House Of Commons
Thursday, 26th March, 1914.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Cardiff Railway Bill,
Cardiff Railway (Compounding of Tonnage Rates) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Northwich Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Walsall Corporation Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Mental Deficiency Act, 1913 (Regulations),
Paper [presented 20th March] to be printed. [No. 164.]
Paper [presented 20th March] to be printed. [No. 165.]
Summary Proceedings (England) (Mental Deficiency Act) (Provisional Rules),
Paper [presented 20th March] to be printed. [No. 166.]
Taff Vale Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 2),
Lord Alexander Thynne reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills. That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
National Insurance Act
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 21st March, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations (Ireland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 167.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 24th March, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Time for Joining an Approved Society) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
Colonial Reports (Annual)
Copy presented of Report, No. 795 (St. Vincent, Report for 1912–13) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
East India (Income And Expenditure)
Return presented relative thereto [Address 24th March; Sir George Scott Robertson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 169.]
University Of Aberdeen
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 30th September, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 170.]
Board Of Agriculture And Fisheries
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics 1913. Vol. XLVIII., Part I., Acreage and Live Stock Returns of England and Wales, with Summaries for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Commons
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Commons (Elmstone Hardwicke Order) in Session 1913, be referred to the Select Committee on Commons.—[ Mr. Brunner.]
Oral Answers To Questions
Persia
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the total strength of the Persian Cossacks and say where they are stationed; are they exclusively commanded by Russian officers; is the Swedish gendarmerie practically excluded from all districts under Russian influence; has he any official knowledge of any arrangements whereby all Russian troops are to be withdrawn from the northern provinces; and whether he has reason to believe that the Russian Minister at Teheran has recently made a statement to that effect?
My latest official information is to the effect that there are about 1,800 men based on Teheran—some of whom have been sent to Kermanshah—and about 600 men at Tabriz. I believe there are some Persian officers, but all the higher commands are held by Russian officers. The answer to the third point is in the negative. I am not aware of any change in the policy of the Russian Government with regard to the withdrawal of troops, and I have been informed that this policy has recently been restated by the Russian Minister at Teheran in an interview with the Press.
Has my right hon. Friend any news now of the reported defeat of the Swedish gendarmerie at Kirman; secondly, may I ask if he recognises the eventual possibility of having to organise a force in that district on the model of the Persian?
I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question, as the matter is very important.
Has there been a defeat of the Swedish gendarmerie at Kirman as well as at Kazerun?
I have not got it in my mind at the moment that there has been any recent defeat as indicated, and would ask for notice of that question. For the moment I cannot say for certain; I have not heard of it.
Have not the Baluchistan raiders defeated the Swedish gendarmerie at Kirman?
There was trouble some time ago. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is alluding to something that happened some time ago—
Quite recently.
Perhaps it would be better to give notice.
Portuguese West Africa (Rev J S Bowskill's Arrest)
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to publish shortly another White Book on Portuguese labour conditions in West Africa; and, if so, whether he can include in this any information with reference to the rebellion in San Salvador and Mr. Bowskill's arrest?
I hope to lay correspondence shortly. It would, however, delay publication if I were to include dispatches recently received, and this I am unwilling to do. I have hitherto informed the House of everything in connection with the case of Mr. Bowskill which has not appeared in the public Press and I am prepared to continue to do so.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the laying, if possible, of Supplementary Papers containing up-to-date information?
Yes, Sir; I certainly will do that as soon as it is possible. At the present time we have not got the report from our own Consul.
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say upon what charge Mr. Bowskill has been arrested and is to be tried?
I cannot yet say upon what charge Mr. Bowskill was arrested. As soon as I receive any information on this matter, I will communicate it to the hon. Member and to the House.
To what is the delay due in obtaining this information in view of the fact that it is several weeks since the arrest of Mr. Bowskill?
The delay is due to the difficulty of communication on the spot with San Salvador. We have ourselves sent our Consul, whom I hope to find has arrived there by now. We have not yet had the Report of his arrival, still less have we had the information which we expect, and which would enable us to see what are the charges framed for the trial.
In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has received some information from San Salvador, how does it come about that he has received no information with reference to the arrest and actual charge upon which Mr. Bowskill has to stand his trial?
It is exceedingly difficult for communication to be made with San Salvador. The information referred to by the hon. Gentleman is incomplete and unsatisfactory. I am most anxious to get more information as soon as I can, and I rely on the fact of having ordered our Consul to be on the spot to make sure that nothing undesirable has happened.
Will Mr. Bowskill be represented by counsel; that is a point on which his friends are very anxious?
The hon. Member should give notice of that.
Mexico
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received Mr. Perceval's report on the murder of Mr. Benton; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House?
The text of the report has not yet been received. It is now on its way from Washington. I will communicate its purport to the House as soon as I receive it.
Old Age Pensions
6.
asked the Chief. Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can estimate the number of persons in Ireland entitled by age and circumstances to old age pensions, but denied pensions on the ground of age owing to the absence of parish registers of birth and of their names from the Census Returns, defects for which the applicants are not responsible; whether in such cases the Local Government Board accept the testimony of older persons, and the authentic record of the marriage of an applicant fifty years ago, and of the birth of a daughter forty-nine years ago, tested and held to be proved by the local pension committee; if so, why the Board refuse a pension to Mrs. Julia Peppard, in the Coole district, at the instance of an officer who neither heard the evidence before the committee nor tested it in any way; and whether the claim in that case will be reconsidered?
The Local Government Board have no information which would enable them to answer the first paragraph of the question. With regard to the second paragraph, the Board carefully consider all evidence of age submitted to them. However, the fact that an applicant has been fifty years married cannot in itself be regarded as conclusive evidence that such applicant has attained seventy years of age. Julia Peppard's claim for an old age pension was disallowed by the Board on appeal on the 18th ultimo on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to show that she had attained the statutory age. The claimant was unable to furnish any satisfactory evidence of age when requested by the Board to do so.
Will the Local Government Board examine the Census Returns, if furnished, with all information available?
Certainly.
8.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an old age pension officer, when appealing against a pension on the ground of means, submits to the Local Government Board a detailed estimate of the applicant's means; and, if so, whether the Board will in future send a copy of this estimate to the local pension committee?
When appealing against a claim for an old age pension, a pension officer submits to the Local Government Board a statement of the sources of income of the claimant, such as stock and crops, together with a gross estimate of the claimant's means, but he does not submit any detailed estimate of the values; assigned by him to the items comprising the claimant's mean's unless this is specially asked for by the Board. The Board form their own estimate of the claimant's means from the evidence submitted by the pension officer, the pension committee, and the claimant. In the circumstances it is not possible to comply with the suggestion in the second part of the question.
35.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of old age pension officers employed in the first year of the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act; the number employed in 1913; why pension officers who, in the first year, attended meetings of pension committees on all occasions of difference of opinion between them and those committees, no longer do this, even when residing in the towns in which the meetings are held; and whether those officers employed in Ireland will be required, before lodging appeals against decisions of a committee, to attend and discuss with the committee the ground of appeal in each case?
