HL Deb 22 May 1919 vol 34 cc769-89

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, think that I ought to say a word of apology or explanation. I put several Amendments on the Paper for the Report stage the day before yesterday and did not attend to justify them. The fact was that I was so unfortunate as to be taken in while I was engaged upon other business of your Lordships' House upstairs. I sent a message to the noble Viscount to tell him what had happened, and I trust that he did not suffer any inconvenience from my not being here. I feel confident that the House would never for a moment have thought that I could be guilty of any disrespect to your Lordships. One of the Amendments that I had put down and which occupied a great space upon the Order Paper was with respect to a proposed schedule to the Bill. I was very sorry to have lost the opportunity of trying to persuade the noble Viscount that it was better, in such a matter as that of Clause 4 of the Bill, to proceed by way of a schedule which could be discussed in the House, instead of leaving the matter to Orders in Council, as to which a great deal of objection is felt.

But I recognise, having read the debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, what a concession the noble Viscount, who is always conciliatory, made in the Bill; and although I am still of opinion that it would be better in such a case to proceed by schedule, recognising that fact I have not ventured to put down the Amendment again. Both the noble Viscount and the House, of course, had the advantage on that occasion of discussing the clause and of discussing what was to be done with the actual terms in their hands of what the Order in Council was proposed to be, so that some advantage was gained by the Amendment being put down on the Paper, even though I was not able to be here to try to persuade your Lordships to adopt my view in the matter.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

My Lords, I should like to say that, in common with all your Lordships, I regretted the absence of the noble and learned Lord the other day, and also the cause which rendered his absence imperative. I have no doubt that in the consideration of the various matters which arose we should have very greatly profited by his experience and advice. But as the noble Lord has said, the concession I was able to make in regard to the Orders in Council did somewhat change the aspect of the matter, and I am glad to feel that he is to that extent at any rate satisfied.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 2:

General powers and duties of Minister in relation to health.

2. It shall be the duty of the Minister, in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to or conferred upon him by or in pursuance of this Act, to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the treatment and care of the blind, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, before the words "effective carrying out," to insert "preparation." The noble and learned Lord said: In pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships yesterday I have placed upon the Paper two Amendments, one dealing with the case of England, and the other a similar Amendment appropriate to the case of Ireland. These two Amendments, as your Lordships will see, are—Clause 2, page 1, line 14, before the words "effective carrying out" to insert "preparation"; and in line 17, after "diseases," to insert "the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor." I ought to make it plain that I am under no delusion that these Amendments will really satisfy those of your Lordships who were inclined to give support to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe when the matter was last under discussion.

The clause to which I make this addition is a clause which has undergone considerable criticism by your Lordships, to which I rather incline to think that your Lordships did not attach any very extreme importance. The clause was criticised as rather academic and as not a specially effective statement. of a general intention. The criticism was perhaps a little too severe, but—I desire to be quite plain—I do not claim to have attempted to do more, for reasons which I will presently indicate, than add the object which underlay the Amendment of my noble friend as one of the matters to be borne in mind and to be sought after by the new Minister, whoever he may prove to be.

But your Lordships are certainly entitled to an explanation from me as to the reasons which led me very definitely to the conclusion that the Amendment moved by my noble friend would not really have been effective for the purpose for which it was designed, and that no useful consequences would have resulted from it. I took that view very clearly, as I think your Lordships would gather from what I said. Nothing but the circumstance that my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane, with his great experience, took another view, and that another view was also taken by one of your Lordships who had himself held the very responsible position of Public Prosecutor, prevented me from giving a more confident opinion to your Lordships. But I was very anxious to consider the matter deliberately and carefully, and I have certainly carried out the assurance which I gave that with every possible assistance the matter should be fully debated and considered. Long consultations took place yesterday both with the Director and the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions and with many other persons of great experience in such matters, and the meeting, which was protracted, reached unanimously the conclusion which I have ventured generally to indicate as my own, and which I will, if I am allowed, develop very briefly to-day.

