§ The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. E. BROWN:
§ In page 19, line 23, to leave out the words "Poor Law (c.)
§ In line 23, to leave out the words "lunacy and mental deficiency (e)."
§ Mr. E. BROWN
May I explain that this is the first of five Amendments, two of which are negative and three positive? Unfortunately, I understand that the Amendment in which I am really interested, the last positive Amendment, is not in order. Therefore, it would be merely a waste of time to have a discussion which could not be carried out by an Amendment of the Bill, and, with your permission, Mr. Herbert, I do not propose to move my Amendment.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert)
The hon. Member does not propose to move either of his first two Amendments to line 23?
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out from the word "deficiency," in line 24, to the word "and," in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words:and (e) roads, but that only in the case of a county council.
§ This is a purely drafting Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.2046
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I beg to move, in page 19, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that the administrative scheme, so far as relating to education, shall be framed by the county council or the town council, as the case may be, in consultation with the existing education authority for the area to which such scheme shall apply.This Amendment is explanatory of its purpose. There is a desire on the part of the outgoing education authorities at least to be taken into consultation by the new education committees or the new county councils in framing schemes for the administration of education in the respective areas. As I understand that the Government are going to accept either this Amendment or at least the principle associated with it, I have no desire to take up the time of the Committee. This is about the first definite move on the part of the Government to try to meet us in this work of administration.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I am quite prepared to give an undertaking to consider this whole matter. I hope that we may be able to arrive at some reasonable arrangement when we come to the Report stage.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
Is that satisfactory? The right hon. Gentleman really can promise to consider the matter, as this Amendment is quite in line with all that he has previously said He has more than once declared that exceptional experience is embodied in the existing education authorities, and surely he is going to avail himself of all their ex- 2047 perience and knowledge for the use of the new authority. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a guarantee now to accept this very fair and moderate proposal. I cannot understand his outlook and that of the Lord Advocate, who was with him a few minutes ago. They always temporise, and they are always willing to consider; but it is not clear that they propose to do anything practical. I do not regard their promises as very hopeful, if I may put it in that way. We ought to have a much more secure undertaking than that which the right hon. Gentleman has just given.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
All I should like to say, so far as the Government are concerned, is that we quite readily accept this Amendment in principle. Of course, I am not bound by any terms whatever in the Amendment.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
That is far more satisfactory than the first olive branch which was held out by the Secretary of State. It is now quite definite that he is prepared to accept the principle, and that is all that we are suggesting. We recognise that every word used in the Amendment may not have just the right effect, and we are prepared to admit that some re-drafting may be necessary; but, if we can get a promise that the principle is accepted, that is all we require. On the understanding given, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made:
In page 20, leave out from the word "may," in line 1, to the end of the Subsection and insert instead thereof the words:
provide for the county council appointing to act as agents of the council district councils or joint committees of town councils of small burghs and district councils, which joint committees shall contain representatives of the county council and be constituted in such manner as provided in the scheme to carry out the functions specified in the scheme so far as relating to their respective districts, but subject always to the terms and conditions set forth in the scheme."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§ Major ELLIOT
I beg to move, in page 20, line 12, at the end, to insert the words: 2048(4) An administrative scheme may provide that any assistance to which this Subsection applies, which might after the commencement of this Act be provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any enactment other than the Poor Law Acts, shall be provided exclusively under and by virtue of the enactments other than the Poor Law Acts and not by way of poor relief, but nothing in this Sub-section or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor.The assistance to which this Sub-section applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons, including, without prejudice to the said generality, persons suffering from any infectious or other disease, or lunatics or persons mentally deficient, or the provision made for the health of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, or children under five years of age or for blind persons, or for the feeding, clothing, and treatment of school children.(5) Every administrative scheme relating to education made by the council of a county within which a large burgh is included for the purpose of education shall, unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree, make provision whereby for the purpose of the medical inspection, supervision, and treatment of the children attending the schools within the burgh the county council shall utilise to such extent, and on such terms and conditions as the councils agree or, failing agreement, as the Department of Health determine, the medical and nursing staff of the town council, and the clinics, and hospitals, under the control of that council. and every such scheme which shall be made by the county council, and approved by the department only after consultation with the town council shall be binding upon the town council.(6) In order to meet as far as practicable the interests and convenience of the county council, the town council of the small burgh concerned and the inhabitants thereof, every administrative scheme of a county council relating to roads shall make provision with respect to the opening or breaking up of any classified road within a small burgh whether by the county council for the purpose of reconstructing, repairing, or maintaining the road, or by the town council for the purpose of laying, replacing, repairing, or maintaining water, sewer, gas, or other pipes or electric cables or others under the said road.This Amendment is of some length and of very considerable importance. It is one which, I think, will be welcomed in all parts of the Committee, and_ particularly, perhaps, on the benches opposite. It is an Amendment providing for the break-up of the Poor Law, and it is to be taken in conjunction with the new Clause which appears later on the 2049 Paper—["Provision for treatment of sick persons"] —but which it will not be in order to discuss now.
§ Major ELLIOT
I think I can use any expression I wish. The hon. Member uses expressions which are not mine, and no doubt I can use expressions which are not his. But to return to the Amendment. There is at present a great bundle of duties, of most varying kinds, applied to persons in varying circumstances wrapped up together under the heading of the Poor Law. There is the entering of the people upon the Poor Rolls and what is called "the stigma of the Poor Law." This applies to great groups and classes of individuals to whom none of us would wish to see it applied. It deals more particularly with one group, that of the sick. There will be no doubt whatever in any section of the Committee that this is one of the steps for which it is worth while introducing the Bill. It may be that hon. Members opposite think it is the only step for which it is worth while introducing the Bill, but I would remind them that here we have an Amendment, the executive words of which begin:An administrative scheme may provide that any assistance to which this Sub-section applies," which might after the commencement of this Act be provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any enactment other than the Poor Law Acts, shall be provided exclusively under and by virtue of the enactments other than the Poor Law Acts and not by way of poor relief, but nothing in this Sub-section or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor.The assistance to which this Sub-section applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons, including, without prejudice to the said generality, persons suffering from any infectious or other disease, or lunatics or persons mentally deficient, or the provision made for the health of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, or children under five years of age or for blind persons, or for the feeding, clothing, and treatment of school children.As I say, we have to take this in conjunction with the fact that, at a later stage, we shall proceed to move the new Clause which we have on the Order Paper dealing with the wide extension of hospital facilities, and the provision of hospital facilities other than under the 2050 Poor Law Acts for the sick person of our cities and counties. The new Clause is most important. The present provisions, while important in their way and very useful and important from the point of view of accountancy and book-keeping, are not as important as the fresh hospital facilities which will be possible under the scheme suggested in our new Clause dealing with hospitals. But this, in itself, represents a great step in the direction in which we all desire to move. It is a step which has been recommended by many Committees, and I think it has unanimously been pressed upon the attention of the Government. It is another forward step in the history of our public health in Scotland when we are able to move such a provision as this.