The figures asked for in the first part of the question are, approximately, 1,600 in 1909, and 1,900 in 1913. There has been no change of practice on the part of pension officers in regard to attendance at meetings and pension committees, except that as committees have become more familiar with the work the necessity for the attendance of the pension officer has naturally become less frequent. As regards the suggestion made in the third part of the question, I do not think that there would be any advantage in pension officers attending to discuss with committee cases which, so far as the committees are concerned, are already closed.
Will the hon. Member say how he reconciles part of his answer with the experience of pension committees who cannot get these officers to attend their meetings, although they reside in the same town?
I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the case of Kerry.
Yes, and other committees.
I have made careful inquiries into that case, and I can find no ground for suggesting that pension officers have behaved improperly.
Has the hon. Member considered the case presented by the Kerry county committee with regard to the attendance of those officers in that particular case, which has been going on for fourteen months, and does he propose to take any steps in the matter?
I recognise there has long been a dispute between the Kerry committee and the pension officers. If the hon. Member has any suggestion to make with a view to bringing peace between the two parties without in any way suggesting that the pension officers have behaved improperly, I shall be pleased to receive it.
May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might bring about peace if he sent an officer down to inquire?
I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion, and I will consider it.
From whence did the hon. Member derive his information? Was it from the officers, or the pension committees?
I do not want to go into the detail of this dispute now. The pension officers acted upon the principles laid down in fixing the means of applicants for old age pensions. An appeal was made by the pension committees to the Local Government Board of Ireland, who upheld the action of the pension officers.
Land Purchase (Ireland)
7.
asked the Chief Secretary if he will state, when the vendor of an estate consents, through his solicitor in specified events, to sell under Section 6 of the Land Act of 1903, and those events have arisen, and he sells under a different Section, whether the Estates Commissioners allow him to exclude tenants who would be included under Section 6; and whether they will allow this to be done on the estate of Mr. Shaen Carter, near Killucan?
The Estates Commissioners are not aware of any case such as that referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the particular estate referred to, it is not offered for sale to the Commissioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1903, but has been sold by the owner to the tenants under the direct sale proceedings of that Act.
10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners allow a vendor of an estate to exclude from the sale a tenant willing to complete in accordance with the vendor's own agreement written direct to the tenant, and help the vendor to get either a higher price or the old rent; when the vendor, after recovering the old rent for several years, admits the tenant's contention by reverting to his first agreement, do the Commissioners still allow him to exclude the holding from the sale unless the tenant abandons his right to be dealt with like his fellow tenants as from the date when they signed and he was willing to sign; under what Section this is allowed; and whether the Commissioners will allow a holding to be excluded in these circumstances on the Shaen Carter estate, near Killucan?
Where agreements signed by the parties have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of holdings on estates, the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Irish Land Acts, it is not the practice of the Commissioners to allow the vendor to exclude any of such holdings from the sale. Pending the vesting of the lands, or the dismissal of the agreements by the Commissioners, the tenants pay interest on the agreed prices in the agreements and are not liable for rent. As regards the Shaen Carter estate, purchase agreements signed by all the tenants, with the exception of two, have been lodged, and in these cases the Commissioners have inspected the holdings, and have informed the vendor of the prices they would be prepared to advance if purchase agreements are lodged. The tenants have refused to purchase at such prices, and until they sign agreements they cannot be included in the sale. The Commissioners have no power to compel either the tenants to purchase or the vendor to sell these holdings, or to interfere as regards any promise which it is alleged the vendor may have made to the tenants to sell at lower prices. It is open to the tenants to take such legal proceedings as they may be advised to require specific performance of any such promise.
11.
asked whether there are any rules or regulations of the Irish Land Commission or the Estates Commissioners regulating the distribution of Grants, the receipt of rents, and the payments to or by the inspectors or other members of the outdoor staff of these Departments; and, if not, what the practice of these Departments has been in the past in reference to these matters?
There are no statutory rules or regulations dealing with the matters referred to in the question, but Departmental Rules have been laid down for the guidance of the officers of the Land Commission. When Grants for improvements are sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners the work whenever possible is carried out by contract and payment is made therefor from the head office of the Land Commission upon the certificate of the inspector concerned that the work has been satisfactorily done. In other cases in which the expenditure of the Grants is necessarily entrusted to the inspectors, receipts for all moneys expended are obtained by those officers, who certify in each case that the money has been expended for the purpose authorised and furnish the receipts as vouchers to headquarters. Rents and other incomings from estates on the Commissioners' hands pending resale are paid into bank to the Commissioners' credit upon receivable orders issued from the head office, save in exceptional cases in which the inspector is specially authorised to receive and account for such rents. All accounts and vouchers in respect of both expenditure and income are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
In regard to this case can the right hon. Gentleman say he is prepared to lay these Departmental Rules on the Table for the information of Members?
I would sooner wait until the case to which the hon. Member refers is thoroughly investigated.
13.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the recent storms have damaged the lands of Douglas, county Kerry; whether, seeing that the Land Commission should but did not compel the former landlord to put and keep the banks in repair, as he was bound to do by agreement signed at the time of purchase, the Land Commission will take steps to have the bank repaired immediately and compensation given to the tenants for their losses during the past twelve months; and whether an inspector will be sent to report on the present condition of the bank and tenants' losses?
As I have already informed the hon. Member, the vendors have been called upon to put the embankment into a proper state of repair, and the Land Commission understand that steps have been taken to this end. The Land Commission have no funds out of which to compensate tenant-purchasers for any loss they may have sustained through the flooding of their lands, but the question of this bank is at present under consideration in connection with the present sales, and the Commissioners look forward to the satisfactory settlement of the whole matter at an early date.
15.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Estates Commissioners as to the untenanted lands of Culnagore, on the estate of Colonel Gregg, parish of Newtown Cashel, county Longford; and, if not, when a scheme of division will be undertaken?
The Estates Commissioners cannot identify any portion of the lands of Culnagore, on the estate of Colonel Gregg, as being the subject of proceedings for sale to them; but the owner has arranged for the sale direct to the tenants on the property of some untenanted lands at Collum, in his occupation. The Commissioners are also in negotiation for the purchase of some 35 acres of the lands at Derrydarragh.
16.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in order to meet the wishes of a number of tenants of uneconomic holdings in Abbeylara, North Longford, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to direct another inspection of the untenanted lands of Coolcraff, which the landlord, Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., expressed his desire to sell for division amongst the people?
As the hon. Member has already been informed, the Estates Commissioners have had an inspection made of the lands referred to, and have intimated to the owner the sum they would be prepared to advance if formal proceedings are instituted for the sale of the lands to them under the Land Purchase Acts. Up to the present the owner has not instituted such proceedings. The Commissioners are not prepared to have a further inspection made.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners to press soon for an answer?
Well, I will see.
17.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has yet received the decision of the Estates Commissioners as to the acquirement of the lands of the Ballymulvey estate of Colonel Shuldham for the benefit of the town tenants of Ballymahon,, who for nearly a century have had the right of grazing on these lands, of which they are now threatened to be deprived?
The Estates Commissioners have approached the owner with a view to the acquisition of these lands, and the matter is at present the subject of negotiation.
19.
asked what is the cause of the delay that occurs in the Land Registry of Ireland in dealing with the registration of transfers of registered land lodged for registration; and if some steps can be taken to expedite the completion of the registration in such cases?