The position on examination really proved to be this. It is no use recommending that a new Minister shall undertake the prosecution of certain offences unless those offences are clearly defined by law and can be made the subject of successful prosecution. When I went into the matter more fully yesterday certain indisputable facts emerged, and the chief of them were these—that the patent medicines fraud, in cases where frauds exist, can under our existing law only be attacked upon the charge that the defendant or the prisoner has attempted to obtain money by false pretences. Your Lordships will see that cases are readily conceivable which would justify proceedings of this kind, and in some cases those proceedings have been successfully taken. But they are very difficult prosecutions; they are not prosecutions which any trained criminal lawyer will very frequently recommend; and certainly it is no ex-aggeration to say that far more of these prosecutions fail than succeed. And I think the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, must be well aware that the real truth is that what is required is not an admonition, statutory or otherwise, to a Minister who is not specially charged with this duty of prosecution that he should prosecute in cases where it is extremely difficult to obtain a conviction, and in which highly trained persons such as those in the Department of the Public Prosecutor very often do not recommend prosecutions because they are satisfied that convictions will not be. obtained—that is not the course which would meet the difficulties that undoubtedly require some treatment.

The course which ought to be adopted is undoubtedly that of strengthening our legislation. And when I went more fully into the history of the matter than was possible for me yesterday (I had not been aware that any advice was desired by your Lordships on this point), and when I read, as I have read in the interval, the Report of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines, which was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on August 4, 1914, I found this matter was very fully discussed by an extremely competent and experienced Committee. They examined the matter very carefully, and at the end of their Report they made certain recommendations. The recommendations are of the greatest possible importance, and if I may I will read paragraph 58 so that your Lordships may apprehend its general nature— Your Committee further recommend the following legislative enactments:—(1) That every medicated wine, and very proprietary remedy containing more alcohol than that required for pharmacological purposes, be required to state upon the abel the proportion of alcohol contained in it. (2) That the advertisement and sale (except the sale by a doctor's order) of medicines purporting the cure of the following diseases be prohibited:—

cancer diabetes locomotor ataxy
consumption paralysis Bright's disease
lupus fits rupture (without operation or appliance)
deafness epilepsy
(3) That all advertisements of remedies for diseases arising from sexual intercourse or referring to sexual weakness be prohibited. (4) That all advertisements likely to suggest that a medicine is an abortifacient be prohibited. I need not trouble your Lordships with them all, but there are seven or eight other specific recommendations.

Now, I shall be asked what argument I found upon this circumstance, although I anticipate that most of your Lordships have already drawn a conclusion. The Committee would not have recommended that these legislative changes should be made had the existing laws been adequate to deal with the cases dealt with in their recommendations. All those cases ought to be dealt with; all those matters ought in a proper case to be made the subject of prosecution; and hardly any of them can be dealt with under the law as it now stands. These matters have been carefully discussed—though quite recently discussed—and I am authorised to say to your Lordships, and I do say, that the Government concurs in these recommendations. Your Lordships will not fail to notice the date of them—August 4, 1914; and that date no doubt will readily explain the reason why nothing has been done within the period that has intervened. Recognising, as the Government does recognise, first of all, that the existing law does not cover those cases; secondly, that those cases urgently require legislative treatment; and, thirdly, that the problem is an immediately pressing one, the Government authorise me to state, and I do state, that a very early attempt will be made to carry out in a separate Bill those specific recommendations of the Committee of which my noble friend was a member. I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships that this course will be far more likely to give effect to the wishes of this House than the acceptance of the Amendment which was under debate so short a time ago.

Your Lordships will recognise that I speak with considerable experience on this point—I was a Law Officer for four years, and I was primarily responsible for nearly every prosecution in this country for nearly three years—and I desire to protest against any change which would have the effect of decentralising responsibility for prosecutions. I also contemplate with great anxiety the creation of new Ministries with their own separate legal advisers. In some cases that has proved both inevitable and convenient, but every such proposal requires to be carefully considered upon its own merits. I have had great experiences in these cases. It only means this in practice, that where the matters are trivial the legal advisers of the individual Departments apprise those Departments and the matter is dealt with; but whenever the matter is grave it must, of course, come to the Law Officers of the Crown who are the necessary link between every Government Department, and on whose responsibility alone decisions in grave legal matters can be taken. I am confident that the mere provision of machinery of the kind contemplated by my noble friend would not meet the case which met with so much sympathy amongst your Lordships. If these changes are made I have the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for saying that, if the legislation I have indicated becomes law, there will certainly be no remissness on their part to see that effect is given to your Lordships' strong desire—namely, that persons who pursue practices which under this legislation will become criminal shall be adequately dealt with.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after ("the") insert ("preparation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, the statement made by the Lord Chancellor is very satisfactory from the point of view that the Bill is to be strengthened by words being inserted which will make it the duty of the new Minister to prepare and procure legislation. So far as that is concerned, and so far as what the noble and learned Lord said about the undertaking of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the committee which sat upon the subject of patent medicines is concerned, the situation will be better than it was before these words were put in.

But there is another difficulty of quite a different kind in the minds of many of us. In Scotland, for example, you have someone whose duty it is to take up a prosecution in a matter of this kind—the Lord Advocate—and he is charged with seeing that justice is enforced. Unfortunately that is not so in England, and I do not think it should be so generally, as the number of prosecutions would be so great as to be almost overwhelming. In England we have a Public Prosecutor, but he is a Public Prosecutor who picks and chooses at discretion. It is just this picking and choosing at discretion that we do not like with a Minister like the Minister of Public Health. By all means let private persons who have suffered wrongs prosecute for the punishment of criminal acts directed against them privately. But what we have been anxious about is that the sale of improper medicines is a thing no one could look after unless some public authority looks after it. I feel the difficulty, which the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, of creating a new Department for public prosecutions within the walls of the Ministry of Health, but I should like something more specific with regard to this.

This is a matter which concerns the community, and the machinery of prosecution should be set in operation by those who represent the community—namely, the Public Prosecutor. If we had an undertaking from the noble and learned Lord and from the noble Viscount that the Minister of Health would recognise it as his duty to look out for such cases and bring them to the attention of the Public Prosecutor, and that the Public Prosecutor would then take them up, we should think ourselves in a better position; and it is on this ground that, while I am grateful for the words the noble and learned Lori on the Woolsack has introduced, I do not think they quite meet the anxiety which is felt.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Lords, as I initiated this matter in your Lordships' House I should like to say that it is a source of very great satisfaction to me that the Government have expressed themselves willing specifically to include this range of subjects within the authorised sphere of their activities under this Bill. If I understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack aright, he promised that at the earliest possible moment the Government themselves would initiate legislation, and carry it through both Houses, dealing in a more general way with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I entirely agree with my noble friend that many of the more serious matters have yet to be dealt with, and to be dealt with by making them offences for the first time under British law. I think I am right in saying that there are certain cases, not so serious as those to which the Lord Chancellor has referred but of sufficient gravity, in respect of which there is a lacuna and offences of fraud go unpunished because it is not the business of any particular Minister to initiate prosecutions.

May I remind your Lordships that in addition to the recommendations which are specifically referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, there is one to the following effect— That the President of the Local Government Board (or Minister of Health) have power to institute the necessary proceedings to enforce compliance with the law— That presumably means the existing law— in connection with the sale and advertisement of any patent, secret, or proprietary remedy or appliance. That is one of the recommendations, on the strength of which I put down my Amendment. May I also refer to a paragraph which contemplates this as the ultimate remedy?— Successful prosecutions for fraud in connection with the sale of secret remedies have been so few as to be negligible. In the first place, as we were informed by the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions, at present there is no person whose duty it is to say whether patent medicine manufacturers are making fraudulent claims. They go on— We have privately brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions several cases obviously of the most, fraudulent or offensive description, and have requested him to prosecute. In each case, with every desire to do so, he has after careful consideration explained to us the legal grounds on which, in his opinion, it would be impossible to secure a verdict. I do not want to labour the matter. I am obliged to the Government for including within the purposes for which the new Ministry is to be established prosecution for these very objectionable offences, and I rest satisfied with the promised Bill which I understand will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to deal with the subject in a more general way.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In answer to my noble friend Lord Haldane it is only necessary that I should point out that, although the Attorney-General may delegate various less important prosecutions, he is responsible for all prosecutions. So far as the Government are concerned, I have only to say that in their opinion it will be a very great advantage that the Minister who has a specialised Department should be able to call in the Attorney-General or the Public Prosecutor on the question of these frauds, the numbers of which will be very greatly increased by the legislation which is before us. I am authorised to state, and I do state on behalf of the Attorney-General, that my right hon. friend will take a. very serious view of his responsibility in this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after ("diseases") insert ("the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6:

Staff and remuneration.

6.—(1) The Minister may appoint one parliamentary secretary and such secretaries, officer, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine, and in the making of such appointments shall give equal consideration to the suitability of persons of both sexes.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

My Lords, it is now my duty to move that the words "one Parliamentary Secretary and" be omitted from subsection (1) of Clause 6. I referred the other day to this Amendment as one which I should submit to your Lordships' consideration, and I said then, and I repeat now, that I should not have done so had I not been in a position to give an undertaking, that in the first instance one of the Under-Secretaries should find a place in your Lordships' House. I further added that it was impossible to put such a statement in the Bill, because I understood—I think it is acknowledged—that no provision of that kind has found its way into an Act of Parliament.

I do not propose to keep your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, but, if you will allow roe, I am desirous once more to mate in perhaps more clear terms what the settling in of this new Ministry really means, and to point out how the volume of work goes on increasing as time and matters progress. Indeed, that work will roll up and increase like a snowball. I would remind your Lordships how very heavy that work must be in the initial stages and as it develops, and how much we are pressed not only to cope with this work but also, and at once, to add to it. Further, I should like to point out that, for effective issues, proper devolution must be necessary within the Office with sufficient and efficient supervision and direction. I wish also to call your attention to one point to which I do not think I referred on a former occasion. Your Lordships remember that the Insurance Commission has to be taken over by t he new Ministry, and, therefore, the Joint Committee will be merged in the new Ministry. Up to lately that Joint Committee has had its own Chairman, but that separate official will disappear. I admit this is not a financial saving on the vote, because the services of the Controller of His Majesty's Household were engaged for that purpose, but it adds by so much to the volume of the work of the existing Under-Secretary who becomes Chairman in his place. I also ask your Lordships to remember that with the merging of the Insurance Commission in the new Health Ministry the three Commissioners will disappear from this capacity, and by this much the work of the present Under-Secretary is increased, if indeed it is not almost doubled.

Even now within the Local Government Board, with the urgency and importance and variety of problems which are arising and developing, it is necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary either to preside or to take part in inquiries into numerous subjects involving questions of policy. The Under-Secretary at the Local Government Board is already presiding over an inquiry as regards the spread of diseases resulting from the return of the Armies. He is in the same position with regard to the shortage of accommodation for people suffering from tubercle. He is also engaged in a series of conferences relating to the regularity in the supply of milk, and only to-day we observe that, recognising the feeling of your Lordships House, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has added another chapter to the already rather over-weighted book of the duties of that Office. Another thing should not be forgotten. There has been, I understand, a great development and advance in inquiry by Cabinet Committees when, not infrequently, an Under-Secretary is obliged to represent his Chief.

The last point to which I would wish to draw your Lordships' attention is this, that the new procedure arrangements in the House of Commons, under which Standing Committees sit from eleven o'clock till one o'clock and from four o'clock till six, has added enormously to the work of the Parliamentary officials of the Department, and no doubt to the work of other Departments when their Bills come up for consideration. Indeed I have found that is so. I have never been able to find the Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board, and I have really had to employ the greatest dexterity in order to catch the President of the Local Government Board in order to take his directions on the various Amendments which it has been my duty to propose or to consider when coming from other noble Lords.

I think it must be recognised that the position of the Under-Secretary of the Local Government Board is very different indeed from what it was some years ago. I will give an example of how we are pressed to take up in regard to organisation and administration matters with which Parliament is concerned, and which, of course, will have to be advocated and defended by the representatives of the Office in Parliament. In addition to the break-up of the Poor Law, the Ministry has to set about the further stage, as it has been called, of the development of the Health organisation throughout country, and this Bill is really the foundation of that. The ramifications of health policy are almost limitless and octopus-like, and one cannot tell in what direction new ground may not have to be broken. It raises questions which cannot fail to interest Parliament, and, indeed, there is the clearest indication of a rapidly awakening interest in your Lordships' House in the discussions on this Bill. Then, again, there are the facilities for the treatment of various diseases, venereal disease and tubercular disease, which are notoriously inadequate. I do not allude in detail to the extensions in regard to the Board of Trade, Privy Council, and Pensions, but when we come to the further responsibilities and work which have to be absorbed by degrees, especially in regard to Clause 3, subsection (2), it really is quite impossible to estimate how great the work of the Department might be.

Therefore I ask your Lordships to give me back this Under-Secretary on the bona fide undertaking that one of the Under-Secretaries shall find a place in your Lordships' House. It will be noticed by your Lordships and by all observers that the development of government to-day tends to be in many new directions and channels which the public are demanding shall be taken up and administered by Government, and while I can assure noble Lords opposite who voted against us on a former occasion that I really am not behind them in my anxiety for economy and for not multiplying officials, I venture seriously to express the view that the withholding from the Office of this extra Under-Secretary will not be true economy of time or labour, but will put on the shoulders of the Minister and the Under-Secretary a burden which they will hardly be able to bear and also seriously impair the efficiency of the Office and expedition in dealing with matters which should be its first concern.

That is my case. I trust that in the conduct of the Bill your Lordships may not think that I have been unreasonable in endeavouring to meet the wishes of noble Lords in various parts of the House. I rather hope that I may have a ready assent to the proposition that we have not been unreasonable. I can assure noble Lords opposite that it has been one of the most ardent wishes of the President of the Local Government Board to see how far he could go in agreement in order to bring about the rapid passing of the Bill, in regard to the principle of which I think the feeling is practically unanimous. As I said on the last occasion, I know certainly of two Offices in which there are three officials, and if there is any case ever to be made out for a third official I submit there is a case to be made out for this third official. It is my genuine and earnest belief that he will tend to the efficiency and expedition with which the work would be done.

Amendment moved— Clause 6, page 4, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("one parliamentary secretary and").—Viscount Sandhurst.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The noble Viscount has stated his case with his accustomed persuasiveness, and he has called to his aid all the arguments which legitimately could be used in support of his Amendment. But I do not feel certain that your Lordships will be entirely persuaded by what he has said. The noble Viscount himself recognises, I am sure, the strength of the feeling in this House against the multiplication of new officials and Ministers. Whether it is recognised as fully by those who are instructing him, I do not feel quite certain. I greatly doubt whether the objections which we feel so strongly to this multiplication of officials are entirely appreciated outside the walls of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount has said that there are already Departments which have three representatives, although. it is only fair to add that there are a great many more which have not, and he argued that the amount of work which would fall upon this new Department was such as to justify this addition of a third Under-Secretary there.

The new Ministry of Health is about to take over certain functions from other Departments—the Board of Education and the Privy Council—but the Local Government Board is about to shed a large number of other functions concerned with local government, as we speak of it generally. I think your Lordships will tend to be afraid that when these duties are transferred to other Departments—all the business of Parliamentary registration, all the work other than health work connected with local government—there will be a strong claim advanced on the part of some other Department, whether it be the Home Office or whatever it may be, for the addition of a second Under-Secretary, in order to enable them to carry out the extra work which is going to be thrown upon them by the breaking up of the Local Government Board.

Where is all this going to end? I cannot feel that the health work as defined in the Bill which we have before us justifies the immediate creation of this new official. The noble Viscount has told us of the heavy work which falls both upon the President of the Local Government Board and upon his Under-Secretary in connection with the work outside Parliament. There are countless committees and meetings of all kinds which occupy the time of those two officials. I venture to think that far too much Government work is being done outside the walls of Parliament. I do not believe in this multiplication of outside committees, whose work is not watched and of which, although the result may be known, the processes by which those results are arrived at are not known. Therefore I cannot think that it is wise, by the creation of an extra official of this sort, to encourage the new lines of government which the noble Viscount has so fairly described but which some of us believe to be radically bad as compared with the old lines of Parliamentary management.

The noble Viscount told us that, as a consolation to your Lordships' House—admitting the point of complaint that the new Ministry would not be directly represented here, although of course in no way admitting the infinitely more important argument, as I think, against the creation of superfluous Ministers—that one of the Under-Secretaries would in the first instance have a seat in your Lordships' House. That is a handsome offer on the part of the Prime Minister, and of course we know it will be carried out. For how long, it would be impossible to say, and certainly we could not expect His Majesty's Government to pledge themselves on the retention of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary here. The time might come, among the many reconstructions and re-shufflings which take place in the ranks of His Majesty's Government, when it might be found necessary or desirable for some reason to transfer a third Minister to another place, and to entrust the duties of the Health Department to the most willing and competent hands of some member of His Majesty's Household.

I confess that I personally cannot pretend to be altogether convinced by what the noble Viscount has said. He claimed with absolute justice, as was entirely realised by the House, that he had been most desirous all through the conduct of the Bill to meet the wishes of your Lordships' house. I have never seen a Bill conducted through this House in a more conciliatory spirit than this has been by the noble Viscount, but. I feel that this is a matter involving an important principle, and I confess that I should be very slow to ask those of your Lordships who might be disposed to take my advice to agree with the proposition of the noble Viscount.

LORD DOWNHAM

My Lords, having moved the Amendment to limit the Government to the appointment of only one Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to say a few words in reply to the argument of the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill. The case was well argued in Committee, both for and against, and by an overwhelming majority your Lordships came to the conclusion that it was time we struck some blow—I think this is how it was put by the noble Marquess who has just spoken—at the disease on the part of the Government for constantly creating new Ministries. I pointed out on that occasion that the late Government—and this Government is, after all, almost the same—had created no fewer than five important Ministers and nine Parliamentary Secretaries. This Government now proposes to create no fewer than five Ministers for Health. They propose to turn the President of the Local Government Board into a Minister for Health and give him two Parliamentary Secretaries for England and Wales; and in another Bill—the Scottish Bill—to give an extra Parliamentary Secretary for looking after the health of Scotland; and as I understand—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—in another Bill to give another Under-Secretary to look after the health of Ireland. That is five Ministers for Health.

I cannot help thinking that, although health is one of the most important matters to which we can pay attention, five Ministers are hardly wanted to take through Parliament the various Bills connected with health, and to preside over the various committees charged with functions appertaining to health. I know perfectly well that the Local Government Board was at one time hard worked; but, after all, the Local Government Board is now going to be free from all those numerous duties which it undertook in connection with the war. It had to supervise all the 1,800 military tribunals. It was charged, in connection with the Home Office, with conducting through that. enormous Bill in connection with the Representation of the People, and, after the passage of that Bill, with conducting all the procedure under it. It will I no longer, I understand, be connected with the Poor Law; and the noble Lord, in answer to a question by myself, informed your Lordships that very soon all these great functions of the Local Government Board would cease to be discharged by the Minister for Health.

During the last few years, having been either Parliamentary Secretary or President of the Local Government Board, I can assure your Lordships that that Department has conducted more Bills, and more large Bills, through Parliament than any other Department; yet it was not thought necessary to have more than one Parliamentary Secretary. It had to preside over many committees both inside and outside the House of Commons, and a full share of Government work fell to the Local Government Board; yet it was never thought necessary to ask for another Parliamentary Secretary. If your Lordships adhere to your Amendment and limit the Minister of Health to one Parliamentary Secretary for England and Wales, you do not by that process prevent the Minister for Health from having as many secretaries as he chooses to have in the office. After all, what is the Parliamentary Secretary for? A Parliamentary Secretary is for the sole purpose, almost, of assisting the Minister to do Parliamentary business, to answer questions, to conduct Bills through committees and through the House; yet during all those years when I was associated with my right hon. friend who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty we never found any difficulty in arranging that one or other of us should be able to

attend the House of Commons, answer questions, attend the various Committees, take through that enormous volume of legislation which we conducted through the House of Commons, and assist in all the ordinary work of the Government. I am quite sure that although there will be an added amount of work connected with health there will not be more work in that Department than can be efficiently done by one Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary.

I think it is high time that the Government set some example in the way of economy, and when my noble friend in charge of the Bill says that he himself is as much opposed as any of us to this increase in officialdom, I cannot say that he and those who are acting with him are setting a very good example in asking that two Parliamentary Secretaries should be added to this Department, and that we should set up an unlimited number—four at least—of Consultative Committees, all of which will require to have their separate staff of officials, and all of whom will have to be housed. I am confident that if these Consultative Committees are set up there must be an enormous increase to the number of officials engaged in the Department. We are drifting in these ways to a great increase in the official life of this country, an increase which is not justified in any way or under any case which the noble Viscount has made out, and I hope that we shall adhere to our Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not desire to add more than one or two words to the two speeches to which we have had the pleasure of listening. My noble friend who has just sat down speaks from a position of very great authority. He knows the Local Government Board inside and out, and has had a very great and recent experience of its work, and he seems to me to have pointed out with absolutely crushing force that a large part of the work of the Local Government Board is under this very Bill intended to be dispensed with. Therefore the additional work which the Health Minister will have will not be more than can be efficiently transacted by the present staff, or a staff corresponding to it. This increase of Ministers is a great evil. The Treasury bench in the House of Commons—I was going to say is double as long as it used to he, but that unfortunately is not the case; but the gentlemen who have a right to occupy it are double the number who used to have a right to sit upon it. That shows the enormous increase in Parliamentary officials which has taken place under recent arrangements.

I will only ask leave to make one further observation. The subsequent consequential Amendment which the noble Viscount is going to move affects Section 12 of the New Ministries Act of 1916. That Act established a certain number of new Ministries, and the question of Under-Secretaries was then formally considered and decided by Parliament. It is not a matter which has not been before your Lordships and the other House of Parliament. It has been very much before us, and has been decided. Section 12 of that Act prescribed that there should not be more than one Under-Secretary sitting in the House of Commons. That was the settled policy of Parliament. Why should it be reversed? That was the arrangement which was good enough for the Labour Minister, and why should it not be good enough for the Health Minister? Am I to be told that the Labour Minister, has a light office? I would reply that it involves all the most important considerations of policy which are likely to confront us in the near future. What is good enough for the Labour Minister is, of course, good enough for the Health Minister, and just as Section 12 of the Act of 1916 prescribes that there should be only one Under-Secretary in his case, so we ought to adhere to that Act and see that only one Under-Secretary is prescribed in the present case. To ask your Lordships to alter on Third Reading the decision at which you had arrived in Committee is a very unusual proceeding, and it would want a very strong case in order to support it. I submit that the noble Viscount, with all his courtesy and consideration, has not been able to advance that strong case, and we ask your Lordships to adhere to your decision.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON)

My Lords, before the House proceeds to divide, if it must do so, may I say a word upon one point, and one point only? Since I have had the honour of representing the Government on this Bench one of the most frequent complaints which I have had to meet from noble Lords opposite—and I have understood its force—has been that important Departments of Government, instead of having a regular official representative in this House, have had to depend for their representation here upon members, however hard working and however competent, of His Majesty's Household. That is a complaint frequently addressed to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and that in many cases it is a complaint which has no substantial justification is shown by the great ability with which my noble friend Lord Sandhurst has conducted this measure. Still, over and over again we have been told that the absence of direct Ministerial representation does not pay an adequate compliment to this House.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I do not think that I have made that complaint.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Of course, I accept the denial of the noble Marquess if I have unintentionally misrepresented him, but I thought there had been complaints from him, and certainly there have been from many others. Over and over again I have heard the complaint that important Departments of Government ought to be represented here by a Minister. Very well, here is a case in which an attempt is being made by the Government to satisfy that claim. I am not able, of course, to speak with the knowledge possessed by my noble friend Lord Downham about the work of the new Ministry. I should have thought that it would have been very heavy indeed. I should have thought that it would be incomparably greater than the work of the Ministry of Labour, to which my noble friend Lord Salisbury referred. I should have been prepared myself to take the opinion of the Government and the Minister responsible for this new Department as to whether he could not properly discharge his duties unless he had two

Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I should be prepared to take that view now.

The line that I should have taken, and that I am still prepared to take, is to press most strongly that the second of these Parliamentary Under-Secretaries should sit in your Lordships' House. I admit that this is not a stipulation that you can put into a Bill. No Government can allow it to be put into a Bill. But I should have thought that it would have been the line your Lordships' House might have taken. I should have thought that you would have pressed the Leader of the House for the time being, who represents the Government in this House, to see that adequate consideration is given to your Lordships, and that if the two Ministers are created one of them shall sit on these benches. My noble friend did give something in the nature of a pledge to that effect. Of course, it was a limited pledge. Nobody speaking for any one Government can lay down the law, or give a promise, that in perpetuity one of two Under-Secretaries shall sit in this House, but I think, my Lords, that you might be satisfied with the pledge that my noble friend gave that if two Under-Secretaries are created one of them shall sit here. Speaking for myself I should be most reluctant, if that were conceded, to acquiesce in. any situation in which the privilege thus given to your Lordships' House were withdrawn. I hope therefore, that your Lordships will not too hastily adhere to the attitude you took up the other day, or reject the advice given to you by the noble Viscount.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.
Bath, M. Haldane, V. Gainford, L.
Bristol, M. Harcourt, V. Granard, L.(B. Granard.)
Crewe, M. Hood, V. Harris, L.
Salisbury, M. Islington, L.
Ampthill, L. Joicey, L.
Coventry, E. Armaghdale, L. Lawrence, L.
Denbigh, E. Ashbourne, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Harewood, E. Askwith, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Malmesbury, E. Avebury, L. Revelstoke, L.
Mayo, E. Bledisloe, L. Rotherham, L.
Northbrook, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Roundway, L.
Onslow, E. Desborough, L. Sanderson, L.
Selborne, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Sandys, L.
Strafford, E. Downham, L. [Teller.] Southwark, L.
Waldegrave, E. Emmott, L. Sydenham, L. [Teller.]
Forester, L. Terrington, L.
Esher, V. Forteviot, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Hylton, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.) Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Inverforth, L.
Knutsford, V. Newton, L.
Peel, V. Ranksborough, L.
Sutherland, D. Rathcreedan, L.
Annesley, L. Rothschild, L.
Bradford, E. Blythswood, L. Shandon, L.
Jersey, E. Clwyd, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E. Colebrooke, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Elphinstone L. Sudeley, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

My next Amendment in Clause 7 naturally falls out. Then I have another Amendment, which is panic drafting, in Clause 8.

Amendment moved— Clause 8, page 6, lines 31–32, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("thereof").—Viscount Sandhurst.

Clause 10:

Application to Ireland.

10.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act, the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the treatment and care of the blind, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendments that I now have to move are in Clause 10, and are consequential on those already accepted by your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Clause 10, page 7, line 41, after ("the") insert ("preparation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Amendment moved— Clause 10, page 8, line 2, after ("diseases") insert "the avoidance of. fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Bill passed and returned to the Commons.