§ Mr. STEWART
I am quite in agreement with the Under-Secretary that this is a step forward if it stood by itself, but, as he himself has said, this addition to Clause 14 has to be taken in conjunction with the proposals that are contained in a new Clause that is to be moved after all the other Clauses have been dealt with. My objection to this is that while you are seemingly transferring to the local authorities, to the local public health authorities, whether they be county councils or town councils, these duties, you are also imposing on the local authority, if the new Clause is carried, some new duties that will transform our public health from being conducted as it has been for many years past. In all our new Acts there is this tendency to impose on our public health authorities Poor Law conditions. I am opposed to that, although it does not really figure in this Bill, but I cannot divert my mind from the fact, as the Under-Secretary has said, that this Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the proposed new Clause. I know that in the Amendment there is good mixed with bad, but the conditions that are consequent on the carrying of this Amendment are bad, and, therefore, I am going to oppose this Amendment. I wish to keep myself free from entanglements. While I recognise that there is good contained in this Amendment, if it was only this Amendment and nothing more then I should try and wait for a little time to amend it on the lines that are in my mind; to make our public health free as infections diseases are at 2051 the moment. But the Government have got to carry this and they tell us in the second paragraph of this Amendment:The assistance to which this Sub-section applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons,I call the attention of the Members of the Committee to that. "Sick persons;" it is not that. That is only a pretence. You are going to. institute an inquisition. You are going to haul the relatives—the grandfather, the father, the son or the son-in-law before your Committee to explain their position and to show why they should not be called upon to meet all the legal requirements of maintaining their relatives in the position that is expected. You are going to impose on men a burden that they are frequently not able to bear. I do not want to make the point that I hope to be able to make, if I am spared, when the new Clause comes along, but I hope that the Secretary of State and those associated with him will not impose on the public health of Scotland Poor Law conditions. I will conclude with my regret that, on this great opportunity that has been given to the Government and no others of consolidating public health and making it a unified treatment, of taking away any degrading conditions that may obtain thereto, and of making it as free as the present infectious diseases are free-there is free treatment for venereal disease—I regret that the Government have not taken that opportunity. Under this proposal a man who is suffering from epilepsy acquired through no fault of his own, or suffering from cardiac disease, will be compelled, if he is able, to pay for treatment, and, if he is not able, his child, or someone else who is connected with him in a degree which makes the burden legal, will be compelled to pay. I hate it, and I wish that every Member of the Committee also hated it as I do.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
There was one phrase used by the Under-Secretary to which I should like to call attention, and that phrase was "the break-up of the Poor Law." Now, that phrase has been used for many years to denote a process of dealing with the Poor Law which really must transform the whole attitude of the State towards the assistance given to poor people, whether sick or well, from the present pauper status to the status of people recognised as 2052 being dealt with by a social service committee. I think the Under-Secretary has gone rather far in describing this Amendment. although I do not oppose it, as "the break-up of the Poor Law," and for this reason. If the Committee will go a little further into this Amendment than the Under-Secretary did, they will find that there is a distinction between the three sections of the Amendment. One part deals with the sick poor, one part deals with the medical treatment of children under the education committee of the council, and one part deals with roads. If we take the third part first, the words run very differently from those in the first part. When you come to the question of whether or not you shall break up a road, the words are mandatory; that is to say, when a scheme is made relating to roads itshall make provision with respect to the opening or breaking up of any classified road within a small burgh";but when we turn back to the first part, which is very near to the heart of the Under-Secretary—I am sure that at the back of his mind he regrets not having had the word "shall," for we do not break up the Poor Law in this matter— what we do is to make it possible that when an administrative scheme is made it may provide that assistance shall be given under the Public Health Acts rather than under the Poor Law. In so far as the schemes are made and this provision is incorporated, it will be a step towards transferring this great body of suffering poor from the Poor Law to the non-pauper status, and if it were mandatory, the Under-Secretary would have far more justification for his statement than he has now.
I wonder what stands in the way of making it mandatory instead of permissive. Cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland strengthen his own desire to break up the Poor Law as regards the treatment of these sick persons? Why cannot he, in Sub-section (4) as well as in Sub-sections (5) and (6), provide that instead of the word being "may" it shall be "shall"? Personally, I believe the time has come when we should realise that what we want with regard to public assistance is to cut away the pauper status entirely; and while I welcome this permissive move, I cannot think that the connotation of the words "break-up of the Poor Law" is justified in this 2053 connection, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see his way before the Report stage to make this addition to Clause 14 mandatory throughout.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I hold the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in very high respect, as he knows, but I am not going to allow myself to be blinded by what appears to me to be an obvious attempt to mislead the Committee, for what does he really mean by the breakup of the Poor Law? Does he mean its abolition, or does he mean its distribution? In the provisions that are outlined here distribution is clearly implied. If the Under-Secretary really believes in the abolition of the Poor Law, why does he not say so in specific terms? There need be no ambiguity about it. We all know what is meant by the abolition of the Poor Law, the elimination of pauperism, and obviously, if that were the intention, there would not be a single reference left in these provisions to the Poor Law administration or Acts. That is my first objection to this series of Sub-sections as they stand. The Poor Law remains. It may be less offensive; nevertheless, it is maintained in principle.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in his objections to the optional references in these Subsections. To begin with, what is the advantage of a break-up of the Poor Law if it is optional, if it is left to the discretion of the local authority, for here the intention is to leave the discretion entirely in the hands of the local authority? It is permissive, not obligatory. The county council or the town council need not do this thing or that, however advantageous or desirable it may be, unless it pleases; and, as would appear from my reading of these provisions, even the right hon. Gentleman cannot bring pressure to bear on the local authority to take one step or the other, apart from the clear intentions outlined in the Measure itself.
Take a glance at Sub-section (5), which relates to the provision of treatment for school children, medical inspection, supervision and treatment, medical and nursing staffs, clinics, hospitals, and all that is associated with the personnel of these institutions. Everyone will agree that it is of the highest importance that children should be properly safeguarded. The Under-Secretary himself quoted a 2054 Latin phrase the other night with very great effect, and I gathered from what he said then that he believes it is just as important to have a sound body as a sound mind, that indeed one cannot be dissociated from the other. If that be the general opinion of the Committee, as I understand it to be, then the provision of treatment of this character for school children is of the utmost importance. It is paramount, and it should occupy the first place in our thoughts upon these matters; and yet let the Under-Secretary note that he provides an administrative scheme relating to this matter which shall be applied, but with this proviso:unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree.What earthly reason induced the Government to make that provision, unless they are afraid that it will not please certain reactionary county councils in Scotland to make the provision compulsory? It may be, of course, that the Government are half-hearted about it themselves, but if they are, clearly the Under-Secretary is not entitled to say that this means the break-up of the Poor Law. It means nothing of the kind.
There is another factor that is worth considering for a moment. I take it that the intention of the Government in introducing this Bill, taking it as a whole, is to remove anomalies and, so far as is possible, to effect a large measure of co-ordination in the activities of the local authorities in Scotland. If the Under-Secretary seeks to remove anomalies, the provisions of this Clause will not be sufficient. Take, for example, the case of a family of which the breadwinner is unemployed; he may have been unemployed for a considerable time, and, as a result of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acta, disqualified from insurance benefit. He cannot receive relief from the local authorities under the Poor Law, because he is able-bodied, but he may be admitted into a parochial institution under the Poor Law, and that part of the Poor Law Acts continues under this Bill. On the other hand, his child at school may be the recipient of medical inspection, medical treatment, boots, clothes or food. There we have the extraordinary anomaly that, while the breadwinner, the able-bodied person, is subject to the provisions of the anti- 2055 quated Poor Law Acts and may be compelled to go into the poor house, his child is subject to the provisions outlined here in what have been described by the Under-Secretary as the break-up of the Poor Law.
The thing is absurd, and yet the Under-Secretary will not deny that that condition of things might obtain. What we on these benches and hon. Members on the benches below the Gangway ask — and it is what the Under-Secretary would desire also—is that every member of the family, if they are in an unfortunate plight through unemployment, sickness or any other cause, should be treated in precisely the same fashion, that is to say, with medical inspection, institutional treatment without the stigma of pauperism, relief in kind or in money as the case may be, every member of the family who, for the time being, is in an impoverished condition, should be given such treatment as can be provided by the local authorities under existing Acts. How is that to be done if one member of the family is to be treated entirely differently from another? That is not the break-up of the Poor Law. The anomalies will still remain and become very grotesque in application, and I submit that the purpose of the Government, if it indeed be to break-up the Poor Law, is not attained by the provisions outlined here.