There is no avoidable delay in the Land Registry of Ireland in dealing with transfers of registered land. Owing to the limited accommodation, it has not been possible to make the necessary increase in the staff of that Department. A new building has been constructed, and will, it is hoped, be ready for occupation next month, when all possible steps will be taken by increase and reorganisation of the staff to expedite the completion of the registration of dealings.
20.
asked whether the case of Mrs. Sara Moriarty, formerly of Minard Dingle, was considered and recognised as an evicted tenant; whether, after several applications made by her during the past five years, nothing whatever beyond vague promises has been done for her; whether, seeing that her case is a bonâ fide case and that her son is a trained agriculturist, the Estates Commissioners will be asked to deal seriously and finally with this case?
Mrs. Moriarty made application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in a holding on the estate of Lord Ventry, county Kerry, from which her mother had been evicted, and under the Evicted Tenants Act the Commissioners published a notice in the "Dublin Gazette" that they proposed to acquire the holding under that Act. The Commissioners did not, however, proceed further in the matter on being informed by the Congested Districts Board that that Department were negotiating for the purchase of this estate, which the Board have since acquired, and that the farm was required for the enlargement of small holdings in the neighbourhood. Mrs. Moriarty has been informed that her application will be considered in the allotment of untenanted land as acquired by the Commissioners. They have no farm at present available, but when they are in a position to allot her one they will communicate with her.
May I ask, as this case has been going on for five or six years, when may we expect to have the question settled?
I am afraid I cannot answer that question. It is most desirable she should get a farm as soon as possible.
Do the Commissioners say that during the last six years they have not sufficient land?
They thought she was to get this farm, but the Congested Districts Board stepped in and bought the land for another purpose.
21.
asked the Chief Secretary if the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the case of Thomas Moore, an evicted tenant on the Lansdowne Estate, Queen's County, who refused a holding offered him by the Commissioners, as he is now willing to accept a holding from the Commissioners?
The reply is in the affirmative.
24.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the Duane and Graham estates, near Letterfrack, Connemara, have yet been acquired by the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, will he state when they are likely to be acquired?
The estates referred to have not been acquired by the Congested Districts Board, and they cannot say when it is likely that the purchase of these properties will be completed.
25.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the whole or only a part of the Twining estate, Cleggan, Connemara, is offered to the Congested Districts Board for purchase; and whether, in view of the necessities of the tenants on this estate, he will advise the Congested Districts Board to acquire the entire estate at the earliest opportunity?
The whole of the estate referred to has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, and the question of purchase is under consideration.
Commissioners Of National Education (Ireland)
9.
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland complain in their annual Report of having been represented as refunding to the Treasury portion of the money voted by Parliament for their purposes, and explain that the money in fact never reached them; if he will state the amount of money so treated in the last ten years; why it is embodied in the Commissioners' statement of account if it never reached them; and which authority is correct, the Commissioners or the auditor?
I have seen the statement in the annual Report of the Commissioners of National Education referred to in the question. The amount of the unexpended balance of the Vote for Public Education, Ireland, in each of the past ten years is stated in the Annual Appropriation Accounts of Civil Service and Revenue Departments. With regard to the two last paragraphs of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the full explanation given by the Commissioners on page 9 of their annual Report already referred to.
The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether this money has been paid to the Commissioners. Why is the money included in their accounts if it has not reached them?
If the hon. Member will refer to the report of the Commissioners he will see the whole case stated there. If the Commissioners do not spend money they cannot apply the surplus to some new head of expenditure, but must account for it.
This money is audited as having been received by the Commissioners, and the Commissioners say it never reached them?
I do not understand that that is the reason.
Irish Prisons (Supplies)
12.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the samples of woollen and linen cloths, canvas, frieze, blankets, and other goods to be inspected at Mountjoy, Belfast, and Cork prisons by intending contractors for the supply of these articles to the Irish Prisons Board for the year 1914 are of Irish manufacture; and whether any consideration is given by the Board to the fact that persons tendering state that they are prepared to supply goods of Irish manufacture?
Some of the samples referred to are of Irish manufacture, and full consideration is given by the General Prisons Board to the claims of Irish manufacture as they are anxious to obtain such goods where practicable.
National University Of Ireland (Professorship Of French)
22.
asked whether Irish ladies and gentlemen applicants having the requisite qualifications are eligible for the professorship of French now vacant in the National University of Ireland; and whether the best qualified will be appointed irrespective of extraneous considerations?
The vacancy referred to is the professorship of French and the Romance Languages in University College, Dublin. All applications will be considered by the governing body of the University College, which will, in accordance with the Statutes, make a selection for submission to the senate, who will make the final selection. I have no doubt that all applications will be fully considered by the governing body, and that the senate will select the candidate whom it considers to be the best qualified for the position.
Is religion an extraneous consideration?
I do not know what the hon. Member means.
Government Of Ireland Bill
Civil And Military Forces
23.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state by whose instructions the secret order to county constabulary inspectors in Ulster, signed by the Assistant Inspector-General of the Irish Constabulary, as to reporting upon the movements of the Ulster Volunteer Force was issued; what was the nature of the orders for which this was substituted; and if he will state the number of the Volunteer Force, and the proportion of them provided with rifles and ammunition?
The police have general instructions from the Irish Government to furnish reports as to any movements which may lead to a disturbance of the public peace, and the orders circulated in compliance with the directions of the Irish Government are issued by the constabulary authorities. I am not prepared to make any statement as to the information furnished by the police regarding the number of the Ulster Volunteers or the proportion provided with rifles and ammunition.
Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give this information?
Oh, not at all.
If so, is it right that the Government should adopt the military and naval attitude they have at the present time without having placed before this House—
The hon. Member is advancing arguments.
26.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he will give the name and pattern of the rifle or carbine with which the Royal Irish Constabulary are at present armed, and also its effective range; and will he state the number of rounds which each constable is required to fire each year in order to render and maintain himself efficient with his weapon?
The carbine with which the Royal Irish Constabulary is armed at present is the Lee-Enfield. It is sighted up to 2,000 yards. Each man is required to fire annually 100 rounds of miniature rifle ammunition from a Morris tube.
27.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the interchange of Protestant members of the Royal Irish Constabulary with Catholic members of the force for service in the South and North of Ireland, respectively, a constable is in each case granted subsistence allowance in addition to his ordinary pay; whether he has been able to estimate the total cost involved; and whether the same will fall on the Imperial taxpayer or ratepayer in Ireland?
The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There has been no interchange of Protestant and Catholic members of the Royal Irish Constabulary for service in the North and South of Ireland, respectively.
Is it not a fact that a large number of constabulary have been moved from the South to the North?
No, Sir; not Catholic and Protestants.
28.
asked the Chief Secretary the numbers of the Royal Irish Constabulary now in Ulster on special or ordinary duty, and the similar figures for March, 1913?
There are no members of the Royal Irish Constabulary now on special duty in Ulster. On the 28th February, 1913, there were fifty-nine officers and 3,230 men on ordinary duty in that province. On the same date this year the numbers were fifty-eight officers and 3,213 men.
45.
asked the Prime Minister if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in intimating at Huddersfield on Saturday that no concessions beyond those already offered would be made to the Protestant community in Ireland, and that failing acceptance of these the Government of Ireland Bill would be imposed on Ulster by force, was expressing the final decision of the Government in the matter?
The summary of my speech, which the hon. Member purports to give, is hopelessly inaccurate.
Will the Prime Minister at this crisis use his influence with Members of His Majesty's Government to restrain them from using provocative language?
47.
asked whether it may be taken to be the accepted policy of the Government that, as a general rule, where the military are called in to aid the civil authority, commissioned officers domiciled in the district where the military are so called in will be given the opportunity of withdrawing from their regiments; whether a similar option will be extended to non-commissioned officers and men; and whether there are any and, if so, what precedents for this course?
It is the accepted policy and practice that, as far as possible, troops shall not be employed in aid of the civil power in districts with which they have any territorial connection.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether there is any precedent in the history of this country for allowing officers domiciled in a district where they are to be used in aid of the civil authority to disappear from their regiments, and, if there is no precedent for that course, may I ask whether the reason why this was resorted to was not because—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member is delivering something in the nature of a speech.
49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will explain why he made his communication in regard to the movement of troops in Ireland and the resignations of certain Army officers through the columns of the "Times" newspaper only; and whether, in future, when he has communications of national importance and general interest to make, he will, in order to avoid invidious distinctions, make them through the recognised channels of the established news agencies?
The circumstances both as regards time and other matters were very exceptional, and my right hon. Friend took what seemed to him for the moment to be the most convenient course. There is no question of setting up precedents.
rose—
The hon. Member perhaps did not hear what I said just now—that I thought it was better, considering the number of questions on the Paper, that hon. Members should not ask supplementary questions.
52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in regard to the fact that an assurance has been given to certain officers and regiments in the Regular Army that they would not be employed against Ulster, a similar assurance will be given that the Fleet or ships of the Fleet shall not be so employed?
Sir, the officers and men of His Majesty's Navy are expected to obey without question orders which reach them through the proper channels from lawfully constituted authority.
53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling of unrest and anxiety created throughout the country by recent occurrences in connection with certain sections of the Army in Ireland, he will agree to at once set up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the whole circumstances of the resignation of the officers and the incidents connected therewith, and to report to this House?
The Prime Minister does not think that the method suggested by the hon. Member is a suitable one for dealing with the matter referred to.
51.
asked whether the assurance given to certain officers and regiments, that they should not be employed against Ulster, applies equally to other regiments quartered in Ireland and elsewhere?
This question has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend in the course of debate yesterday.
I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave anxiety which exists in the Territorial Force, he would state if in the event of the Army being used outside Great Britain the Territorial Force is liable to lee so employed?
This is a hypothetical question, which, as was explained yesterday, does not require an answer.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the whole length and breadth of the country recruiting is being seriously affected, as I know through being an officer in the force?
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the totally unauthorised letter by Lord Esher?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.
Federal Constitution
48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will follow the Australian precedent and forthwith set up a Convention consisting of representative men charged with the duty of framing a Federal Constitution for the United Kingdom; and whether he will approach the official Opposition, with a view to their co-operation in such a Convention, and in return agree to the exclusion of an area in Ulster, to be agreed upon, pending the report upon and consummation of such Federal Constitution?
The Prime Minister cannot undertake to deal with a matter of this importance in answer to a question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.
rose—
I must ask hon. Members to revert to the old rule of not asking supplementary questions.
On a point of Order. May I ask whether this is now to apply to the House altogether, or whether I, in particular, am not to ask supplementary questions?
The hon. Member does not suppose, does he, that I am making any particular distinction against him? If he supposes anything of the sort, he is perfectly wrong. As a matter of fact, I stopped, I think, three or four hon. Members, and said that I thought the time had arrived when we might revert to the old rule of not having supplementary questions. I will add, unless it is to clear up some point which is left doubtful by the Minister.
Sir John French And General Ewart
I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Sir John French and General Ewart have tendered their resignations?
The Prime Minister will make a statement on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night.
Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the alleged comment of General Gough on yesterday's Debate, to the effect that they had got their guarantee, that the Prime Minister would be foolish to repudiate it, and that in his opinion "Seely ought to go," and whether he will make inquiries as to whether General Gough really made this statement to the Press, and, if he did, what does the War Office propose to do with this officer?
Inquiry will be made into this matter, but meantime I must assume that no such statements can have been made.
Are we to understand that General Gough has still got in his possession an understanding signed by General French that his Brigade will not be used?
That does not arise out of the question put to me. It is purely a matter of obedience to the King's Regulations.
Dublin Strike (Police Protection)
31.
asked whether any of the Dublin employers who enjoyed police protection during the labour dispute paid any portion of the cost of those extra police; and, if so, how much?
No portion of the cost of the police engaged in the protection of employers during the recent labour disputes in Dublin was paid by those to whom such protection was afforded.
Is it not usual for employers who are provided with police protection during strikes to pay part of the cost?
No. I am not aware of it.
Foot-And-Mouth Disease
32.
asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what is the present position of Ireland in the matter of foot-and-mouth disease; and whether the source of the recent recrudescence of the disease in county Kildare has been traced?
Since the appearance of the disease at Naas towards the end of January, the total number of outbreaks confirmed in Ireland up to the present has been fifty, of which three have occurred in county Kildare, thirty-nine in county Cork, and eight in county Tipperary. The latest outbreak in each county was confirmed on 23rd instant. The cause of recrudescence of the disease in county Kildare has not-been ascertained.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any outbreak during the last forty-eight hours?
No, Sir; I think not.
33.
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a resolution passed by the Mountmellick District Council requesting removal of the restriction on Mountrath district, Queen's County; and can he say, considering that Queen's County has been immune from foot-and-mouth disease for more than thirty years, whether the scheduled area will be so curtailed as to admit of the holding of Rathdowney fair on the 1st April next?
The resolution referred to has been received. The limits of the scheduled district were curtailed recently on completion of the tracing of calves distributed from Roscrea that had been obtained in Cork. Since that curtailment the town of Mountrath has been outside the area of restrictions. In the case of Rathdowney, however, the restrictions have force owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease having recently occurred at a place less than fifteen miles away in county Tipperary, and there is no prospect of these restrictions being withdrawn in time to permit of a fair at Rathdowney on 1st April.
Is it not a fact that the Department's inspectors did not discover any foot-and-mouth disease in Queen's County after investigation, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of the removal of the restrictions in the various districts of Queen's County?
Is it not enough to say that no disease has been found?
East Africa, Uganda And Nyasaland Protectorates
34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the effect of the recent judgment of the Appeal Court at Mombasa in the Masai case is that the East Africa, Uganda, and Nyasaland Protectorates are not British territory, but foreign protected States; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes, by proclamation or other instrument, formally to annex these Protectorates and assume over them territorial sovereignty?
I am not aware that the status of these Protectorates has been affected by the judgment referred to by the hon. Member. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Does not this judgment indicate such a weakness in title as was shown in the case of the Tartar territory?
I do not think it indicates any weakness. If the hon. Member wants a legal interpretation I must ask for notice.
Is the position of these Protectorates the same as Basutoland and Bechuanaland?
I do not think Basutoland and Bechuanaland arise out of the question, and I must ask for notice.
National Insurance Act
Medical Benefit
36.
asked whether a panel doctor is entitled to receive from a patient on his panel a fee in addition to that provided in the National Insurance Acts?
No, Sir, not in respect of medical benefit.
76.
asked whether the medical benefit card of James Childerhouse, of St. Augustine's Road, Camden Square, has been returned to him; and, if so, on what date?
As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 4th March, the card had already then been returned to the insured person My right hon. Friend is informed that it was returned on or before the 22nd February.
Persons Insured (Number)
37.
asked how many persons have received benefits under Parts I. and II., respectively, of the National Insurance Act up to the latest date for which figures are available who were not members of any friendly or other sickness or unemployment benefit societies prior to the operation of the said Acts; and for what benefits sums were paid and the totals under the two classes?
I am afraid that the precise figures for which my hon. Friend asks are not available, but I will circulate with the Votes such particulars as I have been able to obtain from the Insurance Commissioners and the Board of Trade. [See Written, Answers this date.]
Drug Fund
40.
asked how many insurance committees have now informed the Insurance Commissioners that the drug fund in their districts will be insufficient to pay the accounts of the chemists for 1913?
My right hon. Friend is informed that in the case of about twenty-two insurance committees in Great Britain the chemists' accounts presented are stated to be in excess of the drug funds at present available; but, as I have already said, it cannot as yet be stated whether there will in fact be any deficiency.
50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the deficiencies in the drug fund which have occurred under the National Insurance Acts?
An opportunity will arise to-day.
Unemployment Benefit
69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that in Labour Exchange offices which are on the premises of solicitors political placards of a partisan character are displayed in the same windows as the notices of the Labour Exchange; and whether this practice has his sanction?
My attention has not been directed to any such case as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, which presumably refers not to a Labour Exchange, but to the office of a local agent of the Unemployment Fund. If he can give me any further particulars, I will make inquiries.
70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of an employer who has posted up a notice to the effect that any workman who is discharged for misbehaviour, or failing in his duty to the company, will not be recommended for benefit under the Act of Parliament dealing with unemployment; and whether, with a view to securing the proper and efficient working of the Act, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
I have no knowledge of the case referred to by my hon. Friend.
Exempt Persons
77 and 103.
asked (1) whether Mr. J. H. Swainson, of Wrexham, is to be compelled to pay both employer's and employed person's contributions for eight months past in respect of Mrs. Guntrip, a charwoman employed by him on one day a week, who has been, and is still entitled to be, an exempt person under the National Health Insurance Act; whether Mrs. Guntrip is also employed by the local health insurance committee to char in their offices; why no contribution as an employer has been paid by the local insurance committee; whether Mrs. Guntrip's various employers were warned that she had ceased to be an exempt person until more than six months after employer's and employé's contributions became due; and (2) whether an exempt person under the National Health Insurance Act is entitled to medical, sickness, or other benefit; whether, when a person previously exempt becomes by reason of failure to fill up a renewal of exemption form an employed contributor, he or she is entitled to benefits and from what date; whether it is possible under the Act to recover both employer's and employed person's contribution from an employer who employs an exempt person or voluntary contributor, if the latter fails to send in a form for renewal of exemption for any defined space of time; whether subsequent renewal of exemption absolves the employer from having to contribute the employed person's share of contribution; and whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. J. H. Swainson, of Wrexham, in these respects?
The Welsh Insurance Commissioners are making full inquiry into this case, and I will communicate further with the hon. Member.
Women Doctors
78.
asked whether women who are forced to pay for medical attention and treatment under the National Insurance Act, and who have never been attended by men doctors in the past, are being refused permission to make their own arrangements for medical attention and treatment under Section 15 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, although there is no woman doctor on the panel of doctors of their local insurance committee; whether the Bradford Insurance Committee is one of the committees so refusing; and what action he intends to take in order to secure the medical benefit for insured women who are unwilling to consult with men doctors concerning their individual ailments?
My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such general action on the part of insurance committees. He is informed that in two or three cases the Bradford Insurance Committee refused permission to applicants to make their own arrangements with a woman doctor, but I believe that in none of these cases was the ground for the application as stated by my hon. Friend.
Women's Freedom League
79.
asked if the Women's Freedom League are openly boasting in their official weekly paper that they have not paid so much as 1d. in respect of their employés under the National Insurance Act, 1911; and whether suffrage societies are exempt from charges imposed by Statute on other employers?
I was not previously aware of the fact to which my hon. Friend draws my attention in the first part of his question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
Panel Chemists
80.
asked whether the panel chemists in Scotland will be paid their accounts in full for the first three months of the present year and for the year 1913?
Any payment in respect of the quarter ending on the 11th April will be an advance in anticipation of the annual settlement, and the accounts for this quarter are, of course, not yet due. As regards the year 1913 I have nothing to add to previous replies.
Compensation For Injury
102.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will inquire into the case of Stephen Bennett, of Amfort, Andover, who is now receiving 12s. a week, half-pay compensation for injury received by him whilst at his ordinary employment; whether this man receives no insurance pay whilst he is ill, although he has always paid his contributions to the insurance funds; whether the compensation pay comes out of the man's employer's pocket; and what does the State do for this man during his illness in return for his contributions?
I see no reason for special inquiry into this case as upon the facts as stated by the hon. Member, the insured person would not appear to be entitled to sickness benefit. The contributions payable under the Insurance Acts do not provide insurance for sickness benefit in cases where the Workmen's Compensation Act secures compensation equal to, or exceeding, the sickness benefit otherwise payable. Had double provision been made for such cases the contributions would have had to be increased.
Civil Service Appointment (Nonconformist Minister)
38.
asked if the hon. Member's attention has been called to the statement that the son of a Nonconformist minister, who failed to pass the examination for the second division of the Civil Service, has nevertheless been given an appointment; if he will give particulars of the case in question; and state whether the appointment was given on the intitiative of the Civil Service Commissioners themselves?
No, Sir, nor can I identify the case to which the hon. Member refers.
If I give the hon. Gentleman the information, will he look into the case?
As soon as this question was put down on the Paper I consulted the Commissioners, and they informed me that they could not possibly trace the case. If the hon. Member has any further information, perhaps he will communicate with me.
Army Ordnance Factory (Gratuities)
39.
asked if the hon. Gentleman will give the total gratuity due to an employé at an Army ordnance factory who is discharged at the age of sixty after thirty years' employment at an average weekly wage of 30s.?
The gratuity, calculated on the final wages or, in certain cases, the average wages of the last three years of his service, is one week's pay for each year of service.
Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that is a fair remuneration to give as a gratuity at the end of thirty years' service, because, after all, it amounts to a very small sum?
The hon. Member will appreciate that that sum is the amount laid down by Statute.
Does the hon. Member consider that that is a fair sum?
That is a matter of opinion.
Housing Of Working Classes
42.
asked the President of the Local Government Board what was the price paid for the 7 acres 1 rood and 23 perches of land acquired by the Yeovil Rural District Council in the parish of Martock for the erection of houses under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and in respect of which the Local Government Board sanctioned a loan of £877; and what, prior to acquisition, was the total gross and net rental and the total assessment of this land to local rates, or, if this land formed a portion of a larger property, by how much the assessment of that larger property to local rates was reduced by reason of the severance of that portion?
The price paid for the land referred to was £739 7s. 6d.—that is, £100 per acre. The land was part of a larger property, and the amount by which the assessment was reduced by reason of the severance was £15 5s.
How much does the cost of the land represent in the weekly rent of the cottages?
I cannot answer that question without notice.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that I gave notice of a similar question a little while ago, and he then refused to give me an answer?
Not in respect of this case.
No, but other cases.
The hon. Member's question is not on the Paper, and I cannot be expected to know what proportion of the rent is due to the cost of the land unless I have an opportunity of acquainting myself with the facts beforehand.
I will give notice.
43.
asked what was the price paid for the three acres of land acquired by the Forehoe Rural District Council in the parish of Hingham for the erection of houses under Part III. of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and in respect of which the Local Government Board sanctioned a loan of £300; and what, prior to acquisition, was the total gross and net rental and the total assessment of this land to local rates, or, if this land formed a portion of a larger property, by how much the assessment of that larger property to local rates was reduced by reason of the severance of that portion?
The price paid for the three acres of land was £300. The land was part of a larger property, and the amount by which the assessment was reduced by reason of the severance was £2.
In this case can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to how much the land represents in the weekly rent of the cottages?
No, Sir; not without notice.
Invalids And Nursery Milk
44.
asked whether at present any control is exercised by the Board over the use of such descriptions as invalids' milk, nursery milk, milk from cows free from tuberculosis, and certified milk, which are usually offered for sale at prices exceeding the price of ordinary milk?
The answer is in the negative.
Is there any reason to believe that the milk sold under those names is either pure or safe?
I cannot express an opinion upon the matter. I do not think that there has been any exhaustive inquiry into the question, and I do not think any tests have been made by any official authority.
Moneylenders Bill
46.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Moneylenders Bill which was passed by the House of Lords last Session and again this Session?
This Bill is not a Government measure, and, while the Government sympathise with its objects, they do not see their way to give special facilities for it at this stage at any rate.
Minister Of Commerce
54.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of appointing a Minister of Commerce, with the object of advising as to new outlets for trade and generally to promote the interests of commerce?
This is a question which has often been considered, but my right hon. Friend sees no reason to depart from the conclusion that has been arrived at that the functions of such a Minister are adequately discharged by the President of the Board of Trade.
Importation Of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill
55.
asked the Prime Minister whether representations have been received from the Acting High Commissioner for South Africa concerning certain proposed amendments to the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill, now before a Committee of this House; and, if so, whether any action is proposed to be taken to comply with such representations of the South African Government?
Yes, Sir. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to support any amendment for deleting ostriches from the schedule to the Bill.
Diphtheria (Upper Norwood)
56.
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he will now give the information with regard to the outbreak of diphtheria in Upper Norwood, as to whether the cause of the outbreak has been traced to the milk supply; whether, on one farm supplying milk to the neighbourhood, one milker had an ulcer on his finger, which proved to be infected with diphtheria germs, and another had sores on his hands which were infected with diphtheria germs; and whether several of the men on the dairy were found to carry diphtheria germs in their throats?
The report on this subject, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member's question on 2nd March, is now in the Press, and will be published very shortly.
Smoke Abatement
57.
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he proposes to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of smoke abatement; and, if so, whether he will state the names of its members and the terms of the reference to them?
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not yet in a position to state the terms of reference and the names of the members, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.
Milk Adulteration
58.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the investigations conducted by Dr. Philp Mitchell and Mr. Stiles in regard to the causation of tuberculous cervical glands in infants and children residing in Edinburgh; whether 90 per cent. of the cases examined have been traced to cows' milk containing bovine tubercle bacilli; and whether he proposes to take any steps for the better protection of children from the infection of tuberculosis conveyed by milk?
I am aware of the investigations referred to. Similar investigations have been made on behalf of the Local Government Board which in- dicate that tuberculosis in children is often clearly connected with the consumption of tuberculous milk. I am now engaged in the preparation of legislation to deal with this and other sources of infection and with the adulteration of milk, and hope to be able to make a statement with regard to it at an early date.
Diseased Meat
59.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the medical officer of health for the Port of London reported to the corporation that certain pig carcases affected with tuberculosis were found among the meat which arrived recently from Flushing at Queen-borough, and that they all bore the official certificate of the Netherlands Government as approved by the Local Government Board; that one carcase affected similarly arrived from Ostend and bore the Belgian Government certificate, and that a consignment of Australian meat, consisting of 398 buttocks, proved to contain to the extent of 12.3 per cent. worm-nests, and that this meat bore the official certificate of the Australian Commonwealth; and will he give the names of the firms which slaughtered and dispatched this meat and the names of the firms to whom it was consigned?
My attention has been called to the report referred to. It must not be understood that the official certificates of foreign Governments in any way exempt carcases from examination on arrival in this country. I am informed that the buttocks referred to were consigned by Messrs. B. R. Richards and Sons, of Sydney, to their representative in London. I have no information as to the names of the consignors of the pigs or of any of the consignees, except in the case of two pigs out of a large number.
60.
had given notice of the following question: To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken with reference to the introduction of infectious cattle disease at Birkenhead, and with reference to the sending of men in close contact therewith to Ireland to spread the disease there, to the loss and inconvenience of the public; and, if no action has been taken, will he say why, and whether any will be taken?
In the absence of the Attorney-General I beg to postpone this question to this day week; and, if you will allow me, I wish to ask how long he intends to evade it?Railway Companies (Charges For Demurrage)
63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if railway companies, in making up their charges for demurrage of wagons, charge for Saturday as a whole day although they close their station-yard gates at one o'clock; that traders' employés are refused admission after that hour, and that, consequently, they are unable to clear the wagons although prepared to do so; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
I am aware that Saturday is counted as a day for the purpose of calculating charges for demurrage of railway companies' wagons. Whether this is a reasonable method of charging appears to be a matter which can be decided by arbitration, on the application of a trader or a railway company, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Schedules to the Railway Rates and Charges Acts of 1891 and 1892.
Fishermen (Trading Vessels)
64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as regards the proportion of aliens serving on British merchant ships, he has considered the value of the fishing industry as a recruiting ground for British seamen; and whether he will consider the desirability of amending Section 126 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with a view to removing the disability whereby fishermen are compelled to put in twelve months' service in a trading vessel before being legally qualified to sign ships' articles as able seamen?
The suggestion in the hon. Member's question has been under consideration by the Board of Trade, and it will be borne in mind when a favourable opportunity arises for an amendment of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts in regard to the qualifications for the rating of A.B.
Railway Rates
65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it costs more to send a piano from London to Bradford than from Berlin to Bradford; and, if so, if he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for St. Pancras West on the same subject on Tuesday.
Industrial Agreements (London Building Trade)
66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to take any steps to make it possible to carry out building contracts in London by appointing some tribunal with power to enforce the honest observance of agreements entered into between employers and trade unions?
The Board of Trade have no authority to appoint a tribunal with the powers suggested in the question. r understand that the establishment of a means of securing observance of agreements is one of the subjects of the negotiations which are now proceeding with regard to the present difficulties in the London building trade. I may add that, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the question of the best method of securing the due fulfilment of industrial agreements formed one of the subjects of a recent inquiry by the Industrial Council. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the report of the council.
Port Of London Dues
67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any power to prevent the Port of London Authority from granting preferential dues or allowances on vessels or goods solely by reason of the annual amount of dues or allowances payable by such person?
Section 15 of the Port of London Act provides that all dues imposed by the Port Authority shall be charged equally in respect of all vessels of the same description carrying the same description of goods under the same circumstances, or in respect of all goods of the same description under the same circumstances in the same dock. The Port Authority have informed me that no preferential rates in violation of that section are in practice. The only powers which the Board of Trade possess with regard to the matters referred to in the question are those conferred by Section 27, under which any person who thinks the Port Authority are acting in a manner unfairly oppressive to him by reason of the mode in which they carry on their dock or warehousing business can appeal to the Board of Trade.
Mine Surveyors (Examinations)
68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the successful candidates at the examinations in mine surveying, held under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in November, 1912, May, 1913, and November, 1913, at Cardiff, were working colliers or sons of working colliers; and how many were sons of colliery managers or other colliery officials?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information as to the occupations of the parents of these candidates nor as to the previous employments of the candidates themselves, beyond the fact that all of them had had, as required by the Order prescribing the qualifications of surveyors, two years' practical experience in the surveying of mines.
Telephone Service
71.
asked the Postmaster-General the terms of the agreement entered into by the Post Office with Mr. Michael Ross, Longford, for the use of his premises as a telephone exchange in that town; whether the exchange has yet been installed therein; if not, whether he proposes to continue paying Mr. Ross for premises which are not being used for the purpose agreed on; and how long he intends to continue this waste of public money?
The agreement with Mr. Michael Ross provides for the use of part of his premises as a telephone exchange at a rent of £25 a year for seven years with a break at the end of five years. The exchange has not yet been installed owing to the fact that some of the persons who promised to subscribe have withdrawn their support. I am advised that there is no ground for withholding payment of the rent from Mr. Ross.
Stafford Mail Van Employés
72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has had Within recent years any cases in which the monetary advantages for years regularly enjoyed have been withdrawn for service convenience only, and, as in the case of the stafford mail van employés, no compensation has been granted?
The answer is in the affirmative. Changes of this description must inevitably occur from time to time in connection with revisions of services.
Has any compensation been paid?
No compensation has been granted.
House Of Commons (Members' Correspondence)
73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in most other Parliaments Members have free postage; and whether he can arrange that Members whilst in the House on public business will in future be allowed free postage for all correspondence posted during their stay in the House of Commons?
As to the first part of the hon. Member's question I have no very precise information. But any Parliamentary privilege in this country of sending or receiving letters by post free of postage was abolished by a Statute of 1840, and my right hon. Friend does not contemplate the re-enactment of any such privilege.
Country Post Offices (Half-Holidays)
74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that postmistresses in small shops in country districts are obliged by the law to close their shops for a weekly half-holiday, but that no half-holiday is given by the Post Office to the postmistresses themselves unless they supply a substitute on payment; and whether, in view of the incessant nature of their work and their financial means, he can see his way to assist them financially to provide a substitute?
As far as possible Post Office business is suspended on the early closing day in country districts; and if the Noble Lord will let me have particulars of any individual case he may have in mind. I will inquire into the circumstances. But I cannot undertake to give financial assistance in any such case.
Perth Infirmary (Post Box)
75.
asked the Postmaster-General if the new infirmary at Perth is arranging for the provision of a private posting box, and if the Post Office has intimated that the annual charge therefor will be £3 3s.; and whether, in view of the fact that the infirmary treat members of the Post Office without payment, he can see his way to waive the annual charge for the collecting box?
The facts are as stated by the Noble Lord. I regret that the circumstance referred to in the latter part of the question could not be held to justify the course proposed. Infirmary treatment of Post Office servants would not be a charge upon public funds, even if it were not gratuitous. It would have to be paid for by the men themselves.
Royal Navy
Manning Of Fleets
81.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all the ships of the First Fleet have on board at the present time the correct numbers of petty officers, able seamen, ordinary seamen, boys, and Marines, as laid down in the official scheme of complements for those ships?
These ships carry their authorised complements. To meet the rapid expansion of the Fleet, temporary modifications were made about a year ago, slightly increasing the proportion of boys, and, in two classes of ships, increasing the percentage of Royal Marines.
82.
asked whether the officers and men who will man the ships of the Third Fleet during the forthcoming test mobilisation will be those who would man those ships in time of war?
As regards officers in the Royal Navy, whether on the active or retired list, the answer is in the affirmative. As regards officers of the Royal Naval Reserve and men belonging to the Reserves, it is not possible to guarantee that those who volunteer for the forthcoming test mobilisation will be allocated to the same ships in war.
Portsmouth Dockyard
83.
asked when the drying room for clothing, promised to the em- ployés in the rigging house, Portsmouth Dockyard, is to be given; and when compensation is to be given these men for losses sustained in the fire?
It is anticipated that the temporary drying room, now in course of construction will be completed about the middle of next month. With regard to the second part of the question, the claims have been considered, and payment of compensation will be made immediately.
Safety Apparatus In Mines
84.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a double fatality in the Glyn Tillery colliery, on the 18th March, caused by blown-out shot, and to another disaster owing to a similar reason since then; and whether, in view of the frequent fatalities and the risk which men occupied in this class of work run, he will consider the advisability of making compulsory the use of a safety shot-firing apparatus?
As the question only appeared on the Paper yesterday morning, I have not been able to obtain full particulars of the accident at Glyn Tillery, but I understand that neither in this case nor in the other did the accident result from a blown-out shot. Even if, however, the accidents were due to blown-out shots, I fail to see how they could have been avoided by the use of any safety shot-firing appliance. If, however, the hon. Member will communicate his views to me more fully, I shall be happy to give them my careful consideration.
Conviction Of William Lee (Hereford)
85.
asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to order the release of William Lee, who was charged at Hereford County Police Court on 14th March with stealing some turnip greens, the owner of which would not swear that he had not given the man permission to take some; and whether, notwithstanding the appeal of the owner to let the man off with a caution, Lee was sentenced to one month's hard labour?
I have made inquiry, and in view of the facts of the case and the antecedents of the prisoner I regret that I can find no sufficient ground for advising any reduction of the sentence.
Educational Prosecutions (Andover)
86.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the failure of certain educational prosecutions before the Andover borough bench on several occasions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
I do not clearly understand what action the hon. Member wishes me to take. The lady referred to in the article which he has been good enough to send me is the lady on whose authority he asked me recently to intervene in an industrial school case. I will, however, make inquiry.
Flogging Sentences
87.
asked how many sentences of flogging, whether with the cat or the birch, were passed at the London Sessions by the deputy-chairman, Mr. Allan J. Lawrie, during the years 1912 and 1913; how many of these sentences were passed under the Vagrancy Act; and how these figures compare with the number of whippings ordered at the London Sessions under that Act during the two previous years, 1910 and 1911?
