. G.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Haslam, Henry C.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hawke, John Anthony||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain W.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Sandon, Lord|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hills, Major John Waller||Savery, S. S.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Holt, Captain H. P.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Skelton, A. N.|
|Burman, J. B.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Huntingfield, Lord||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Jacob, A. E.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Chapman, sir S.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Couper, J. B.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lougher, L.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lumley, L. R.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||McLean, Major A.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Macquisten, F. A.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Malone, Major P. B.||Wells, s. R.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Margesson, Captain D.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Drewe, C.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Duckworth, John||Meller, R. J.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Meyer, Sir Frank||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|England, Colonel A.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Formoy, Lord||Neville, R. J.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Nuttall, Ellis||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Galbraith, J. F, W.||Penny, Frederick George||Wragg, Herbert|
|Goff, Sir Park||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Perring, sir William George|
|Grace, John||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grant, J. A.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Major Cope and Lord Stanley|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Preston, William|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Clowes, S.||Fenby, T. D.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Cluse, W. S.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Compton, Joseph||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Barnes, A.||Cove, W. G.||Gillett, George M.|
|Barr J.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Batey, Joseph||Crawfurd, H. E.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dalton, Hugh||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Broad, F. A.||Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Grundy, T. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)|
|Bromley, J.||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Hall, F. (York, W. R Normanton)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Day, Colonel Harry||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Buchanan, G.||Dennison, R.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Cape, Thomas||Dunnico, H.||Hardie, George D.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Hayday, Arthur||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Pethick Lawrence, F. W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hirst, G. H.||Potts, John S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Purcell, A. A.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Viant, S. P.|
|Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ritson, J.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Scrymgeour, E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Scurr, John||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Whiteley, W.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Kelly, W. T.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Kennedy, T.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lansbury, George||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Lawson, John James||Sitch, Charles H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lunn, William||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Mackinder, W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Maxton, James||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wright, W.|
|Montague, Frederick||Snell, Harry||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Morris, R. H.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Oliver, George Harold||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Owen, Major G.||Sullivan, Joseph||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne|
|Paling, W.||Taylor, R. A.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."372
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 114373
|Division No. 139.]||AYES.||[1.39 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fraser, Captain Ian||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Goff, Sir Park||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Ashley, U.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gower, Sir Robert||Meller, R. J.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Grace, John||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Atkinson, C.||Grant, J. A.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Balniel, Lord||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Greene, w, P. Crawford||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Grotrian, H. Brent||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Bethel, A.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Newman, Sir R. H. s. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Hacking, Captain Douglas H||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perring, Sir William George|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Harrison, G. J. C.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hartington, Marquess of||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Brocklebank, c. E. R.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Preston, William|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Radford, E. A.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Haslam, Henry C.||Raine, W.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Hawke, John Anthony||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R, (Oxf'd, Henley)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watlord)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth. S)||Hills, Major John Waller||Ropner, Major L,|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)||Holt, Captain H. P.||Bye, F. G.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Couper, J. B.||Huntingfield, Lord||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Sandon, Lord|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Jacob, A. E.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Savery, S. S.|
|Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Skelten, A. N.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Loder, J. de V.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Lougher, L.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Dixey, A. C.||Lumley, L. R.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Drewe, C.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||MacLaren, Andrew||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Macquisten, F. A.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Fermoy, Lord||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Templeton, W. P.||Wells, S. R.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||While, Lieut-Colonel G. Dairymple||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell||Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Tinne, J. A.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Wallace, Captain D. E.||Wise, Sir Fredric||Major Cope and Lord Stanley|
|Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Womersley, W. J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)||Scurr, John|
|Ammon, Charles George||Grundy, T. W.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barnes, A.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barr, J.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hardie, George D||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bromfield, William||Hayday, Arthur||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Bromley, J.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Snell, Harry|
|Buchanan, G.||Hirst, G. H.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cape, Thomas||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Clowes, S.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Cluse, W. S.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Thurtle, E.|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cove, W. G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Townend, A. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kelly, W. T.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Crawfurd, K. E.||Kennedy, T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lansbury, George||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lawson, John James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lunn, William||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Mackinder, W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Maxton, James||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Dennison, R.||Montague, Frederick||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Duckworth, John||Morris, R. H.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Dunnico, H.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Owen, Major G.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|England, Colonel A.||Paling, W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wright, W.|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Potts, John S.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Purcell, A. A.|
|Gillett, George M.||Richardson, B. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Ritson, J.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne|