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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It might induce you to be a little lenient.

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

The claim I wish to make, and I think I am entitled to make it, and I do not think I shall have any chance on the Grand Committee even if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to the Committee, of which I am not aware; is that the Grants to the doctors are now reaching the end, and I hope this will be regarded as a sufficient sum, and that no other proposal will be brought forward. That is what I want to get an expression of opinion on, and I think we are entitled to have it before we vote this large sum, to know whether, in the opinion of the Government this will really settle the controversy with regard to the remuneration, at any rate, for a reasonable time. I make that appeal because many of the doctors throughout the country, there is no doubt, find this remuneration under the Act is far handsomer than they expected. Doctors all over the country have stated to me that they had no idea that they would receive so substantial an income or they would have been satisfied before. Therefore I do not think I am unreasonable in asking the medical profession to accept these as really very handsome terms under all the circumstances, and to become the loyal servants of the Act, which should necessarily follow from the handsome remuneration given to them. I invite the Government to give the Committee their own opinion as to whether when this money is granted that the financial relations between the medical profession and the administration of the Act will be on a satisfactory basis. One point I think which is raised above all others by this Resolution is with regard to the alteration of the Sinking Fund. The position with regard to that Sinking Fund is important in itself, and also because of its bearing on the general finances, which come up for review from time to time in Committee. We are practically extending the Sinking Fund period from eighteen and a half years to twenty. That undoubtedly has the effect of postponing the receipt of the additional benefits which the younger lives have been led to expect. I think anyone below the age of fifty is not now much concerned under an Act where the benefits end at seventy with the administration of such an Act with regard to any increase of benefits twenty years hence. The people really interested in the extension of prolongation of the period are the younger lives, and many of those are not represented in this House. The point is whether we should not carefully consider whether any injustice really is inflicted upon those younger lives, particularly those under twenty-one, and people who have no representation in this House. I have gone very carefully into the atter, and I do not think it can be said that by prolonging the period of the Sinking Fund you are really taking something from those people which they themselves contributed. The youngest lives will get considerably more than is represented by their own subscriptions. The only correct way of putting it is to say that they do not get so large a share of the added bonuses from the employers and the State as they would otherwise do. It does not mean that the added benefits will be reduced, but there will be a postponement for eighteen months. Therefore claimants during those eighteen months, eighteen and a half or twenty years ahead, may have a grievance. But they would not be without benefits. They would get the benefits allowed under the Act, but they would not have the added benefits during those eighteen months. None of the money which the prolongation of the Sinking Fund postpones is a deduction from their own subscriptions. I know that it may be represented in the country that by the passing of this Resolution, and the prolongation of the Sinking Fund, they are being defrauded and money is being taken from them. But that is not correct. I do not find those hon. Members opposite, who are now present, and who follow this question closely, making those statements. When I read the speeches of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) I find a very marked difference as compared with the literature distributed at by-elections to which those hon. Members are not invited to give their support. I have noticed that when those hon. Members do not go to an election we may always expect a more furious tirade against the Act than when they are invited to speak.

But it will be suggested at by-elections that we are actually robbing these younger subscribers, instead of its being pointed out that they will not get the added benefits resulting solely from their subscriptions being supplemented by definite cash by the employers and the State. If it is explained to them that they will in any case get far more than the value of their subscriptions, but that in order to deal more generously with the older people their added benefits will be a little postponed, I do not think there will be any complaints. You cannot say that the older people are always concerned about the young, but you can say that the younger people are concerned about the aged. It is very rarely that a young subscriber is not related to some aged people who will get the benefit of this prolongation of the Sinking Fund. I have interested myself in scores of these young people, because it has been made a grievance in some quarters that they do not get full benefits under twenty-one years of age unless they have dependants. I hope the House will never consent to a young person in his teens with no one dependant upon him being entitled to draw the same sick pay as a married man with a family. I have had the opportunity of specifically testing scores of young workers all over the country, and never once have I found them coming forward with the complaint that they were being badly treated by the Act in this connection. It will be said that the prolongation of the Sinking Fund aggravates the position. Even since this proposal was made I have had a number of young people canvassed, but I have not found those who will have their added benefits postponed coming forward and objecting to this Amending Bill because it is too favourable to the old people. I have met only one man who objects to this prolongation of the sinking fund, and he is a man with four children under twenty-one at work and bringing their wages home. He is a strong-minded man, a man with a strong enough personality to persuade those four workers to turn out practically the whole of their wages every week. He is a strong advocate of full benefits being give to young people in their teens. But he is the only one I have met, and I leave the Committee to draw their own conclusions. I think it is a serious problem, which has not been as thoroughly discussed as it should be by statesmen and publicists, how far you are justified, after a man has passed the bulk of his years under a certain system, in bringing him into a compulsory scheme of this kind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

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

I did not mean to say it was.

This Financial Resolution is drawn in a very wide manner, but I think it is perhaps just as well. I do not believe that the House in the least knows what it will be pledging itself to if it passes this Resolution. I do not believe that any hon. Member knows what the cost of this Amending Bill is going to be. The Actuarial Report which has been issued by the Government with the Bill is a very able document signed by, I suppose, the most brilliant actuary in the country. It gives certain estimates of what these Amendments are going to cost during the next few years. With all respect to this very great actuarial authority I submit that the estimates in this Report are a very long way below what the cost of the Amending Bill is likely to prove in the future. I should like to give four instances to justify that opinion. The Chief Actuary on pages 2 and 3 of his Report tries to estimate the number of friendly society members over the age of sixty-five who will benefit by the proposal in Clause 1 of the Amending Bill as regards medical benefit. The estimate is 228,000 members belonging to registered societies which returned summaries of age to the Registrar. He then tries to allow for members over sixty-five belonging to societies which did not return summaries, and he deals with these by discounting them altogether—by setting them off against members over sixty-five years of age belonging to societies which have not become approved societies, and which therefore are entirely outside the scope of the Amending Bill.

I submit that is not a sound calculation. It is probable that the societies who do not make returns of ages to the Registrar include an abnormal number of societies charging a flat rate of contribution, irrespective of age, and all experience, I believe I am right in saying, goes to show that the average age of members of such societies and the proportion of their members of advanced age is exceptionally high. This fact seems to have escaped the Chief Actuary's notice, and would largely vitiate the system adopted in his Report of setting off such societies against societies not having become approved, and consequently outside the scope of the Amending Bill. Of course, the result would be, in this respect, a considerable underestimate of the liabilities of the State. In the second place, the increased benefits to insured persons over fifty years of age provided for under Clause 2 will probably cost a good deal more than estimated for by the Chief Actuary in his Report. Malingering is far more likely to occur at advanced ages than at earlier ages, for two reasons. Everyone knows that in advanced age it is far easier to similate sickness, and it is also far easier to exaggerate a slight complaint into one of sufficient seriousness to justify cessation from work, and at later ages there is a tendency for a wage-earning capacity to diminish and for unemployment to be more frequent, thus making it less disadvantageous, or even positively advantageous, to go off on the sick list. I should like to mention, as regards this particular danger of increased claims at higher ages, a passage from a book entitled "Malingering," by Sir John Colley, who, until recently, was Medical Officer of Health to the Local Government Board. On page 281, he says:—

"It may be contended that the amount which is received under the Act, namely 10s. a week, is a small one and not likely to tempt men in good employment to claim sick pay unnecessarily, but it must be remembered that there are amongst the insured a certain number of men who are getting beyond middle life, who for many reasons may he tempted to prolong illness that may befall them. A man who has been engaged in laborious and monotonous toil for fifty years or more finds it increasingly irksome, and naturally the desire to escape grows strong as time goes on. In these days, when the tendency is to speed up the rate of work, it is small wonder that a man so afflicted begins to turn his thoughts to how he can escape from his daily toil."

This being so, however desirable it may be to give increased benefit to persons over fifty years of age, the Actuary's Report seems to me to fail to present a proper estimate of what the cost to the taxpayer is going to be. Now, in the third place, I submit that the estimates in the Actuary's Report in regard to Clause 3 of the Amending Bill dealing with the arrears of unemployed persons are wholly unreliable, and probably there is a large underestimate of the cost. The Actuarial Report says, on page 6:—

"Having regard to the regularity with which contributions appear to be paid by the great majority of the industrial population, it appears to be reasonable to assume that the excess of arrears over the standard number in the case of those societies which have such an excess will not aggregate normally more than the equivalent of half a week for the whole industrial population."

But apparently the Chief Actuary has paid no regard to the fact that the period during which these contributions have been paid hitherto has been a period of exceptional prosperity and a period during which unemployment has considerably decreased. I do not think anyone will doubt that, especially after the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is always telling us how prosperous the country is and how little unemployment there is. Therefore, no one can doubt that conditions of exceptional employment or exceptional freedom from unemployment cannot possibly be regarded as normal. But the Chief Actuary has made his calculation upon that assumption, and he actually uses with regard to this period the word "normal," and therefore I submit his figure in this respect is probably an underestimate and one which ought to be carefully guarded against. I may mention that the effect of the error is carried out in the last sentence, paragraph 15 of his Report, where the Chief Actuary estimates the cost on the basis of regularity of contribution since the Act was passed, and which is regarded as a normal standard. Now, lastly, dealing with the same Arrears Clause of the Amending Bill, the Chief Actuary estimates mates the cost to the taxpayer in paying for the proportion of the employer's contribution, of which the unemployed persons are to be let off at £25,000. On page 7 of the Report he predicts that the new provisions will enable a substantial amount of arrears to be discharged which would otherwise be left unpaid. This, however, necessarily means that more members will be entitled to the full 10s. sick pay and 5s. disablement benefit, and as these benefits will not be reduced owing to arrears under provisions of the 5th Schedule of the original Act, in addition to the £20,000, the State will have to provide two-ninths of the cost of the increased benefits of the insured persons.

No reference has been made whatever in the Actuarial Report to the two-ninths additional charge which I venture to state must add considerably to the estimates the Government has placed before us. It is for these four reasons, amongst others, that I believe the cost to the taxpayer is very largely underestimated in the Actuarial Report, which accompanied the Bill. But to my mind quite apart from the soundness or otherwise of the Government estimate the cardinal defects of their financial proposal seems to me to be that beside being probably insufficient for the purposes set out it covers very little of the ground of grievances that exists among the insured community. I am afraid I am now approaching a subject upon which I may be called to order, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Whitley, whether I can discuss the cost to the taxpayer, largely due to the fact that the Government have done nothing to stop malingering in the Amending Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not prepared to assent to a Resolution of the unlimited character in which this Resolution is framed on that ground, and that will be my ground for suggesting that the Resolution ought to be limited to a specific sum. During the last Session we had the Supplementary Estimate:—

"That That a sum, not exceeding £1,825,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in cause of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Grants-in-Aid of National Health Insurance (United Kingdom), in addition to the sums payable under Section 3 of the National Insurance Act, 1911."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1913, col. 863, Vol. XLVIII.]

That Supplementary Estimate was brought forward on 11th February of this year, and, when objection was taken to doing this by Supplementary Estimate instead of a Bill, the Speaker gave this ruling on the same day:—

" I do not think it is really a question for me to rule upon. The matter has been very clearly put in the Debate we have had. I think it must be evident that this procedure does vary Section 3 of the Insurance Act. The question then arises, does it vary it to such an extent as to become illegal? That would be a question for the law—as to whether the Appropriation Act, when it appropriates this sum, will overrule the Insurance Act or not, and upon that the House will receive the report and advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is the officer appointed by the House to consider and to see whether all sums paid out are paid out under proper authority. The House would be advised by him in due course. I think it was well pot when it was said that it was a constitutional question for the House itself, and the House must decide it. I do not think I can do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1913, col. 898, Vol. XLVIII.]

After the ruling, the Prime Minister said that he would regularise it in the next Session of Parliament. By this Resolution and by this Bill you are not regularising it, in the first place, because it is not retrospective, in the second place, you are going infinitely further, and if the Resolution is not limited—unless it is limited to £3,000,000 or £2,500,000—I think £2,500,000 would be sufficient—

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

That is what I complain of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to discuss the ease of the exempted persons I must have a right of reply. He is, I submit, now discussing a Clause of the Bill.

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

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

I suppose we are doing something here.

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

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

We got it on the Second Reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very sorry, I did not hear the question.

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

I do.

In the statements which have been circulated it is said that the abolition and reduction of benefits for entrants at the ages of fifty to sixty-five is paid for as to £99,700 by a State Grant, and as to the balance by an addition to the reserve values of £2,462,000. I want that expressed not as an addition to reserve values, but as an annual charge. I think it can be done. I have already had some answers from the Secretary to the Treasury, but they conflict, there being a discrepancy of £10,000 a year. It is not very large, but, as a matter of fact, the account does not balance. I have a form in which the information might be given, and I will show it to the right hon. Gentleman. I want briefly to refer to the form of the Financial Resolution. When the original Insurance Bill was introduced, it was based upon a Financial Resolution different from that now before the Committee. It authorised payments towards contributions of the cost of benefits. The effect of that Resolution was to prevent us, while the Bill was under discussion in this House, from moving any Amendments which increased the benefits, because, if we moved them, the State charge would be increased. That Resolution held good until we came in November to Clause 59 of the Bill. The Government had effectually muzzled us and prevented us from moving any scheme for a rearrangement of the benefits. I myself was shut out with regard to a proposal I put down for doing away with the deposit contributor class on the very ground of that Resolution. In November that Resolution was altered, and another was passed, similar in form to that now before the Committee. It was then too late for us to bring in any practical Amendments to the Bill, because by that time the Government had the Closure working, and the only place where we could have pursued our Amendments was a Schedule, and the particular Schedule was passed without discussion under the Closure, and we were prevented from moving Amendments which would otherwise have been open to us owing to the wider form of the Financial Resolution.

I am reciting these facts because the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) began his speech with a sort of challenge or expression of surprise that the Opposition has not already spoken on the Financial Resolution. The same form of criticism may easily be made, "Why does not the Opposition, now that the form of the Resolution is wide and will enable them to propose extensive Amendments, come forward and propose those Amendments now?" I can quite imagine hon. Gentlemen opposite saying, "Members of the Opposition have been talking about Amendments. Now is their opportunity. Why do not they do it now? I call attention to the form of the Resolution because now, although we are given some freedom, it is almost impossible to exercise it without pulling the whole Act to pieces, because already it has taken form and contracts have already been made upon it.

I sympathise with the hon. Member in that he anticipated an objection which some of us would naturally lodge against the line of argument he was pursuing. As far as we can understand, the reason he gave for not moving Amendments is that thereby the whole structure would be pulled to the ground. I remember last year how much he was at a disadvantage in bringing forward a scheme which he had spent so much time working out and was prevented from explaining it to the House. With that fresh in my mind, I am a good deal surprised that he did not eagerly make use of this opportunity to move a number of Amendments. I should like to reply to the general criticism of the hon. Member (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson). His general complaint seems to be that the provision made under the terms of this Resolution would probably prove to be insufficient, and the grounds which he took for supporting that contention were four. One of them was in regard to the question of arrears. I have gone through the Actuaries' Report very carefully, and it seems to me that the hon. Member missed a very important point which is brought out quite clearly in the Actuaries' Report. The last sentence of the first clause of paragraph 13 on page 5 reads in this way:—

Further provisions are made with respect to the ascertainment of the normal rate of remuneration on which the part representing the employer's contribution is made to depend."

There were two contentions advanced by the hon. Member in support of his proposition that the amount allowed in connection with this proposal was insufficient. They were, first, that proper regard had not been paid to the good state of trade during the time in which the Act had been in operation, and, therefore, the amount of arrears was above what would have been found to be normal. But the hon. Member was thereby overlooking what had been expressly stated in the Actuarial Report, that regard had been paid to the normal state of affairs, and that the state of affairs existing during the last twelve months would only be regarded as part of the whole which would contribute to the normal. The other contention, which, of course, is in itself incapable of proof, though I must say there seems to me to be a good deal of presumption in favour of it, was that in consequence of increasing the rate of benefits to those over fifty years of age we should have an increased amount of malingering, and, there- fore, an increased amount of claims. He also said that the amount of arrears which would normally exist would be diminished, because, with this contribution on account of the employer's cost, an increasing number of persons would be able to pay up their section of arrears when the State lad paid the employers' for them. Private Members have not access to the Mind of the Government actuaries, but I should have no doubt the actuary must have borne that very important consideration in mind.

I should like to traverse the contention of the hon. Member with respect to the claim he makes in connection with malingering. The contention which he advances to show that the provision made for giving additional benefit to those who are fifty years of age was insufficient would be found to be due to the fact that over fifty years of age malingering was easier to carry out, and that it was easier at that time of life to exaggerate the signs of illness. I think there is a great deal of exaggeration as to the effect which malingering will have on this Bill. I do not think it is really creditable to many of the insured persons that these reflections are cast upon them in this respect. The amount of malingering is infinitely less than is represented in some quarters, and the Government can rely upon the common sense and honesty of the average man to keep it within limited proportions. But the contention of the hon. Member was that the provision of this sick benefit to persons over the age of fifty would lead to an increased amount of malingering, and that, therefore, the provision was insufficient. I would suggest that the hon. Member is incorrect in that. The person who is much more disposed to malinger is the person who in younger than fifty. It is the hysterical female—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a new Member of Parliament. I have tried to learn something about Parliamentary procedure this afternoon, and I hope I have profited to some extent by the discussion, but I cannot quite understand why this Resolution has been put before the House, and in judging of it I feel, at any rate, I ought to satisfy myself that I have good reason for voting for it. It is:—

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911."

Therefore, on the general question, I am not very much concerned what are the provisions in some particular Act which does not come within the terms of this Resolution. Much less am I concerned as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement which has been issued on the actuarial calculations based upon some particular Bill. As I understand it, this Motion means that we are to authorise ourselves, if we choose later on, through some Bill which is not mentioned, at any time during this Session in any Bill and in any way to spend money under the provisions of the National Insurance Act. I do not know why such Resolutions are necessary, I suppose they are necessary, because of some forms of the House, but as a practical man, I cannot understand why, when this House is committed to a great scheme, such as that outlined in the National Insurance Act which requires money to be spent upon it, we have to go through what appears to me the farce of authorising ourselves to consider whether we shall spend money or not. I have tried this afternoon to see what can be the possible good, apart from the forms of the House, of passing such an authorisation as this. We are going through the solemn farce of saying that if we subsequently vote money, we can do so if we think fit. I am one of those who will support if necessary any form of the House to pass this Resolution as it stands. Parliament has committed itself to the National Insurance scheme which does involve the payment of public money, and which from time to time will need Amendment, and the payment of more public money. I am perfectly content to leave it to Parliament as the time arises to say what money shall be spent.

Therefore, I have no interest in the suggestion which has been made that we should limit the authority which we are to exercise ourselves to a certain definite amount. It is quite clear that if the forms of the House need a Money Resolution, a Money Resolution connected with insurance is necessary this Session, because last year, as was pointed out, a large sum of money which was not authorised in the Act of Parliament was granted by the Government for the purpose of the National Insurance Act, and I understand that the main reason why we are dealing with national insurance at all this Session is that the Prime Minister pledged the Government to give the House an opportunity or regularising, as he called it, that payment, so that if that is to be carried out we must pass an Act of Parliament which is to provide for moneys being spent under the National Insurance Act. If that were not necessary, if there were for any reason a suggestion that the Grant should not be continued, I, for one, think that it would be a deplorable thing, because we have found by practical experience, whether we blame the medical profession or we do not, that money is necessary to provide for the efficient administration of the medical benefit, and therefore my argument in support of this Motion is that it is clear that although no definite Bill is referred to in this Motion one is absolutely necessary this Session, and therefore a Resolution such as this, if the forms of the House require it, must be passed. And so far from having any sympathy whatever with any attempt to tie the hands of the House in the matter of the money which we shall vote for the National Insurance Act, I take entirely the opposite view, that no fetters of any kind should be imposed. If that is the suggestion that is made, it means that the Opposition will find themselves in the position in which they found themselves before, that they will be able to go to the platforms at by-elections and say, "We were anxious to do this, that, or the other thing, but by some arbitrary fixed Resolution, for which the Government are responsible, we were unable to do for you what we think should have been done." At any rate no limit is to be placed on the moneys which are to be voted under the Amending Bill which comes before the House this Session, and I think that Parliament should have the freest hand when amending the Act in spending any money which the House of Commons thinks necessary for the purpose.

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

As there are no Scottish Members in the House, I think I am entitled to ask from my right hon. Friend why this Resolution is taken in this particular way. The Scottish Grand Committee, I understand, is sitting upstairs, and he has cone and moved this Resolution without comment, and he expects it to be taken in a House in which there is no Scottish Members present. I do not think that that is a respectful way to treat either the Scottish Members or the House.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Whenever Scottish Members have said that Scottish interests were not being attended to I have never supported them in that contention. I have invariably supported Ministers. I have always had confidence in the Scottish Office, but what the feeling of Scottish Liberal Members now engaged in Committee upstairs, and many of them holding decided opinions about this proposal, will be if the Resolution is taken in their absence, I leave the House to imagine. It is most unusual for the Grand Committee to sit on a Friday, and it is most unusual on any day that the Grand Committee should sit at Question Time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Sir W. Byles) has again and again protested that he could not be in the House at Question Time and also in Grand Committee, and he has repeatedly voiced what are the views, I believe, of many private Members. I am not a Member for Scotland, but I have personal friends, as well as political associates in that country, and I do submit to the Government that if they persist in this course they will be only laying up trouble for themselves. For myself, I have no intention of speaking on the Resolution; I have not the slightest idea of interfering in a purely Scottish question; but so far as I am concerned, you cannot expect me to see this Resolution passed in the absence of Scottish Members, many of whom entertain strong opinions upon it, and who have now been sitting for two or three hours in Grand Committee. I submit that a thing like this has never been witnessed before in the history of this House. I cannot understand the mistake, for it must be a mistake. I am perfectly certain there is no purpose in bringing on this Resolution at the present time, and I freely say that.

I do not think the Scottish Secretary has ever shown the slightest unwillingness to act in a frank and straightforward manner, or that he has ever endeavoured to get any particular advantage. It is a pure accident of the situation; none the less, it is here, and I submit to the House that in the circumstances we must protect the Scottish Members. I am one of those who believe entirely in the principle of local control and the local voice. I have never been able to see my way to coming into conflict with the Members of a particular nationality. I think the Scottish Members should be present on an occasion like this. The same applies to purely Welsh questions, which deal with only Wales and Monmouthshire. But now when there is a great Scottish question to be considered the Scottish Members are not present, being engaged upstairs, and I know that no less than three Scottish Members desire to be present when the Resolution is taken, in order to offer criticism or ask for information. They cannot come to the House, because they have certain Amendments which they desire to put forward in the Committee upstairs, and to which they attach great importance, and, therefore, they are perfectly helpless. They cannot be here, and though it may be said that Scottish Members can take very good care of themselves, yet they cannot do so if they are not here. In the circumstances, which are unusual, I move that you should report Progress Sir, in the protection of those Scottish Members.

I am very deeply indebted to my hon. Friend for defending the Scottish Members, though I really think they are well able to take care of themselves.

If they are here.

There has been a very impassioned appeal to the House by the hon. Member, but really, if I may respectfully say so, his argument is entirely beside the point. What is the point? Scottish Members are to be prevented by the hon. Member from receiving a Grant of £20,000. I do not think there can be any objection to that proposal, and I think the Scottish Members would be extremely indignant, if they found while dealing with this Bill in Grand Committee upstairs, that this and the next Money Resolution dealing with Highlands, had been interfered with by an English Member.

The Question before the Committee is "That I report Progress and ask leave to sit again," and I accepted that Motion on the ground that Scottish Members were not present, being engaged in Committee upstairs.

I was merely replying to the observations of the hon. Member.

No.

What is the position of Scottish Members? They were not aware of this Resolution coming on, for we could not tell when it would= be reached, and being business-like people they desired to go on with the business on which they were engaged. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Now that they have discovered that there is business in the House which concerns them, I see that they are coming to their places. There is no need for my hon. Friend to defend them. Here they are to look after their own business.

I am exceedingly sorry that my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary should treat my Motion in this way. I know that you, Sir, would not have taken my Motion if I had referred to the merits of the Bill. I distinctly stated that I was not discussing them, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to get up and blame me for preventing Scotland getting some money. I know that would be a most unpopular thing to do, but that has nothing at all to do with the matter. Whether or not the money is voted for Sctoland, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that Scottish Members should be present. Now that the Scottish Members have come. I submit that it is entirely owing to my Motion, for if I had not risen at the time and moved to report Progress, the Resolution would have been taken with about six Liberal Members, and about the same number of Irish representatives in the House.

I thought the hon. Member had risen to make a personal explanation.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech.

I did not understand it in that way. Of course I only accepted the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to report Progress, because I was informed that Scottish Members were engaged upstairs. I thought that a proper ground for allowing a Motion of the kind to be put, and it is to that matter that the discussion must be directed, and not to the merits of the Bill.

All I wish to add is this: As soon as I heard that this business was before the House I sent a message to the Scottish Members informing them of what was happening, and the Scottish Members are present now.

I think I may respectfully submit that the Secretary for Scotland had not at all met the point when the Chairman called him to order, for evidently he did not understand the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I submit that no effective notice was given to> Scottish Members.

The Motion is on the Paper.

The Secretary for Scotland says the Motion is on the Paper, but I repeat that no effective notice was given to Scottish Members, who are the persons concerned in this Bill, and I object to this way of conducting business of the House of Commons. I do complain of the fact that it was tried to snatch this Resolution whilst Scottish Members were engaged in Grand Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I withdraw any imputation whatever. No doubt the Government did not wish to behave unfairly, but I do think it is desirable that a Motion of this kind should not be taken when Scottish Members are absent, but that they ought to have an opportunity of discusing it, more especially when it is notorious that a number of them hold very strong opinions upon this subject. I did not move to report Progress myself, but it is on those grounds I desire to give my opinion that I think my hon. Friend was fully justified in doing so.

I have no desire whatever to delay the decision of the Committee nor to hinder Government business for one moment, but I have been referred to personally in the Debate, and I wish to say that it is well known to a great many Members on both sides that I have always consistently protested against the Government putting upon private Members two duties to be discharged at the same time and in different parts of this building. I never will agree to a Motion that Grand Committee should go on sitting when the House is sitting, and I have always protested against it, and even divided against it whenever I got anybody to help me. It does seem to me that this is a proper moment for drawing the attention of Members of the House, now that the subject has been raised to that point, namely, that two separate duties are imposed upon Members of the House at the same time, and both of which it is impossible for them to discharge. There is a Procedure Committee sitting at this moment, and I sincerely hope that this particular point will engage their attention. I shall be obliged to support the Motion.

I am sure the Scottish Members are very grateful to the Members of the House for having the opportunity of attending. I do not know whether I would go the length of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but it is so obviously desirable, when a Money Resolution affecting a Scottish Bill is proposed, that the Scottish Members shall be here that I entirely fail to see what justification can be offered for the course adopted. The Scottish Whip was in attendance, and a very good attendant, at the Committee upstairs on previous days, but to-day he was conspicuous by his absence. Surely he is responsible to see the Scottish Members were warned and brought down to the House when this Money Resolution was brought forward. I have been in attendance, and I was there when hardly any Scottish Members had returned, and there was no intimation whatever given, and if this is not a trick it is something uncommonly like one.

As my name has been mentioned I would like to say what has really happened. It was understood by the House generally that the discussion on the Money Resolution of the Insurance Bill would run for a very much longer time than it actually did. It was quite impossible to tell how long that Insurance Resolution would run. When it came to an end much sooner than was expected and without a Division, as was anticipated, when the next Order was called, at once an hon. Member went upstairs at the request of the Secretary for Scotland, and I presume that in the Scottish Committee which was sitting it was moved that the Committee adjourn in order that the Scottish Members might be here, which was the proper thing on Scottish business, and take part in the discussion on the Money Resolution. I have been in the House all the time and not upstairs, because I had business here. I would ask the Scottish Members to take my word for it that that is what has happened. I am quite sure the Secretary for Scotland is delighted that his colleagues are here, and hopes that they will take part in this Debate to get this necessary stage passed in order that this Bill and the next Order on the Paper may be proceeded with.

May I explain to the Committee that in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I was in charge of the Bill upstairs, and the moment this business came on here and his message reached me to the effect that this business had been reached, I instantly moved the adjournment of the Scottish Committee in order that my colleagues might be present in the House to attend to the very important business to be done here. I hope my colleagues on the Scottish Committee win bear me out in what I say as to what happened.

I do not want at all to interfere in what is a domestic quarrel. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] But I wish to point out the grave difficulty we are placed in by the action of the Government. The notice sent up to the Scottish Committee would have been too late because this Resolution might have been passed sub silentio. That is not time enough, and' I do not think it is proper for the Government or the Secretary for Scotland to so arrange that Scottish Members who are anxious to attend to business that is going on upstairs should be unable to attend at the same time to a very important Scottish matter which arises in this House. All this comes of the extraordinary mania the, Government have for compressing all their business into a brief space of time, and then thinking that any proper consideration of the measure is only obstruction or a sort of infidelity to the whole of their plans and opposition to all their measures. I would ask Scottish Members opposite to assert themselves for once and as they have never done before. We know we have been described as beetles crushed by a steam-hammer.

You were not at the Committee when we adjourned.

I do not see how that affects the question in the slightest degree. What has the hon. Member to do with whether I was present or not? He does not know whether I was entering at the moment or, perhaps, because of the danger that arose with regard to the arrangement of Government business, was down here. I am not answerable to him. I am answerable to my Constituents. As it happened, it was more important that I was not in Committee upstairs. This practice is carried to extremes, and is absolutely inconvenient to the independence of Scottish Members and to the discharge of their duties by any Members of the House. Next week we are asked on this Grand Committee to meet at eleven o'clock on Monday. I am sitting on two other Grand Committees, and I cannot possibly be absent from one of them on which I am engaged in an internecine warfare with the hon. Baronet who sits below me. If I were absent from that Committee for a moment I am sure he would take advantage of it and crush me with all the power of a steamroller, such as the Scottish Secretary exercises over the obeisant Members on the other side. I asked the Scottish Members who have asserted themselves to continue that assertion and follow up into the Lobby in protesting against the action of the Government and of the Secretary for Scotland in this matter.

I think all the Scottish Members are under an obligation to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) for moving to report Progress. We have had a number of explanations from the Front Bench regarding their disinterested intentions, but I think that the House is now convinced that had it not been for the action of my hon. Friend this Motion would have passed sub silentio while the Scottish Members were engaged in Committee upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I am quite willing to agree that the Secretary for Scotland did say at the adjournment that this was likely to come on shortly, but neither he nor the Lord Advocate at that time indicated that if it did come on there would be an adjournment of the Scottish Committee. We were told that the Secretary for Scotland was coming down here to attend to the Motion while the Lord Advocate conducted the business upstairs.

. From whom did the hon. Member get his information?

From the Lord Advocate.

No.

I may have misunderstood the situation, but I was so concerned with the statement at the time that I came down to the House. I went to our resource in times of trouble, the hon. Member for Pontefract, and it is thanks to the hon. Member that we are here and have an opportunity of discussing the Resolution. I have no desire to delay the proceedings, but it was extremely important that we should have a discussion upon the Resolution, because one of the Clauses which has especial relation to the Financial Resolution was passed under circumstances which did not enable hon. Members who intended to move Amendments to do so. That rendered it all the more important that we should have an opportunity on the floor of the House.

We postponed the Clause. We were bound to do so, because the Resolution was not passed.

The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the point to which I was referring. I was not referring to the Clause which requires the Financial Resolution. Everybody knows that that could not be passed until the Resolution had been taken. Consequently, I should have been talking nonsense if I had said that that Clause had been passed. I referred to a Clause intimately related to the Resolution—that is, the Clause providing for the appointment of additional officials. I hope now that the Secretary for Scotland will understand that I do not get up to make a foolish and ludicrous proposition, and if he thinks I am doing it, he need not interrupt me, because primâ facie there may be something in it.

made an observation which was inaudible.

Under this Resolution we can certainly limit the amount of the salaries to be paid.

The hon. Member is now discussing the Resolution itself. He must confine his remarks to the Motion to report Progress.

I have to thank the hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Craik) for the kind and encouraging inspiration which he has given us this afternoon. He indeed has told us that we are a very slavish herd. I think, in view of what has been transpiring in the Scottish Grand Committee in the last few days, he need not have drawn that picture to the House.

It is your own picture.

I am prepared to admit that there may have been times and occasions on which his account of the situation would be true, but, undoubtedly, it bears no relation whatever to the existing state of things. If, indeed, there are any slavish, devoted, subservient supporters of the Secretary for Scotland—

The hon. Member must direct his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.

I understood that the hon. Member was in order when he referred to us personally. Of course, I accept your ruling. I can only regret that you prevented the completion of a very admirable sentence. I thank you for the latitude you have already allowed me. I again express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for Pontefract, and I think he might now withdraw his Motion.

This is one of the unfortunate occurrences which we must expect when a Standing Committee is sitting at the same time as the House itself. The fact that the first Order of the Day was got through more quickly than had been expected alone accounts for the situation. I am very anxious indeed that both this Resolution and the next Order on the Paper should be passed this afternoon. In taking these Orders now the Government are only carrying out a request made by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London that they should take these Resolutions in their own time and not after Eleven o'clock. Under these circumstances it practically involves a pledge on our part to consider these Resolutions if brought up in Government time. Therefore, I do not think we have any complaint to make or any right to find fault with the situation. I submit, however, that the unusual procedure of a Grand Committee sitting on a Friday when the House is sitting also, is one that ought not to be adopted except under very exceptional circumstances. I was a little late in going back to the Committee after luncheon, and then found that it had adjourned; consequently I had not the privilege of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract in moving this Motion, which I think under the circumstances was quite justified, and which has given us an opportunity of discussing the situation. The hon. Gentleman opposite is vigilant about these matters, both against his own side and against ours. I do sincerely hope that Gentlemen opposite will not carry their domestic quarrels to the extent of refusing to allow the Motion to be withdrawn. I earnestly wish to see this Resolution pass. We may have some thing to say on it. We are also most anxious to get to the next Order.

In asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I may say to the colleagues of my own who were not here that it was not a party move at all. I am just as anxious as the hon. Members for Black-friars and for the Ayr Burghs or anybody else to get on with the Business. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

On a point of Order. Before you put this to the Vote, I do not want to divide the Committee, but I do want to say something in regard to the matter, which would not take a couple of minutes, and which, I think, I am entitled to say.

On a point of Order. Have you not given your decision?

I do not think that I quite caught what the hon. Member was driving at. Perhaps he will not take very long.

I will not be a minute. I only want to put this point: The Scottish Grand Committee is now being asked to meet upstairs every day, practically, from eleven to four, which means, also, a certain amount of time being spent downstairs here. Scottish Members were perfectly prepared to meet at any earlier part of the Session. We have been sitting in the House of Commons for seventy Parliamentary days and we are now asked to take up the consideration of this Bill, which, had the Government had any sense, might have been sent to us earlier in the Session.

The Question is—

It is for the Chairman to decide whether or not the Question has been decided.

The Question has already been put. I wished to reserve my right to speak!

That observation is an unmannerly one.

I understood you were going to put the Question, and that I would not have a right to speak.

As I heard the observation of the hon. Member—

On a point of Order. I wish you to assure me, Mr. Chairman, that I heard the expression of the hon. Member (Mr. Martin). It was not in the least disorderly. What my hon. Friend said was: "I do not want to lose my right to speak." Those were his exact words.

Mr. Maclean, what I started to say, when you were proposing to put the Question, was that the Question had been put by the Chairman of Committees—that is all. I thought that probably you had overlooked the fact that the proceedings started with the Question being put. Then I understood that you were going to call for the vote and cut me out. I certainly did not intend to be unmannerly. It is a pretty gross reflection upon a Member to have it stated from the Chair that he is unmannerly, and besides for that statement to be cheered by hon. Members. It is not very pleasant. I am not in favour of providing money for this Bill. I think it is a very bad Bill, and should never be proceeded with, especially as at this period of the Session Members are being overworked and anxious to get through the business. I understand that the Bill will be of very little benefit to anybody unless the money is provided, and that is the reason that I am opposing it. I suggest that the best and the kindest way to deal with this Bill would be for this Committee to refuse to pass this Money Vote. That would relieve the Scottish Members from the very hard work which they are engaged in at present. The Bill is one for dealing with a question which, of course, is very important. That is the care of the feeble-minded people of the country. I know that the majority of the House are in favour of dealing with that question in the way that is proposed by the Government in this Bill. I am not one of those. Even the small minority have a right to put forward their views in regard to a question of this kind. It does seem to me that the money which is proposed to be provided by this Resolution, is money which will be practically wasted. The Bill is a bad Bill. It approaches this serious question of the care of the feeble-minded from the wrong standpoint. It certainly also is a very wrong thing in view of the fact that money is required for very many good purposes. I should like more money for these good purposes. It is a very wrong thing that this Committee should propose to grant this large sum of money, an unlimited sum—for no limit is provided for this Resolution as I understand it. All the money that may be required for the purposes of the Bill is to be provided. I think that is a very loose system of financing. The proper procedure would be for the Government to mention the amount, which the House will then know, would not be exceeded. The Resolution practically means nothing. It is practically only a Resolution to comply to the forms of the House. It is not a Resolution to keep within the control of this Committee, the money that is to be spent by the Government.

I think a word or two of explanation will be required before we agree to pass this money. I am interested in seeing the Leader of the Opposition in his place in connection with this particular Resolution, because here is a Resolution asking for money, and which is going to set up more officials in Scotland. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself once called for a Return asking for the number of officials that had been appointed under Acts passed by this Government. We, who sit on this side of the House, have suffered indefinitely from charges made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, in regard to appointments of this kind. I think before we pass this Resolution that those of us who want money for these purposes—and every Scotsman does as a matter of fact—we should have from the Leader of the Opposition some statement in which he will guarantee that the party which he leads approves of these appointments that are going to be made under this Act. I do not think it is fair the right hon. Gentleman should come down to the House representing his party and agree to this Money Resolution being passed this afternoon, and then indiscriminately accuse us of being parties to securing these appointments for friends of our party. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition of this fact that this afternoon in Grand Committee we were trying to put a limitation upon the numbers that should be appointed. For instance, we tried to have it laid down that no Member of Parliament should be appointed to any one of those posts, and I appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) to say on behalf of his party what was their position with regard to these appointments. He did not say much. All he said was that this was a small matter, and because of the smallness of it he was not concerned. I would like to place the suggestion before the Leader of the Opposition and ask him if that is the policy of the party opposite? The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs said if we thought that principle should be put into a Statute he would be prepared to support us.

No, I did not say that at all. I said it was a ridiculous thing by a side wind on a small and trivial matter to introduce a principle of that kind. But I said that if it was intended to put additional disabilities upon Members of Parliament, it should be done by Statute.

I thought that when a,great principle was at stake the hon. Gentleman would be very glad to have it raised on the floor of this House. The party with which he is associated is always glad by any side wind to raise any number of side issues, and I think the hon. Gentleman has avoided an excellent opportunity of placing in a Statute a principle that might prevent his party when it comes into office, if it ever comes into office, and that might prevent this party while in office, from distributing patronage amongst their political friends. This Resolution deals with a Bill which we as Scotsmen get primarily because it is necessary to deal with mental defectives in England. Immediately that it was necessary to deal with the question of mental deficiency in England, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is very keen to try and secure this Bill for Scotland. He seems to think that some kind of reproach would lie upon him when he goes down to Scotland if it was said England has a Mental Deficiency Bill and Scotland has not.

That mint is not germane to the Resolution before us.

I am very glad to be able to reserve that point for Third Reading. What I am asking is, Is it necessary in the interests of Scotland to secure this particular measure? There are a great many other measures dealing with Scotland for which we want money, and we would rather have the money reserved for them.

These arguments are not relevant to the Money Resolution. The hon. Member should confine his remarks to the purposes to which this money is to be applied. The hon. Member is now making general observations which are not relevant.

Then I will try and make particular remarks with regard to this Motion. This Motion is to finance the creation of a great number of new officials. I object on principle to the Liberal party appointing any new officials. It throws unnecessary expense upon the Treasury, and here I am certain the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will agree with me. If we appoint these new officials, the Leader of his party is certain to move for a Return, and these Returns impose great expense upon the Treasury. I have the last Return in my library, where it is being used for other purposes than those for which it was originally intended. If these Returns could serve any useful purpose—

The hon. Member is obviously going beyond the purposes of the Resolution.

Then I will conclude my remarks by entering this protest: I am willing to have this particular Bill, but, if it had run on certain lines, it would be much better than the lines upon which it is run. If we are to have these officials, let us have them, but let us not have further charges made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to them.

I think the hon. Member has been dealing with a very small point. I think there are only five officials added by this Bill. Is it impossible that the same men who worked the Lunacy Acts should do all the work under this Bill as well. I think only one additional Lunacy Commissioner is appointed. I think I can answer for the Leader of the Opposition that he will not object to that. He has taken objection to certain appointments of a scandalous kind, and I think that he has done so quite justly. But in this case he will be the first as a businessman to realise that if you are going to put very heavy work upon the existing Boards, it is by no means exceptional to ask for an additional Commissioner and three or four deputies. I hope the Resolution is sufficiently wide to cover any rearrangements that may be necessary for the better financing of the Bill. I may tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we do not think, on either side, that Scotland is fairly or generously treated in this matter. England is much more generously treated than we are, and there ought to be some provision in the Bill that would make it certain that its objects will be carried out by allowing the authorities to have half the contributions from the State as in the case of the English Bill. In addition to that we had a Bill brought in the other day, giving to England more than £155,000, and that again is an extra reason for extending more generous treatment to Scotland. If the Resolution is so widely drafted to cover any Amendment made in that way for the extension of the Grant by the Treasury, I personally should be glad to see it pass.

I am anxious to deal with one particular point, and it is a question of principle which applies as much to England as to Scotland. In the Resolution there is provision for money to be voted to any society which undertakes the care of mentally defective persons outside Government institutions. These societies are privately run, and I protest against giving carte blanche to any department to subsidise private societies over which the Government have no sort of control whatever. I think it is not advisable that any department should have power to make grants of public money without any check upon its expenditure by this House or the Treasury. You are here granting power to subsidise certain religious societies who carry on more or less philanthropic work among mentally defective persons. This is a new feature in the Bill since last year. When these societies are primarily religious societies of different denominations, I think it is extremely unwise to subsidise them out of State funds. We know that this Bill, just as the English Bill, has been brought forward by the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), and hon. Members opposite have formed a very strong Committee to force it through this House against the wishes of Liberal Members. I think when this Bill is being pressed forward by the hon. Member for East Birmingham we have a right to claim that he should be here when this measure is being debated—

The hon. Member is now dealing with the merits of the Bill.

I was trying to show that when dealing with a question of the money to be voted for mental deficiency in Scotland we ought to have here the hon. Member for East Birmingham, who is intimately connected with this Bill, and I believe is responsible for this Clause which votes money for these- religious societies.

What has the hon. Member for East Birmingham to do with this matter?

He offered to the Prime Minister—

The hon. Member is elaborating the point which I have already ruled out of order, and I must ask him to confine himself to the Money Resolution.

Over and over again, when we have had Money Resolutions before the House, a limit has been inserted to the amount of money voted. It is of vital importance that we should retain control over the expenditure, and I do think that before this Resolution is passed we ought to have inserted some limit fixing the maximum amount which ought to be voted for mental deficiency in Scotland. In the English Bill there was a limit inserted so far as one part of the Resolution was concerned, and I think it is eminently unsatisfactory, when we are dealing with Scotland—and the Scottish Members are of a fairly grasping tendency when money is required for their country—[HON, MEMBERS: "No, no."] I will withdraw that, and say that they desire to get all the money there is going, and if we have a maximum limit in the English Bill I think we should have a maximum in the Scottish Bill. I wish to ask the representatives of the Government whether the voting of this money to Scotland and England involves the granting of an equivalent amount to Ireland. The Irish Members have managed to get Ireland excluded from this measure, but are they going to get an equivalent Grant for the money we are voting under this Bill? We ought to be fair all round to all parts of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Members have a right to claim an equivalent Grant for this money. It is all the more necessary that we should know the total amount that is likely to be voted for mental deficiency in Scotland. We ought to have some estimate given to us as to what the expenditure under this Bill is likely to amount to in the long run.

I am not going to object to this Resolution on the grounds which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I do not see why if this work is carried out efficiently by religious societies they should be deprived of a fair share of aid from the State. Whether they earn it or not will be a question to be decided afterwards. The hon. Member asked why is there a fixed sum for England and not for Scotland. I wish to raise the point why is there an unlimited sum for England and a fixed sum for Scotland? On this matter I appeal to the Scottish Members, and I wish to have a distinct statement why it is that you have limited this sum to £75,000 as regards England, whilst you are giving half of the expenditure to Scotland.

That is not so. In the case of England the amount is limited to £150,000, and in Scotland £20,000.

Half the cost is to be paid in the case of England.

That is not so. The sum is limited to £150,000.

I wish to know whether hitherto education Grants have not been given in proportion to the work done. You have not limited your education Grants under the Code and why should you limit Scotland to a sum of £20,000 in this case? If a special locality is placed under heavy burdens, why should we limit the amount in a way which it has never been limited before by fixing the sum at £20,000?

The hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) is always lecturing Scottish Liberal Members about their duty, but perhaps it would be as well if he attended to his own duty and the interests of the peculiar constituency which sent him here. He happens to be a good judge of not getting enough money for Scotland, because for many years during which he was the Secretary to a public Department Scotland rarely got her fair share of public money. As regards the question we are now discussing, it seems that what we require is some definite information as to how the sum allowed to Scotland will work out as compared with the sum given to England, and upon that point we remain absolutely in the dark. I gather that this new responsibility will entail a very heavy additional burden, and that far larger provision has been made by the Treasury for the children to be dealt with under this Bill in England than the Treasury is being asked now to make for Scotland. I am glad that the hon. Baronet opposite drew attention to this matter. I do think that before this Resolution is accepted by the House we ought to know what the respective values of the Grants given to England and to Scotland will be in connection with the finances of the local authorities. That surely is information which we ought to have, and I wonder it did not occur to the Secretary for Scotland to give it to the Committee before he tried to get the Resolution.

I think that the request of the hon. Member is a very fair one, but I really have hardly had an opportunity of speaking in this Debate before. The provision is a very simple one. The Grant to England under this Bill is £150,000. According to the calculations of the Treasury, the proportion for Scotland is approximately about one-eighth of that amount, and we therefore take the exact equivalent of the English Grant, namely, £20,000. The point raised by my hon. Friend is one altogether apart from this Grant; he is dealing with defective children under the care of the school boards. In that case England has got an. increase of Grant. At the present time I have an application before the Treasury for an equivalent increase of Grant, to which, as I told my right hon. Friend in Committee, I see no answer, and which I am hopeful of getting, but it has nothing whatever to do with this Resolution; it is quite a separate matter. The whole point of this Resolution is this: England has got a sum of £150,000 for the purposes of their Act, and for the similar Act for Scotland we are offered the sum of £20,000 which is our equivalent. Do we accept it or do we reject it? That is the simple case before the Committee.

I would be very glad if my right hon. Friend would explain this point. When the English Bill was going through Committee, the Home Secretary who was in charge of it stated that a, full half of the expenses would be paid.

I have seen my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on that point. He told me that the newspaper report was entirely misleading and that he did not say what my hon. Friend thinks he said, though I quite agree that he may have created that impression. As my right hon. Friend stated, England gets no more money than the £150,000. Of course, if she did, I should apply for more for Scotland, but he assures me that she does not get more money. He was speaking merely about a question arising between what we call in Scotland the maintaining and the providing rate. That was all. It was purely a point affecting England and had nothing to do with the total sum of the Grant.

I am not going by the newspaper report at all. I was present at the time, and he assured the Committee that half of all the expenses that were incurred by the local authorities under this Act would be paid, and he went on to specify interest and sinking fund.

That explains the whole point. Formerly, it was understood that only half of the maintenance was to be paid, and the Home Secretary agreed that half of the interest and sinking fund should also fall upon the fund. It does not increase the total of the fund; it merely means that it is to be devoted to both services.

What we want to know is whether we shall have the same advantage in Scotland as they have in England, and whether we shall have the maintenance and interest and sinking fund.

I think that we should make some protest against the method by which the money is arrived at. I know that it is time-honoured, but I do not think that it is any the less deserving of criticism on that account. It simply comes to this, that the financial provisions made for Scotland depends entirely in a case like this: first of all, on the estimate made by the Home Secretary as regards the needs of England, and, secondly, on the power of the Home Secretary to convince the Treasury of the validity of his claim. I do not think that it is fair, especially having in view the present financial position of the Scottish local authorities, that their present and especially their future burdens should depend very largely upon the Home Secretary's power to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think Scottish Members are always entitled to make a claim for handsome provision for Scotland, seeing what has been done for education in Scotland by private individuals in the old days, by private corporations, and, later on, by the local authorities. I am sure that our constituents and the local authorities would be disappointed if this Debate passed without a very firm protest being made against the present financial arrangements of this Bill. Not that these local authorities are not prepared to carry out the Bill. I do not know of one single authority which has not expressed itself as in favour of the Bill, and as prepared to work it, but, suffering already under financial grievances, the local authorities naturally wish to see every effort made by private Members, and by the Secretary for Scotland to persuade the Treasury that more generous provision should be made.

I do not think that my hon. Friend who spoke last would be accused by anyone as being one of those Members who desire in any way to obstruct or delay the passage of this Bill. My right hon. Friend must have been under some misapprehension—or possibly I am—when he said that he had not had an opportunity of speaking before on this Resolution. It was precisely owing to the fact that, as I understood, he rose without offering any explanation that I objected at the time, but I desire now sincerely to thank him for his statement. We have had an admirable, lucid, and cogent explanation of a very important financial point connected with the Bill. While the local authorities of Scotland do not object to this social reform, they naturally give the closest examination to the measure and require certain assurances and, more particularly, financial assurances. I will just read to the Committee, as an illustration, a letter I received on the 15th July from the Town Council of Montrose, the main burgh of my Constituency. They allude to various points in the Bill which they are considering, and, summarising the points we have been discussing, they say:—

"Objection was raised to the Treasury contributions being by means of a stereotyped Grant instead of a Grant equal to one half of the expenditure."

Then they go on in a general way to say:—

"It was, generally felt that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of so complex and so far-reaching a measure, and I was instructed to communicate the Council's view to you that they would welcome postponement of the Bill meantime, and to express the hope that you will be enabled to support such an attitude."

I honestly do not desire to obstruct or delay the passage of this Bill or to prevent its passing this Session, but we think this Bill is being forced through by rather unusual methods of forcible-feeding upstairs—

The hon. Member would not be in order in going into that matter.

I have followed this Bill very closely, and it is quite true that the amount is limited to £150,000 in one Clause, but the Home Secretary said, and he put it in another Clause, that every £1 spent by the local authority would be supplemented by another £1 by the Imperial authority.

Does it mean that the Home Secretary is undertaking that the Treasury will give more than £150,0007 It is exceedingly important.

I can only assure the hon. Member that I asked the Home Secretary did he mean that the limit of £150,000 remained, and he said it did. I think that may be taken as an authoritative statement.

I accept that, but I am trying to show that it makes no difference whatever to the point now being discussed. It is provided by the Bill that for every pound the local authorities spend, the Treasury will provide another pound. It is quite true that this estimate of £150,000 has been put in the Bill. But we were told it was only an estimate, and that it really comes to this, that whatever the local authorities spend the Government are bound by their own legislation to provide an equivalent sum. That will mean an increase on the £150,000. That was loosely explained to us by the Home Secretary. I quite admit that £150,000 is the sum mentioned in the Bill, but there is an encouragement to the local authorities to spend money on the understanding that a similar amount will be provided by the Treasury. If the amount mentioned in the Bill is exceeded, are we going to get the extra sum, or will it be refused on the ground that the appropriation has already been made. Everyone knows that the Government can come down and get an additional appropriation, and, surely, in the face of the promise made by the Home Secretary, and in face of the fact that an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman himself was inserted to that effect in the Bill, they will be bound to do it. The position is that the Government promised to provide half of the money spent, leaving it to the local authorities to determine how much should be expended.

I have taken the liberty to hand in an Amendment to this Resolution, and it will have a limiting effect on the amount of money to be taken from the ratepayer. I therefore expect it will have the support of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is to the effect that a parish council shall not be called upon to raise, upon the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Rate, more money than a sum equal to the amount provided by the Treasury. This Mental Deficiency Bill is a good measure in many ways, and what we are opposed to are not the provisons for dealing with those who are mentally defective, but the financial part of the scheme—that part which puts upon the local authorities, already heavily overburdened by rates, the task of putting into operation the provisions of the Bill. There are, it is estimated, 11,600 people who may be described as mentally deficient in Scotland, and the average cost of maintaining each is estimated to be £25 per head per annum. What is the Treasury going to contribute towards that? A sum of something like £20,000, out of a total expenditure of £290,000, and the remainder of the burden will fall on the local authorities throughout Scotland. A great deal of it will have to be paid by the city of Glasgow, a Division of which I have the honour to represent. I object strongly to that, and I venture to think there should be some limitation of the burden which the local authorities are to be called upon to bear. My Amendment provides such a limitation, because it says that no local authority shall be called upon to raise by rates a single penny more than the Government are prepared to give, namely, the paltry £20,000 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is good enough to give to Scotland. Therefore, the local authorities will not have to raise more than another £20,000 unless the Government increase their contribution. The principle of a penny for a penny was first introduced into the measure for England, and in introducing it the Home Secretary said there was no compulsion to exercise the power given in the Bill to provide for the feeble-minded if the means at the disposal of the local authority did not admit of it. But the principle adopted by the Treasury was to advance as much per head as was expended by the local authorities out of the rates.

Is a Motion limiting the amount of money to be raised by rates, and not to be contributed by the Treasury, in order on this Resolution?

May I point out that as there is an obligation to raise a rate, this is a vital and important matter? You introduce, when you changed the figure from one-half to £150,000, a limitation of the rate, and you have at present no such limitation for Scotland. If it is to be a fixed sum, you must introduce the limitations, and the question, therefore, is of vital interest with regard to the point we are discussing.

I have scarcely had time to consider the Amendment moved by the hon. Member—or, rather, which he has suggested he proposes to move—but I will give my ruling upon it. I cannot take it as an Amendment to the Resolution before the Committee. It might quite properly come as an Amendment to some portion of the Bill, but the Resolution before the Committee simply deals with the sum to be given by the Treasury, while the suggested Amendment of the hon. Member affects the question of rates to be made by the parish council, and is not relevant to the Motion before the Committee.

I handed in the Amendment at a quarter-past two and it is not half-past three. It is a simple Amendment, and I thought perhaps it could have been considered before this. I also thought that the Deputy-Chairman would have considered it without the assistance of the Secretary for Scotland. But as it has been ruled out of order, of course I shall not move it. I shall simply say that we ought not to pass this Financial Resolution until some sort of limitation is added to it. The financial aspect of this measure is a fraud. The sum which the central authority, the Exchequer, is giving towards the carrying out of this measure is £20,000, which will only provide half the cost of 1,600 defectives and the whole cost of 800, and the Government is putting upon the local authorities this enormous burden. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Whyte), and several other Members, have indicated that the local authorities as a rule are in favour of this measure. Of course they are, because it gives more power to their elbows. But what of the ratepayers who elect these authorities? There is not a single constituent of mine who is desirous of having the local rates raised in order to carry out this scheme, which I admit is in itself useful. Local authorities are tremendously over-burdened with rates at the present time. In the City of Glasgow the cost of education this year has gone up by 3d. in the £ from 1s. 8d. to 1s. 11¼d. Again and again this Government has put duties upon the local authorities, and the giving of only this paltry sum will not go any length. I am sorry my Amendment was ruled out of order, because it would have given rise to a very interesting discussion.

I cannot accept the explanation of the Secretary for Scotland as satisfactory. The old-fashioned plan of one-eighth or eleven-eightieths for Scotland was instituted twenty-five years ago. I was well acquainted with it, and I always fought it. It was abandoned by the Treasury, but now the Treasury have come back to it, and it is a very evil omen that they should do so, because, if it is once adopted for this measure, it may be adopted in regard to all education Grants. Scotland earns for work done more than one-eighth of the money for education Grants as compared with England. If you go back to a fixed limitation of one-eighth or eleven-eightieths it may be extended to the whole of the education Grants, and I beseech hon. Members from Scotland on both sides to fight for this as a very vital principle.

My intervention in this Debate is in the nature of an. appeal. I think my hon. Friends from Scotland have discussed the question very satisfactorily, and that the Secretary for Scotland has dealt with all the points raised, and has given us the only answer possible in the circumstances. I, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friends to allow this Resolution to go through.

made an observation which was inaudible.

My hon. Friend has hit the mark. I make this appeal because there is a very important measure dealing with the medical service in the Highlands and Islands coming on after this, and I urge my hon. Friends to let this Resolution go through in order that we may deal with that matter, which is of vital importance.

I object to the appeal just made to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty. When we were discussing the subject in Committee upstairs it was always urged that we should get on because we should never get the money for the Highlands and Islands. Because we are taking a few moments to discuss this very important matter, which affects not only one small area in Scotland, but all the ratepayers of Scotland, the hon. Member asks us to desist and to proceed to the Grant for the Highlands and Islands in order that he may be able to distribute a dole among his constituents. He appeals to us to refrain from protecting the interests of our constituents. Under this Bill very heavy duties are being placed on the local authorities of Scotland. New responsibilities, which in the past were undreamt of, are now being laid upon them, and in order to assist them in carrying out those duties the paltry sum of £20,000 is being placed at their disposal by the Treasury. That is the account of the matter given by the Secretary for Scotland. No ratepayer in Scotland at the present time appreciates the very heavy burden which is being placed indirectly upon him. Although the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has been unsuccessful in bringing forward his Amendment, which would have prevented this outrageous state of things, we are entitled to protest all the more because the great majority of the local authorities are not aware of their position. I venture to say there are many local authorities in Scotland who do not know anything about this Bill. I doubt whether the local authority of Ross and Cromarty know anything about it.

Yes, they do.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has sent them any notice of it, or whether, if they get the £40,000 for the Highlands and Islands, he thinks they will be willing to take this liability without any demur. We who have no doles for our constituents from the Treasury are entitled to enter our protest. When a Bill of this kind is proposed which imposes new obligations, we, as representing the local ratepayers, should insist that Parliament should not pass it without seeing that a sufficient Grant is made to the local authorities, enabling them efficiently to carry out these duties. This £20,000 will only provide half the cost of 1,600 defectives. The Bill of last year, which was introduced by the Home Secretary, applied to England and Scotland alike, and the financial basis of that Bill was the equal sharing of the cost between the Treasury and the local authorities. If that is still to be the basis of the legislation of this Session, this Bill does not provide for it. It cannot be expected to do what its authors profess it will do—in other words, it is a complete fraud. We are placing upon the Statute Book a Bill of sixty-five Clauses which is, in the main, merely wastepaper. The Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland are getting credit for being philanthropic people because they are passing an Act of Parliament, but what is the use of an Act of Parliament unless those who are responsible for it are providing sufficient means to enable it to be effective for any practical purposes?

May I ask whether my Amendment is now in order?

The hon. Member has already been told by the Chair that it is not in order. He can easily put it in order by moving it upstairs.

My hon. Friend is much obliged to you for the hint which you have given him, and on the basis of that hint I have no doubt he will model his conduct upstairs. I am equally certain he will expect to see some tangible sign of appreciation from you when he adopts that course. We are, I believe, to some extent indebted to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) for this opportunity of discussing this in daylight. It is due to some extent to his opposition that this measure is being brought on in Government time and before eleven o'clock. When a matter is brought up after eleven o'clock very little is seen of it in the Scottish papers. Now we have an opportunity of having the matter clearly stated in Scotland, because in to-morrow's papers, which, in a Sabbatarian country like Scotland, will be certainly read, the report of this Debate will bring home to all the local authorities in Scotland what is being imposed upon them by the Government, and I have no doubt now that in the period that intervenes before this Bill can leave the floor of the House of Commons we shall have many representations from the local authorities of Scotland, and that it will be indeed a very different thing for the Government to proceed with this Bill unless more ample provision is made for the immediate purpose which it has in view.

I much regret that under the ruling that has been given we cannot decide the proportion payable by the central and the local authority, but I am sure your ruling will be fully followed upstairs in Committee. We have had an explanation as to how far the proportion of Grant to Scotland and England from the Exchequer is fairly allocated. What we have not the slightest idea of is the incidence of the burden placed on the local authority, and we really have not got any clear estimate of what that burden will be. In the case of pensions to school teachers, we were assured it would be one sum. It turned out to be a very much larger sum, and has formed a burden which is rapidly disposing of the Education (Scotland) Fund. This is one of those occasions when, without any due consideration on the part of the Government, heavy additional burdens are being put upon local authorities as to which they have no say and over which they have no control. The only security we can take for that point is to assert the principle of half and half, and if we cannot do it here it will have to be done upstairs.

Would it be in order to move, after the word "effect," to add the words" to the extent of one-half," so that in the Financial Resolution it will be made perfectly plain that we are not to get this stereotyped sum, but one-half of the cost.

A limiting Amendment to this Resolution is in order, but I do not quite gather yet whether the hon. Member is proposing any specific Amendment.

I have not a copy of the Resolution. It is an unfortunate method of discussing these things in the House. It is one of the things which I hope the Procedure Committee will make a note of. It is difficult to move an Amendment to the Resolution which is only in the hands of the Chair. Perhaps you, Sir, can suggest words. What we want is that half the cost of administering this Act in Scotland shall be borne by the Treasury. If it costs £15,000, then the Treasury will be £5,000 in pocket, but if it costs £40,000 we shall have the advantage in Scotland. If I could have a copy of the Resolution and move this Amendment, we could come to a speedy end. We are limiting it to a half, although we do not think that is enough. There are Amendments already on the Paper upstairs suggesting that one-fourth only shall be borne by the parish councils and three-fourths by the Treasury. If we could compromise to the extent of one-half the Government would not only get the Resolution and their money, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) need not worry about the Bill. We are all prepared to give him that without discussion. This question would be out of the way and it would facilitate things upstairs very much. I appeal, therefore, to someone else to continue the discussion until one gets a copy of the Resolution to see if one can put in these words.

I do not think I could accept the Amendment the hon. Member suggests. The proper place to deal with it is the Committee upstairs, as I have already indicated. There are Amendments on the Paper. I do not think an Amendment such as has been foreshadowed is one that I could accept. Beyond that I cannot say anything.

Would you get us out of this difficulty? Supposing we agreed to that upstairs and it turns out that the people in Scotland really want to deal with the question of mental deficiency, and they spend more than £20,000, which is given by the Treasury, assuming we could get a half by an Amendment upstairs, the work that is done in Scotland could not be paid for, because we would only be giving £20,000. That would mean that you would put on local authorities a premium for doing the work under this Bill.

That is a matter which refers to the merits.

If the Bill is not altered upstairs, it will be possible for the local authorities in Scotland to be put to greater expense than the local authorities in England for similar work. There is a provision in the English Act which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, and to which he gave too wide a meaning. It limits the amount that can be spent by any local authority in England to one-half, that is to say, it limits the obligation to spend. There is no similar limitation in Scotland. The provision is this:

" Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on any local authority to perform—

That really is a point for the Committee upstairs.

It seems to me essential that we should see the Resolution to understand it, and unless we can have copies of it, I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

That is not a Motion I shall accept, for this reason: The procedure adopted in regard to the Resolution is the one that is always adopted by the House. It has been made a matter of complaint by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that hon. Members are not in possession of the Resolution. I have read it twice, and if it will facilitate the bringing of the discussion to a conclusion, I will read it again.

It has been ruled out of order to discuss the principle of half and half, which is the general principle on which we have acted in the past. That is the only clear issue on which we can give an indication of opinion. If we cannot do that, we should consider whether the Resolution cannot be amended in the House. That appears to be a common sense proposal.

That raises the point which I have ruled out of order with respect to the proposal of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). That is a matter proper to the Committee upstairs, and not one to be discussed on the Resolution now before this Committee. The Resolution simply authorises payments by the Treasury, and hon. Members cannot mix up that Resolution with matters directly concerned with payments in Scotland. That is a matter that can be dealt with upstairs, even more practically than here.

Could the Secretary for Scotland give an undertaking that no obligation will be put on local authorities to spend more than half the amount contributed by the Treasury? Such a provision exists in the English Act. We want to know if we can get an assurance from the Secretary for Scotland that a similar provision will be put in the Scottish Act.

That must be done upstairs. We must take the money here or leave it. If we take it, we can discuss the other points upstairs. Would it not be better to agree to the Resolution now, and get on to a subject which we all want?

This is equally something which we all want, if we can get it in the right way. If it is out of order to move that the burden on the local authori- ties shall be limited to a certain amount, cannot we, when discussing the liability to be imposed on the Treasury, define that liability a little more definitely—would such an Amendment be in order?

It is rather hard on the Chair to ask for a ruling on a particular statement of that kind. I made it perfectly clear that the question of the contribution by the local authorities in Scotland is one which should be dealt with by the Committee upstairs.

It would facilitate matters if the Secretary for Scotland would tell us that he would consider favourably the suggestion to put in the Scottish Act the limitation that exists in the English Act.

I do not think that is fair. I think the Noble Lord opposite is perfectly right in saying that this is a matter that can be raised by Amendment in the Committee upstairs. It is for the Committee to consider the matter. I do not think they should be prejudiced one way or another by my giving such an undertaking.

Have we any guarantee that the Committee upstairs would take the same view as we do here?

An Amendment has been received on the lines foreshadowed.

Is it competent to move the adjournment of the Debate?

The proposal to adjourn the Debate was not accepted by the Deputy-Chairman. The Secretary for Scotland, having refused to give any undertaking as regards the limitation of the burdens to be placed upon the local authorities, the practical question which really arises now is as to the general attitude that will be adopted by Members towards the Bill. I have been anxious to see the Bill passed, but I should like to intimate that unless some limitation is put upon the burdens to which local authorities will be liable under the Bill, I should think it better that the Bill should not be passed.