Since neither the Under-Secretary nor I really believe that this means the break-up of the Poor Law, the point of real substance is whether the provisions should be optional or obligatory. I urge that at this stage it is desirable to make a clean break from the past. We have had too much permissive legislation, with the result that in one district in Scotland special treatment of a desirable kind has been provided, while in another district no treatment at all has been provided. Indeed, that has characterised Poor Law administration in Scotland, and it has always required the heavy hand of the central Department in order to effect, as far as possible, some kind of uniformity. Uniformity has never been actual in operation, although there has been an approach to it as a result of the operation of the central Department. We want to see uniformity in respect of the definition of services. The local authori- 2056 ties must be told definitely that whatever administrative scheme is to be applied, it shall be applied whether the county council like it or not. So in all parts of Scotland wherever poverty exists—and, unfortunately, there is an abundance of poverty at the present time, and, still more unfortunate, it is likely to remain for a considerable time— the same treatment should be provided, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see his way to remove the word "may" wherever it appears, and introduce the definite word "shall" in its place.
Mr. W. M. WATSON
I hope that by now the Under-Secretary will realise that he made an unfortunate slip when he said that this Clause would me the breaking-up of the Poor Law, because subsequent speeches have shown that there is no intention to break up the Poor Law. No doubt this will mean a change in the treatment of the sick poor, and it is to be hoped that the changes that are proposed to be carried out by this Bill will bring about that desirable result. It may be quite true that the parish councils, as we have known them, have not been able to undertake the care of the sick poor to the extent that is desirable, and if the Under-Secretary means that the new bodies that will have to administer the Poor Law will be more able to bear the burden of the proper treatment of the sick poor, the change will be desirable.
On the Second Reading of this Bill, I agreed with the wiping out of the parish area as a unit of administration on the ground that it was too small, and one of the reasons that led me to that conclusion was that the sick poor were not receiving from some parish councils the attention and medical treatment that they required. If the transference of this power to the county council and the large burghs will give to the sick poor the medical attention and treatment that they desire, the change will be very desirable. If that was in the mind of the Under-Secretary it may lead to something like the breaking up of the Poor Law; at any rate, it will make a very desirable change in that system.
It must have struck the Members of the Committee that the Under-Secretary took up as much time in reading the part of the Clause which he did read as he occupied in explaining it. We should have been more indebted to him if he had 2057 told us in greater detail how these proposals will carry out what it is intended they should accomplish, namely, the break up of the Poor Law system. It is rather strange that the Clause should include not only a part to deal with the sick poor hut a part to deal with the treatment of children, and another part dealing with the roads; that is a curious combination to have in one Clause. In regard to the treatment of children, I believe that in certain areas there has been a working arrangement between burghs which had facilities for treating children and the education authorities, and, so far as I can see, this Clause will lead to a development of that system and will enable children to get better treatment than hitherto. I hope this Clause will do what the Under-Secretary claimed, and that we shall see a definite breaking up of the Poor Law system, though personally I do not look for that as the outcome of this Clause; but if we get better treatment for the sick poor under the new system it will be a big improvement on what has happened in bygone days.
§ Mr. SULLIVAN
There are two or three things which I hope to see carried out under the new system which is being set up. I hope that by the broadening of the parish area we shall make it possible to give hospital treatment to the people within the area. At present, when hospital treatment is required people must go to the poor house hospital, and as that carries the stigma of pauperism we find it very difficult, and sometimes it is almost impossible, to get people to take advantage of that treatment. I sincerely hope the Secretary of State will keep in his mind the desirability of sick people in the country districts getting hospital treatment without the stigma of pauperism, and if that can be accomplished it will be to the credit of the alteration which is being made. I would like to point out that I can find no mention of the able bodied poor or unemployed men in this section, unless they come under the general description of "poor."
§ Major ELLIOT
This Clause deals only with the sick. It would be out of order to discuss the others, because this deals only with the sick.
§ Mr. SULLIVAN
I take it that we are making provision for the able bodied in some other part of the Bill. Another point to which I would like to draw attention, because it was under consideration some time ago, is the desirability of providing some institution which shall be an alternative to the prison or the lunatic asylum. People are sometimes brought before the magistrates charged with a breach of the law who really are not criminals, and it is a question whether they ought not to be certified as cases for a lunatic asylum. I can give one illustration. One day I was asked to try an old woman who was charged with being drunk and disorderly and who had some 46 convictions. I refused to send that woman to the cells, because I felt that it would be doing a greater injustice to her than she had done to society. I made inquiries into the question of drunkenness, and it turned out that the woman had never tasted drink. She had taken threepenny-worth of methylated spirit, and, as she had previously been an inmate of an asylum, the spirit went to her head and she became stark, raving mad.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider the provision of institutions which would be something between prisons and lunatic asylums in order to provide for these sort of half-way cases. It may be necessary to detain some of these people for a period—perhaps to keep them for a long time and to give them some training—but at any rate it is not right to send them to prison, because once they go to prison they will almost certainly return, there, and we get cases such as the one I have mentioned, where they come up week after week. Those are really menial cases, and not criminal cases, but the doctors will not certify that they should be sent to an asylum. I do not think I need say more, except that I hope that the proposals outlined here will be carried out as the right hon. Gentleman suggested they would be. As was said by another speaker, every district does not do its duty, either in the treatment of the poor or in the matter of education. I hope that proper provision will be made for education and that where a child requires other things for its well being they will be provided. If these things are done, I feel it may help us in the long run, and 2059 at any rate it will make it easier for the people to accept the alteration in the law which we are bringing about.
§ Mr. HARDIE
It is a pity that the conventions and traditions of this House prevent us from dealing with this business in a proper way. We have just been compelled by a stupid arrangement called the Guillotine to dispose of a Clause which had in it many things which have not been discussed. I do not know whether it is—
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
No, it is not. The time-table is the decision of the House, and the hon. Member cannot discuss that now.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member persists in referring to the decision of the House, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
I have already warned the hon. Member not to deal with the decision of the House, and if he continues, I must ask him to resume his seat.
§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
I have asked the hon. Member not to deal with the decision of the House. As the hon. Member has three times disobeyed my ruling, I must ask him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. HARDIE
On a point of Order! I was just explaining exactly why, on the last Clause, so much was left out that ought to have been put in. I was complaining about the system in this 2060 House with regard to the running of the business, and I was going to bring that in as an argument in connection with the Clause now being discussed. It was not a question of disobeying your Ruling. I was simply leading up to the Clause standing on the Paper in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was all. A good deal has been said about the improvements which will be brought about under this Measure. We were told that this Clause would effect great improvements so far as administration was concerned, but now when we get the schemes adumbrated, instead of showing any improvement they show distinctly a backward tendency. I find in the first line of Sub-section (4) of this Amendment that the word "may" occurs. One would have thought that any Government dealing with poverty sickness, instead of bringing in the word "may" they would have made it far more definite. I did think that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been in favour of introducing a definite improvment in this respect.
We are now dealing with a very definite factor in the Clause. We have been told that advantages will accrue by combination of local authorities and the Secretary of State for Scotland said that a tremendous improvement would be brought about by two bodies combining together. In Glasgow at the present moment we have a dispute between the electricity department and the tramway department in regard to the electricity supply. The tramway department desires to supply its own electricity instead of taking it from the corporation station. If we consider the services administered by the Glasgow Corporation, it will be seen at once that the committees are at loggerheads in regard to some of their public services. We have been told that there would be a breaking up of the Poor Law, but the Amendment we are discussing in no way carries out that suggestion. The proposal in relation to schemes may be applied but you cannot say you are applying the same law when you are dealing with a different scheme.
§ Major ELLIOT
With regard to these schemes, it says definitely that, instead of a person being treated under the Poor Law, he should be treated under another law.
§ Mr. HARDIE
Then why not insert a definite word and say that this "shall" be done? The Government Amendment means that these people are not going to get the advantages which have been promised under this Bill. Sub-section (5) of the Government Amendment reads:Unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree.That means that unless they agree nothing can be done.
§ Major ELLIOT
The Sub-section referred to by the hon. Member says that unless they otherwise agree the scheme shall provide, and the word used is not "may," but "shall."
§ Major ELLIOT
The Amendment proposed by the Government provides that every administrative scheme made by the council of a county shall make provisionunless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree.There could be nothing more definite than that statement.
§ Mr. HARDIE
But they could disagree. I want the provision to be made quite definite so that no one can escape the provisions of this Act. I am always suspicious about anything that is permissive in an Act of Parliament. Under the Education Act you may have a provision that you "may" provide free books. That generally means that those books are not going to be provided, no matter how great is the need for their provision. In Scotland we have suffered a great deal in the past through having the word "may" in our Acts of Parliament. In this Bill we want to secure freedom from what is called the general taint of pauperism, but as the Bill now stands it seems to mo that we shall be just as far from achieving that object as ever we were. We have been told that this Measure will bring about many beneficial changes and improvements, but I have failed to find them up to the present moment. I hope that on the Report stage some attempt will be made to improve this Measure in the direction which I have indicated.
§ 9.0 p.m.
Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Like my colleagues who have already spoken, I want to say that the Under- 2062 Secretary, in the brief explanation which he gave of this Amendment, did not explain this Clause sufficiently. For example, he stated that under this Clause we should have a breaking up of the Poor Law. In making a statement of that kind, he either said too much or too little. He gave no justification or explanation of the statement that the Amendment provided for the breaking up of the Poor Law; he made the broad general statement, and added that he thought the provision would meet with the approbation of Members in all quarters of the Committee. So far as we are concerned, if it had made provision for the breaking up of the Poor Law, it would have met with our approbation, but, as far as we can see from the wording of this long Amendment, it contains no justification for the Under-Secretary's statement that it means the breaking up of the Poor Law. It is true that under it a council may provide for the treatment of the sick poor, for expectant mothers, and for the feeding, clothing and treatment of school children; but, as has been pointed out more than once in this discussion, while some of the local authorities will attempt to carry out those provisions, others will not make any attempt to do So at all, and there is nothing to compel them to do so. If it had said that they shall make this provision, the Amendment would have been very much stronger. The Under-Secretary also reminded us that later on the Secretary of State had made provision for the addition of a new Clause to the Bill, and that, of course, made us inquire into what the proposed new Clause contained. On looking at it, one finds that, while Clause 14 provides for relieving the sick poor, for looking after the health of expectant and nursing mothers and children under the age of five, and for certain other matters, yet, once that duty has been undertaken by either the one council or the other, it Incomes the duty of that council to recover from any person, or, in the event of that person being unable to pay the amount recoverable, from the relatives of that person, the cost of the treatment in whatever institution these persons are treated.
Supposing that it only refers to institutional treatment, a considerable part of the treatment of the sick poor is institutional treatment, and if, as I suspect is the case, that proposed new Clause charges the council, whether the burgh council or the county council, with the duty of recovering the cost of treatment from that section of the sick poor, it simply carries forward the present system, and does not break up the Poor Law in the way in which we, as a party, intended that it should be broken up. Consequently, like my colleagues who have already spoken on this Amendment, I am strongly of opinion that it does not carry out what the Under-Secretary says it carries out. I was rather tickled by the way in which the Under-Secretary danced over the Amendment and attempted to make it commendable to those on these benches, but, in explaining it in the way that he did, he made us a little suspicious about the whole thing, and, before we become consenting parties to the Amendment being carried, we are entitled to a much more detailed explanation from him, or from the Secretary of State himself, than we have had hitherto. I hope that they are going to accept this invitation. The broad general statement has been made that this Amendment provides for the breaking up of the Poor Law, and that that is a matter which ought to commend it particularly to my colleagues on these benches. If there be a provision of that kind in the Amendment, we fail to see it, and I think we are entitled to an explanation as to how it is possible for the Amendment to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says it will do. The explanation we have had up to now has failed to convince us. We do not agree that the provision the right hon. Gentleman is making in the Amendment will carry out what he said it would, and consequently I hope he will accept my invitation and prove to our satisfaction how it breaks up the Poor Law or is an Amendment which would be satisfactory to us.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
Notwithstanding the explanation of the Under-Secretary I wish to support the plea that we should not leave the matter so indefinite that there is doubt whether it will secure what the Clause intends to accomplish. The Under-Secretary has made out from his 2064 standpoint, a case that the Amendment endeavours to meet part of the plea that has been made from this side. It is partly the intention of the Amendment that there should be an opportunity to decide under what law a line of action is to be taken. We have found in public life that when you have, as is often the case, a minority who would seek to secure just the very thing the Government apparently intend here, the majority feel that this is a mere optional arrangement. They say, "We are not really intended as a Board to go along those lines." It is only a matter of preferential consideration from the standpoint of a minority. If the Government were to do justice by the claim they make for the Amendment, the word "shall" should be inserted instead of "may." If that alteration were made, the Government would be better able to claim sincerity for its intentions to provide for this improved course of treatment. As it is, with our knowledge of the working of Boards, they will get credit for upright intentions and, in the result, nothing will happen.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I am not going to ask for an explanation of the whole of the scheme that is before us, hut I am interested in that part of the Amendment which deals with the feeding and clothing and treatment of poor children, and we are entitled to know exactly where we are being led. One of the things that create a fear in connection with the so-called break up of the Poor Law is not so much that you are going to break it up as that you may be going to carry the taint of pauperism into some other administrative schemes and some other works of assistance that are given to the poor people. Any parent who is in poverty and unable to provide food and clothing for his children is entitled to have it provided without any taint of pauperism. All along I have been afraid of the possibility of handing over to the Poor Law Committee the work of attending to necessitous school children. This is one of the questions we were prepared to discuss with the Secretary of State with a view to avoiding overlapping.
I have always claimed, as an educational administrator, that the duty of looking after the children, either from the mental or the physical point of view, should be the duty of the educational 2065 authority. Now you are going to have several statutory committees working under the county councils or in the large burghs, and I am anxious to know whether you are going to lay it down that the responsibility of providing food and clothing will be the responsibility of the Poor Law committee or the education committee. I feel sure the Under-Secretary will be quite willing to explain the scheme so far as it refers to the feeding and clothing of necessitous children. I also agree with the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) that, instead of it being left optional on the county council so far as the first part of the scheme is concerned, it ought to be compulsory. You are going to leave that again in the position of having schemes which may vary to a tremendous extent as between one county and another. Surely it is not too much to ask that they shall be compulsory instead of optional. I hope on the specific point I have put, dealing with the feeding and clothing of necessitous children, that that work, having been kept clear of the taint of pauperism for the last 10 years, will in no way be associated with it in the years to come.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I thought you were about to put the Question. I merely wanted an assurance that we were to have a reply. I am quite willing to give way to my right hon. Friend; otherwise, I have some observations to make.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I want to put one question to the Under-Secretary before he replies, in order to clear up a point of uncertainty. Will he tell us how, under this scheme, he proposes to deal with the maternity cases of the poor?
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I should like to be assured on one point. The Secretary of State for Scotland will remember that I introduced a deputation to him in Edinburgh regarding school children in Dumbartonshire, 700 of whom were not able to go to school because they had no 2066 boots. The trouble at that time was to know which of two authorities were responsible, the parish council or the education authority, for bearing the expense of providing boots for the children in the dead of winter. The children could not get boots because the two authorities were quarrelling as to their responsibility. I want to be assured that under the proposals of the Government that sort of situation will not occur again, and that we shall be able to allocate at once responsibility to the appropriate authority for providing not only boots but, if necessary, clothing and also food for the children attending school. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he rises in his might, will try to illuminate the situation of gloom that has arisen owing to the fact that whilst we were taking our food, we were informed that in his recent speech, instead of dealing with the subject in his usual brilliant fashion and making the thing plainer, he cast a gloom over the bright prospect that we had in our minds when we left the House. That prospect has become somewhat dark and dismal, and I wish to give the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity to clear up the matter, seeing that he has been the individual who has created the rift in the lute.
§ Major ELLIOT
It is for the purpose of removing such overlapping as that of which the hon. Member complains, that this proposal is brought forward. In future, there will be one local authority, and it will know what its responsibilities are. In reply to the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), I would point out that this Clause is for the purpose of allowing the local authority to treat maternity cases other than under the Poor Law, that is, under the Maternity Act, which except for this Bill they might not have been able to do.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I am surprised at the Under-Secretary. I was under the impression that he rose to reply to the very many substantial points that were put to him in the Debate. It is not treating the Committee with courtesy to reply in such a cursory fashion. A very substantial point has been raised, namely, whether in the reorganisation of the scheme the local authorities should be empowered to act under the Statute, rather than that they should be left to their own discretion.
§ Major ELLIOT
As I explained in introducing the subject, it is OUT desire that these steps should be entered upon by the local authorities, and as the local authorities are the democratic bodies that are responsible for the public health, we do not think it necessary to impose conditions telling them to do things which we believe they will do for themselves.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
The question whether the local authorities should be compelled under the Statute to act or whether the powers should be left to their discretion, is of very great importance.
§ Major ELLIOT
It is not a question of whether they shall act or not, but whether they shall submit a scheme.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
This subject has been one of very acute controversy in local government circles in Scotland, and also in England, for many years. I understand the Under-Secretary to say that it is undesirable to impose powers upon the local authorities, and that, as true democrats, the Members of the Government who are now on the Front Bench prefer to leave this power in the hands of the local authorities, to use as they think fit. Surely, if the power is one that should be exercised, as appears to be the opinion of the Government, the local authorities should be compelled to exercise it. I would remind the Committee of what the Under-Secretary said when he introduced the Clause. He said that this meant a break up of the Poor Law. In reply, I pointed out that it meant nothing of the kind. Does he accept my view or not? Does he withdraw his statement that this means the break up of the Poor Law? If he does, why does he not say so? Has he any views upon this matter, has he been suddenly struck dumb as a result of the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), or is he afraid to pursue the subject because of the number of hon. Members on these benches who are ready to meet anything that he has to say? It cannot be for want of eloquence or because of the lack of power to argue because, as is well known, the Under-Secretary has all the qualifications that are necessary, and we are only too willing to listen to him when he is disposed to speak to us.
We are entitled to further information upon the points that have been raised by 2068 hon. Members on these benches. Moreover, the very cogent utterances of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) have not been answered. Are we to be treated with contempt by the Under-Secretary? We are not going to take it lying down. The matter is one of great-importance, affecting the administration of local government in Scotland, and not a single word has come from hon. Members on the back benches on the other side. There is, for example, the hon. and gallant Member for West Stirlingshire (Captain Fanshawe), who has ventured to address the Committee on almost every Clause that has been under review, but on this matter he has not spoken. I detect a subdued silence on the part of other hon. Members on the other side. I do think that we are entitled to a clear explanation of the position of the Government in respect of this matter.
Finally, I put this question to the Under-Secretary quite definitely and specifically: Does he not think it would be better from the standpoint of the unfortunate people of Scotland who require, and depend upon, the functions and activities of the local authorities, that the powers should be placed in the hands of these bodies of dispensing such treatment as is intended under the Measure? Is he in favour of "may" or "shall"? That is the whole issue before the Committee, and they want further elucidation on that point. If he is not disposed to say anything about the matter, his right hon. Friend, who has not spoken for some hours, will perhaps be inclined to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Government, or perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is itching to be up, might possibly show something of his forensic abilities and knowledge of medical jurisprudence, and say something to the Committee about this vital matter. The hon. and learned Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who has just arrived and whose clarity in debate is familiar to all of us, might be able to say something on the matter also. He knows nothing about it, it is true, but that is not at all uncommon. Perhaps we might have something from him. For the moment I am prepared to leave the matter there.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I rise to say a word about the very misleading speech of the Under-Secretary. The matter is not quite 2069 as simple as is suggested by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell). The issue between "may" and "shall" cannot be settled in a moment. The Under-Secretary suggested that he was democratic to-night, but two nights ago he was defending bureaucracy and appealing to Caesar. Now Caesar is suspect. The Under-Secretary cannot ride away with that argument. He cannot come here and suggest that the reason why "may" is in the first part, while "shall" is in the last part, is that he desires not to interfere with the liberty of the town council or the county council. There used to be an argument in the old days of theology about the sheep and the goat, but in more sophisticated and modern days the problem is not one between the sheep and the goat, but is to do with the llama. This Clause is a llama Clause, a sheep Clause and a goat Clause. In the first part it may be described as a goat Clause from this point of view, because "may" is the governing word. The third part, in my judgment, is the sheep Clause, because with regard to the disturbance of roads, sewers, drainage and anything of that kind it says they shall not be broken up without regard to coordination. There the Under-Secretary says "shall." In the middle, it is neither one nor the other. Dealing with the question of the children with regard to the functions to be performed through the education authorities, it says "unless." So that we are neither "may" nor "snail"; it depends entirely on the particular view the town council or county council takes.
The Under-Secretary cannot expect the Committee to accept a statement of that-kind right away by expressing his great love for democracy. I am half inclined to hand in a manuscript Amendment to substitute "may" for "shall" in the first Sub-section. I think we are entitled to know why it is to be "shall" for the breaking up of roads, and not "shall" with regard to the various functions in this most vital subject, the treatment of the sick poor, alternatively under the Poor Law Act, or under the Health Act or Maternity Act. The Under-Secretary and the Government have been so weak as to substitute "may" for "shall." That cannot be defended by an appeal to democracy. I shrewdly suspect that it is 2070 the fear of some of the democrats that has made it "may" for "shall."
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I have been very much interested in the discussion on this subject. While I was listening to it, I was reminded of a question I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day. Fortunately or unfortunately for the Secretary, we did not reach it in the list. The question referred to this matter of the assistance that might be given, and I was asking the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of all that was said by the Under-Secretary about the care of the bodies of the children, he, himself, was not prepared to revise the Circular which he issued to the parish councils, restricting parish councils from paying more than 2s a week for the children. Possibly the Committee will scarcely believe the answer I got. That answer was written, and it was in the negative. There has been a lot of talk on this Amendment about the break up of the Poor Law and the possibilities there are in this Clause, and about the wonderful things that are going to happen. I put it to the Committee that there is no reality behind this. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said that there is a certain amount of importance in whether it is to be "may" or "shall." When one considers the fact that, whether it be "may" or "shall," there is the overriding; authority of the right hon. Gentleman, and that at the present time parish councils under the Poor Law are prepared to pay more, while the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to allow them to pay more than 2s. a week, I say we have an extraordinary condemnation of the position.
I want to refer to the second paragraph, which relates to the feeding, clothing and treatment of schoolchildren. If the Government, under the Poor Law, are prepared to make a limit of 2s. per week for everything that the local authority may provide, if 2s. a week is all that is allowed to a parish council, I wonder if Members of this Committee think there is any hope of a local authority carrying through anything on a really effective scale for our children. In consequence of those facts, and with the knowledge that there is this overriding authority upon the part of the Secretary of State, I cannot see why the Government should not be pre- 2071 pared to accept the alteration from "may" to "shall." The right hon. Gentleman's overriding authority would be exercisable as in the past, and any authority that had generous ideas with regard to provision for its children, would be speedily dropped upon. Seeing that the Government is still holding out as one of the great motive ideas, in connection with the reconstruction of local government in Scotland, apart from the de-rating proposals, the idea of cultivating a sound mind in a sound body in the case of the poor children, I cannot understand why there is all this boggling about "may" and "shall."
It is a commentary on the Under-Secretary's repetition of mens sana in corpore sano the other night. It does not show that there is any disposition to have regard for the corpus sanum of the poor children at all. I hope that as an addendum to this discussion the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he was influenced by the speech of the Under-Secretary the other night, and I hope that he will have regard to the splendid plea that was put forward. I think it was sufficiently eloquent and cogent to convert any Members behind him who needed conversion with regard to taking very extraordinary steps to provide for the needs of the children. If he has any doubt as to how it might be received by his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be able to repeat it for the benefit of the Chancellor or of any other members of the Cabinet. So far as the central authority is concerned it is protecting itself by means of the block grant, and it will simply be a matter for the local authority having the power within its own hands, if it believes that it is worth while and that it can do with without imposing intolerable rating burdens upon its people. Surely the local authority should have the power?
To my mind everything that common sense can dictate and anything that reason has to say are with us in our contention. One would not feel inclined to labour it, were it not for the extraordinary position that has already been exhibited with regard to the parish councils and what they are allowed to pay out. Now I give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to show 2072 that he has regard for the material well-being of the people in his own country. If the parish councils are prepared to act more generously than they are allowed to act under that Circular, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is no longer going to be a stumbling block in the way of these people, who are conversant with the needs of industry, with the rating burden and all the problems affecting their district, and yet are prepared to pay more. So I hope that as a result of this discussion we are going to have something that will bring a certain amount of good cheer into the homes of so many depressed people in the necessitous areas in Scotland. I am sure that all Members of the Committee realise how those homes have been overtaken by the buarden of unemployment for so many months, and in many cases for years, and the in-tolerate suffering that that has placed upon the children in those homes. There will be real satisfaction on all sides if, as a result of this discussion, the Secretary of State were to prove the bona fides of the Government by intimating that he will allow the parish councils to pay more, and that the Government are really making up their minds to go forward with a great scheme in order to improve the physical as well as the mental well-being of the child population of Scotland.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
Right through the discussion we have heard, as the great and fundamental reason for this Bill, the quality of its unification. We have been told that the Government are economising by obliterating certain authorities that are now functioning, and by placing their duties in the hands of one central authority. I would have thought that, that being the case, the Secretary of State would have taken this opportunity to have provided unification in administration within the local authority itself. We have in Scotland two separate systems of dealing with the poor. We deal with infectious diseases under the Public Health Acts, and we deal with the sick poor in an entirely different way. Without attempting to elaborate the matter I think I may state this as being probably the main distinction—that the community, as a community, treats infectious disease at its own expense, but, where the poor are treated and those responsible for them 2073 can afford to pay, a charge is made for that treatment. I take the case of a person who contracts any infectious disease such as tuberculosis or measles or scarlet fever, or, nowadays, pneumonia— because the number of infectious diseases changes with the changing views of the medical profession of which the Under-Secretary is such a distinguished member. A disease which regarded as non-infectious to-day, may be declared infectious to-morrow. But, taking any one of the well-known and recognised infectious diseases, for the treatment of this disease by the public health authority, to whom these new duties are being transferred, no charge is made either to the person treated or to those responsible for the maintenance of the patient. But in a case of cancer, if a patient is taken from his home and treated in one of the Poor Law hospitals, then the persons responsible—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Mr. Deputy-Chairman, will you kindly pay some attention to those schoolboys on the other side?
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I do not think, Sir, you should trouble. We do not expect the same attention from hon. Members on the other side after they have had dinner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stale!"] It may be stale, but the dinner has made it fresh. I was saying that, if a patient suffering from cancer, is sent to the Poor Law hospitals in Glasgow, for instance, the people responsible for the maintenance of that patient—say the family of an aged father or the parents of a younger person, if they are in sufficiently affluent circumstances—are held responsible under the existing law for the cost of the treatment of that patient in the Poor Law hospital. It is not because there is any great difference in the hospitals. We have a hospital in Glasgow run by the Poor Law authority which is probably one of the finest in the country, but, if a patient is taken in there, the expenditure on that patient has to be met out of the funds of the family, if I may use that description. We had hopes that, when the Government were unifying the administration, they would have taken the excellent opportunity thus afforded of putting all the sick of Glasgow on a level in this respect—in other words, that we would have had unification in the treatment of 2074 the. poor. But there is no attempt to make such provision.
It may be asked what is the reason for this great distinction. I will try to explain it. In the matter of infectious disease, you are dealing with something which, if not treated by the community and taken out of the way, may injure the health of the rich. A person suffering from tuberculosis may have recourse to the same tramcars as rich people, and the rich people may be infected. The child of a poor family may contract measles, or some similarly infectious disease, and such a child may mix occasionally in the street or in a hall with the children of rich people and thus become a danger to the rich. All these laws are class laws. You have to face that fact. One of my hon. Friends reminds me that small-pox is an outstanding illustration of my point. You have been treating infectious disease, not because you want to treat the poor at the public expense in the interests of the poor and to benefit the poor. You have been treating infectious disease in this way, merely because it is a menace to the rich. We can see right down there the fundamentally class view that prevails in this sort of legislation. You can find it in all these Acts of Parliament.
When you come to deal with poverty it is quite a different thing. The poverty of a member of a family is only a menace to, is only infectious to the other members of the poor family. The poverty of a family in the East End is not infectious to the family in the West End. It only infects the poor themselves and therefore does not matter. Consequently, the community, as a community, under the law as it stands, does not deal with the sick poor, simply as sick poor. If the sickness from which they suffer is no menace to the health of the rich, then the poor themselves are left to provide for the poor. As I say, we had hoped, when this boasted legislation was being placed on the Statute Book, that the opportunity would have been taken to wipe out these class distinctions. In these days when you are out for peace in industry and the removal of class war, when you want to bring about harmony in the nation, we thought you would have begun here at the firesides of the poor and given practical expression to the sentiments which you express and 2075 promote in the things in which you are industrially interested.
There is another very strong objection to this proposal. It has been pointed out that the words "may" and "shall" differ considerably. Not only do the words differ, but the results which are bound to accrue from the operation of the Measure with the word "may" in it, will be vastly different from the results that must accrue if the word "shall" be inserted. Are you not very likely to have a position such as this between two authorities which are side by side? Take Glasgow and Lanarkshire for example. Glasgow may provide a scheme which will deal with a number of the things indicated here and Lanarkshire may not. Thus you will have one health system in Glasgow and another in Lanarkshire. Is it desirable that there should be the possibility of different counties in Scotland operating under different systems in the treatment of the sick poor? I submit that it should be made an obligation on the local authority to deal with the sick poor, exactly in the way in which it deals with them now, if they are suffering from infectious disease. I put this question to the Lord Advocate. The Government have laid down here how the poor are to be treated and it is said that they may be treated under enactments other than the Poor Law Acts. We may be pardoned for not knowing all about all the Acts of Parliament when we are without books of reference and I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Lord Advocate what are those enactments. I know that one of them will be the Act dealing with child welfare and all that appertains to child welfare. But what are the others?
I think, before coming to a decision, we should be guided by our legal authorities on the Front Bench, in whose legal wisdom we have the greatest confidence, and who in their treatment of the Opposition are always courteous and clear. I am not asking anything unreasonable when I ask that, if the Government put before us a scheme that says that the sick poor "may" be treated—that is assuming two things, that you get a proper, progressive local authority and that you have at the same time a proper, progressive Secretary of State for Scot- 2076 land; you have to back each; it is not a mere single; you must get the two winners at the same time—under enactments other than the Poor Law Acts we should have a little knowledge given to us. It may be a dangerous thing—I hope it will not be dangerous on this occasion— but we ought to know what these other Acts of Parliament are under which the sick poor may be treated outside of the Poor Law and the Act dealing with child welfare. That information will be for the benefit, not merely of this Committee, but of the Scottish people who, I hope, are following these discussions with interest and not without pride. When I get that information, I shall be in a much better position to decide how I should record my vote in this matter.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I rise to reinforce the point which has been put by two or three speakers before me. There is one thing which I cannot understand— and this point was brought out by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in dealing with the maintenance and treatment of sick persons the Amendment says it "may" be done under certain Acts. Then, in Sub-section (5), you have the position that it "shall" be done, provided that a larger authority gives its consent; and in Subsection (6), when dealing with roads, you there say that it must be done. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said that the local authority must deal with the persons who apply for treatment in regard to infectious diseases, and he asked, quite rightly, why a distinction was drawn between persons suffering from infectious diseases and persons who were suffering from other diseases. I put it to the Secretary of State: Is it not equally a public duty to cure illness, whether it be infectious or not; and is not the work of curing disease not less clamant or needful because a doctor says that one diseases is infectious and another one is not? If it be granted, in case of infectious disease, that it is the right thing to cure that disease free, whatever the case of the individual, then why should we stop there? Here you have the position, in regard to roads, which are the things which the ordinary merchant needs, and society needs, to carry on productive 2077 work, that the Secretary of State for Scotland says that these things "must" be done. He therefore inserts the word "shall," because he wants to see nothing interfering between the ordinary, common carrying on of commercial society; nothing must interfere with the everyday profit-making of ordinary capital. Therefore, the road-work must be done and shall be done; and that is included in this Bill. When, however, it comes to disease, and to the treatment of the ordinary sick poor, in contrast to roads, I recall the earlier discussion in the Committee and the amount of fire that was put into it. In that discussion hon. Members talked about their early youth and about the influences which went to form their outlook. How much we talk about Christian outlook! Yet, when we come to this Committee and ask hon. Members to translate their Christian outlook into their everyday life, and to treat the poor as they should be treated, somehow or another the treatment of the poor stops short of that translation into actual practice. Here, hon. Members are prepared to translate their Christianity into roads but not into human beings. They are prepared to say that roads "must" be treated in this way, but, when it comes to human beings and to sickness, they "may" only be treated in that way. In other words, people may be allowed to die, but the work of carrying on the roads must be continued. That is this Amendment. I ask the Secretary of State why there is this difference in treatment?
Take the recent outbreak of influenza, which was not infectious. The right hon. Member for Shettleston says that this Amendment is going to make the position of the people much worse. In the recent epidemic in Glasgow it was not uncommon for the general doctors and others to order their patients away, not to Poor Law hospitals but to hospitals under the control of the Poor Law authority, not for infectious disease, but for influenza. Not one of those patients had to pay. The right hon. Member for Shettleston must know that better than I do, because he has one of the largest hospitals in his district—the Belvedere Hospital. It was not uncommon for a patient to be ordered to that hospital for influenza treatement. In an answer which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave me the other day, 2078 he rightly claimed a certain pride when he said that the waiting list for hospital accommodation for influenza cases had now been reduced. The previous answer was that the waiting list had beer revised considerably, but the second answer he gave was that it had been entirely abolished. These people have got into hospitals, some controlled by Poor Law and some controlled by civic authorities, and not one of these persons or their relatives was asked to pay. From my reading of this Sub-section, if any person takes influenza, which is not scheduled as infectious, every person in Glasgow who is sent to an institution under the control of this authority will be called upon, or their relatives will be called upon to pay.
In this Amendment, the Secretary of State is throwing back the hands of progress and doing what even his friends in the Glasgow Town Council have never proposed to do; that is, to compel payment for the treatment of disease of this kind. The result will be that if an epidemic of influenza breaks out—and the Secretary of State says he wants to grapple with such epidemics—in a great number of cases the people affected will not go into an institution, but will remain at home in room and kitchen or single-apartment houses. The greatest curse in Glasgow to-day is debt; no poor person wants to get into debt. I heard the name of a prominent divine mentioned in the earlier part of the Debate; even he admitted in a recent speech that Glasgow's housing conditions are a credit to nobody. During the recent influenza epidemic it was discovered that one of the reasons for the prevalence of the disease—and I do not blame the doctors—was that in many cases the doctors were unable to get payment because the people could not pay for medical assistance. The people would not go into an institution where they could be attended by a doctor.
This is a much more serious position than the Secretary of State seems to be aware, and he is accepting Amendments of which he does not know the implication. Even where treatment in the institutions is free, we know the difficulty of getting many people to go into them. Let the Secretary of State ask Dr. Clark or any of the other doctors in charge of the health services who know all about that. The proposal of the Secretary of 2079 State will be a cause of propagating disease in future years when epidemics of this kind break out. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be courageous enough and big enough not on this occasion merely to repeat his parrot cry of no, but that he will put in place of this Amendment a decent Amendment which will secure to every sick person, without regard to class or creed, the treatment which they require in their hour of need.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "may" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
I put a question to the Under-Secretary of State as to what would be the application of this particular Amendment to the feeding of school children. I regret that, while he replied to one or two of the points which were put forward, he omitted, I believe quite inadvertently, to reply to that question. So long as the word "may" remains in this Amendment, it will be possible to pauperise every parent who is compelled to apply for assistance in the way of having boots or clothing or food provided for his necessitous children. I ask for a definite pledge to be given that you are not going to extend the taint of pauperism to the feeding and clothing of school children whose parents, because of poverty, are compelled to make application for such food and clothing. The Under-Secretary informed us that this was but the prelude to a new Clause, a Clause that will be more damaging and more destructive of any good intentions that there might have been at the back of the mind of the Government in introducing this Measure. Time and again we have emphasised the fact that our fear is not the wiping away of some of the administrative bodies, but the fear that you will carry the taint of pauperism into so many of your other public services.
In moving this Amendment to the proposed Amendment, I want it made quite clear that the respective county councils must, in their schemes, see to it that any provision of hoots and clothing or of food for necessitous children shall be kept free of the Poor Law and the taint of pauperism. As there has been so great a desire on the part of the Government to 2080 meet the demands of the teachers, in connection with their schemes of reorganisation, I think I can say for the teachers of Scotland that they certainly do not want to see the spirit of pauperism associated with any of our educational administration. I plead for a reply, or rather I think we are entitled to get a quite definite statement from the Government whether they are going to keep this particular service clear of the taint of pauperism.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has just made an impassioned appeal to me for a reply, and I am quite prepared to respond to the desires of the Committee. Let me say at once that this is no case of fixing any stigma of pauperisation on anybody. Quite the contrary. It may be that the proposals which the Government make do not go quite so far as some hon. Members would desire, nor may these proposals be entirely in accord with the views of some of the hon. Members opposite, but to describe this Clause or any part of it, and particularly the first Sub-section of it, which deals with the particular question of institutional treatment and of sick persons, as embodying the taint of pauperism, is a pure travesty of the facts. Of course, the use of the expression "the break-up of the Poor Law" may be interpreted by one person in. one way and by another person in a different way, but it is quite clear that unless the Government did introduce this Clause, or a Clause of this kind in some form, the circumstances dealing with the treatment of the poor would remain as they are to-day. The fact is that by the introduction of this Clause we are making a definite change and a definite advance. That it should be mandatory is not possible. It is proposed that the authorities shall put up certain schemes, and in them they will show how they propose to deal with these problems. They will not only be enabled to submit any proposal by which they will continue to deal in all its present aspects with Poor Law treatment, but also to produce a scheme by which those sick persons who do not come under the Poor Law, but are in poor circumstances, can be treated, and the authority will have the opportunity of recovering from them such amount as they think desirable.
§ Mr. STEWART
The right hon. Gentleman is unconsciously misleading the Committee. In that proposal, the word "shall" is used and yet the right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing mandatory about it.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
There is nothing mandatory in this. The local authority concerned with these things must be the judges of what they can do, and whether they should do it. We are following very much the same kind of system which has been carried out across the Border in this country; and here I will point out that, while hon. Members may abuse me for following in the wake of England, and asking the Committee to consider a step to bring our system in Scotland more into accord with the system which is being conducted across the Border, we are here conferring an important power upon local authorities. They will produce a scheme showing how they propose to deal with this problem, and, as everybody knows, one of the greatest difficulties which anybody in dealing with this problem has to keep in mind is the relative balance between the position of the voluntary hospitals and the voluntary services, and the services which may be created by the local authorities.
it is clear that under the proposals of the Government it will be possible for a scheme to be produced which will be investigated by the Department of Health, in which all the circumstances will by taken into consideration. The local authority will be able to produce this scheme after consultation with all the voluntary institutions in the distfict, and, if that scheme be approved, then only will those who are conducting such institutions as the Stobhill institution, which is well-known, be able to take within their walls and deal with cases outside the present system. At the same time, they will, of course, be the judges of how much these individuals are able to contribute, if anything, and whether they can in certain circumstances waive the payment. But I would say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would make a very great mistake indeed if they endeavoured, certainly under the present conditions in Scotland, to impose definitely upon a local authority a task of which they have no conception and as to which they are not in a position 2082 to judge whether the local authority can reasonably and fairly undertake it. That must be left to local circumstances —to consultation and the framing of schemes.
I would say that the first Sub-section in this Amendment docs open the way for a complete revision and a break up of the present Poor Law system. The second Sub-section is, of course, merely an arrangement under which, in the large burghs, there stall be established some machinery by which the councils of those large burghs shall be, in addition to being the authority for education, the health authority also; it is essential that we should make some provision for a working arrangement to be arrived at. The last and final Subsection is inserted to deal with the question of main roads which run through the burghs and to secure reciprocity and the avoidance of difficulties in opening those roads for the laying of sewers and cables or other purposes. I submit to the Committee that the Under-Secretary was perfectly justified in using the terms which he did use, and that it is a little ungracious on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who, I know, are genuinely interested in this subject, not to recognise that in making this proposal we are taking a very big step and one which, I hope, will be to the. advantage of the general public and for the improvement of the health of the people.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
Having spoken twice in the general Debate, I only wish to say a word in reference to the very vital point raised by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). The point is really a legal one. What we are asked to do in this Amendment is to assimilate action which at the present time is being carried out under different codes of law. Some services are carried on under the Poor Law, some under general health legislation and some under particular health Acts. The feeding and clothing of necessitous children, if not the children of people presently drawing Poor Law relief, is to take place under the education code. What we are asked to do is this—in the case where the "may" is not acted on, where no scheme is put forward providing that that service shall take place under some other Act than the Poor Law we shall really be saying that this service shall be rendered under the Poor Law. It is an 2083 important point. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite smile, but if this is an important point upon which to vote it also deserves that we should spend a minute or two upon it. If the Lord Advocate, who shakes his head, will apply his mind to this subject, he will find that later on this same problem will arise under the two codes of law dealing with repayment. The Public Health legislation says a local authority "may"
§ claim repayment; the Poor Law says they "must," and in another Clause later on in the Bill he will be asked to link up these two, making the Poor Law the governing one. That is a vital point, and I hope the Government will take it into their consideration before the Report stage of the Bill.
§ Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 107.2085
|Division No. 186.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Albery, Irving James||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Goff, Sir Park||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Gower, Sir Robert||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid w.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Atkinson, C,||Grant, Sir J. A.||Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Oakley, T.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||O'Connor. T. J (Bedford, Luton)|
|Berry, Sir George||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hacking, Douglas H.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Birchall. Major J. Dearman||Hammersley, S. S.||Perring, Sir William George|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Phillpson, Mabel|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Harland, A.||Pilcher, G.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Radford, E. A.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Ramsden, E.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Remer, J. R.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hills. Major John Waller||Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Hilton, Cecil||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Burman, J. B.||Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Ropner, Major L.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ross, R. D.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. sir Aylmer||Sandon, Lord|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||James, Lieut,-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Savery, S. S.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jones, Sir G. W. H.(Stoke New'gton)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Skelton. A. N.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Lamb, J. Q.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Couper, J. B.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt Hon. Sir Phll'p||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Loeker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbrol||Long, Major Eric||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lougher, Lewis||Stuart, Crichton-.Lord C.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lumley, L. R.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, S)|
|Dixey, A. C.||MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||MacIntyre, I.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||McLean, Major A.||Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Macquisten, F. A.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Margesson, Captain D.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Meller, R. J.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wells, S. R.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G, Dairymple-|
|Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.||TELLERS KOR THE AYES.—|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wragg, Herbert||Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.|
|Womersley, W. J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Grundy, T. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hardle, George D.||Potts, John S.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayday, Arthur||Purcell, A. A.|
|Barnes, A.||Hayes, John Henry||Ritson, J,|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall. St. Ives)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Bellamy, A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Scurr, John|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Briant, Frank||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kennedy, T.||Smillie. Robert|
|Buchanan, G.||Kirkwood, D-||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H, C.||Lansbury, George||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clark, A. B.||Lawson, John James||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S||Lee, F.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lindley, F. W.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Compton, Joseph||Longbottom, A. W.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Connolly, M.||Lowth, T.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E,|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Dennison, R.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||Mackinder, W.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Dunnico, H.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Westwood, J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||MacNeill-Weir L.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Forrest, W.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Maxton, James||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morris, R. H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Gillett, George M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wright, W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Murnin, H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grenfell, D. B. (Glamorgan)||Oliver, George Harold||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Ponlypool)||Palin, John Henry|
Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question neces-2086
§ sary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 105.2087
|Division No. 187.]||AYES.||[10.39 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Brocklebank, C. E. R,||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Albery, Irving James||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Alexander sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbre)|
|Allen, Sir J, Sandeman||Buckingham, Sir H.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Burman, J. B.||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K,||Carver, Major W. H.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cassels, J. D.||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Atkinson, C.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Dixey, A. C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Chapman, Sir S.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith|
|Bevan, S. J.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Fielden, E. B.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Ford, Sir P. J.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Cooper, A, Duff||Forrest, W.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Couper, J. B.||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Frsmantle, Lt-Col. Francis E.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Long, Major Eric||Ross, R. D.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Lougher, Lewis||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Salmon, Major I.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Lumley, L. R,||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Grant. Sir J. A.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sandon, Lord|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||MacIntyre, Ian||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||McLean, Major A.||Savery, S. S.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Macquisten, F. A.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W)'|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Meller, R. J.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Harland, A.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Mitchell. I. (Lanark, Lanark)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hope, sir Harry (Forfar)||Nuttall, Ellis||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Oakley, T.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Perring, Sir William George||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Phillpson, Mabel||Wells, S. R.|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Pilcher, G.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H.(Stoke New'gton)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Radford, E. A.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Raine, Sir Walter||Womersley, W. J.|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Ramsden, E.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Remer, J. R.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Rodd. Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.|
|Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney a Shetland)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hardie, George D.||Potts, John S.|
|Amnion, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Purcell, A. A.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayes, John Henry||Ritson, J.|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Bellamy, A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Scurr, John|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Briant, Frank||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kennedy, T.||Smillie, Robert|
|Buchanan, G.||Kirkwood, D.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lansbury, George||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clark, A. B.||Lawson, John James||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lee, F.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lindley. F. W.||Taylor, R A.|
|Compton, Joseph||Longbottom, A. W.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E. J|
|Connolly, M.||Lowth, T.||Tomlinson. R. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Dennison, R.||Mackinder, W,||Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Dunnico, H.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Westwood, J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gardner, J. P,||Maxton, James||Whiteley, W.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morris, R. H.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gillett, George M||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N )||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Murnin, H.||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Oliver, George Harold|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Palin, John Henry||TELLERS FOR THE NOES —|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.|
§ Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.