There were nineteen sentences of corporal punishment passed by Mr. Lawrie at the London Sessions in 1912; all of these were under the Vagrancy Acts. There were twelve in 1913, one of which was under the Vagrancy Acts and the remainder were under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912. No sentences of corporal punishment were passed at the London Sessions in 1910 or 1911.
88.
asked what degree of support has been received from Courts of Quarter Sessions to a resolution passed in the Autumn of 1912 by the Lindsey magistrates in favour of legalising the use of the lash in cases of indecent assaults upon young children; whether the criminal statistics for 1912, being the latest published, show that the crime referred to has gradually declined during the past twenty years, and that the average during the last five years is the lowest recorded; and whether, in view of these facts, the Government will discountenance the attempt to extend the punishment of flogging?
Since I received the resolution from the Court of Quarter Sessions for the Parts of Lindsey in the Autumn of 1912, eight resolutions in a similar sense have been received from other Courts of Quarter Sessions. The statistics relating to offences of the kind in question are difficult to interpret owing to the change in the law effected by the Children Act, 1908, by which an indecent assault on a person under sixteen is punishable summarily, and also to the fact that an indecent assault on a young child is not in law a different offence from any other indecent assault; but I am afraid the figures available do not show any real diminution in the number of offences.
Truck Bill
89.
asked the approximate date of the introduction of the proposed Truck Bill?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham on Monday last. I hope to introduce it soon after Easter.
Agricultural Labourers' Cottages
95.
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board is still advised that satisfactory cottages with three bed - rooms for labourers can be erected at the cost of £300 the pair in the North of England, such cost including cost of drainage, water supply, fencing, cartage, and levelling; whether his Department have had occasion to build any such cottages on Crown lands or elsewhere in the North of England, and, if so, at what cost?
I appointed a Committee last autumn to advise the Board and the Commissioners of Woods on matters relating to the cost and planning of cottages for agricultural labourers. Much useful information has already been collected, including particulars of satisfactory cottages built recently at a cost of £117 each, exclusive of drainage and other incidental expenses. The total cost must, of course, vary to some extent according to the locality and other circumstances. I understand that the question of issuing an interim Report with plans is now under consideration. The Commissioners of Woods have not hitherto built any cottages in the North of England for £300 the pair.
Worn-Out Horses
97.
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture the number of horses whose exportation from British ports has been refused by the local authorities or the Board on grounds of cruelty or physical incapacity during each of the three years before the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, came into operation on the 1st October, 1910, and during each of the three completed years since that date?
I am advised that neither the Board nor local authorities had power to prevent the exportation of horses on grounds of cruelty or physical incapacity prior to June, 1910, when the Exportation of Horses Order of the Board came into operation. The number of horses rejected in each of the three completed years since the 1st October, 1910, is 1,016, 1,096, and 1,244, respectively.
98.
asked how many veterinary inspectors have been appointed by the Board, under Section 1 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, to examine horses and certify their capacity for conveyance without cruelty prior to their shipment to foreign countries; whether they are permanently employed, and at what salary; at what ports they are employed; and whether the employment of any of them has been discontinued by the Board in consequence of lack of efficiency in carrying out their duties?
Veterinary inspectors have been appointed for the examination of horses under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, at the following ports, namely, Dover, Folkestone, Goole, Grangemouth, Granton, Grimsby, Harwich, Hull, King's Lynn, Leith, Liverpool, London, New-castle-on-Tyne, Newhaven, Plymouth, Southampton, and South Shields. Three of the inspectors are established officers of the Board, receiving respectively £500, £495, and £483 per annum; two of them are not employed solely on this work, but only as and when required. Twelve are non-established local veterinary inspectors, of whom one receives £250 per annum, two £200, three £150, one £100 per annum, and five 10s. 6d. for each attendance, with a fee of 6d. for each horse examined. Fifteen other veterinary surgeons have been appointed to act as substitutes when required. In addition to the officers already mentioned, an established veterinary inspector of the Board, receiving a salary of £500 per annum, is specially charged with the general supervision of the exportation of horses to the Continent. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Welton Christ's Hospital
90.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been called to the neglect by the governors of Lincoln Christ's Hospital to give effect to the recommendations made by the Board of Education in 1913 as to the appropriation of the Welton Christ's Hospital endowment between Lincoln, Welton and Potter Hanworth; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the rural parishes of Welton and Potter Hanworth obtain their fair share of the proceeds of the endowment?
The Board of Education have not made any such recommendations as are referred to by the right hon. Baronet. The Board, however, intimated that they would be prepared, with the concurrence of all parties, to undertake a specified amendment of the existing schemes for the appropriation of the endowment. It was made clear that this concurrence was a condition precedent, and, as it has not been obtained, no further action is contemplated. I am unable to accept the view that the parishes of Welton and Potter Hanworth do not obtain their fair share of the endowment.
Acting Teachers' Examination
92.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many candidates sat at the acting teachers' examination in each of the last two years; and how many of the candidates were successful in passing the examination in each year?
In the certificate examination of 1912, 4,073 candidates entered, and 1,014 of these passed. In the examination of 1913, 2,763 candidates entered, and 819 of these passed.
Island Of Lewis (Uig Cottars)
I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether his attention has been drawn to the public indignation which exists in Scotland owing to the continued imprisonment of eleven Lewis cottars in the Calton gaol; whether he is aware that a public subscription has become necessary to maintain their eighty dependants and to keep them from starving; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to their immediate release and the acquisition of land for them?
The question of my hon. and learned Friend raises an important point of principle. In a case like this, where the sentence is imposed by the Court of Session for refusal to obey an order of the Court, I have been able to find no precedent for interference by the Executive with the exercise of the sole power possessed by the Court to enforce its orders. There would be obvious and serious objections to such interference, as my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, will, I think, recognise, and I have the gravest doubt whether I have any right to interfere. I much regret that the cottars have not yet agreed to give the undertaking required by the Court. I have, of course, no right to speak on behalf of the Court, but I venture to think, judging from their previous action, that if the men will give the undertaking they will be leniently treated. I may be allowed to add that I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that the men are wearing the dress of untried prisoners, not by compulsion, but by their own choice. They may wear their own clothes whenever they wish.
rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
I would, point out to bon. Members that the particular necessity of restricting supplementary questions has now passed. If the hon. Member wishes to ask a supplementary question to elucidate the reply, he is entitled to do so.
On a point of Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Macpherson."]
The right hon. Gentleman has risen on a point of Order.
I understand, Sir, that before I came into the House you had given a ruling in connection with supplementary questions. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we could understand exactly what it is.
The position was this: At one point of our proceedings there Were six or eight hon. Gentlemen who rose to ask supplementary questions. We had 139 questions upon the Paper. We had then reached twenty-five minutes past three, and it was obvious that if the supplementary questions which were going to be asked were very many in number we should make very little progress with the questions upon the Paper. I suggested that for once we might revert to the old rule. That does not mean that in future, from this day onwards, supplementary questions cannot be asked. I made the suggestion solely in consequence of the circumstances in which we found ourselves.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply to my question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question again on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
Are we to take it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, after having heard that the Scottish Members wish to discuss the question of eleven crofters being brought out of gaol at eleven o'clock, they are going to discuss, as a Government, whether two officers have gone out or not?
That is not a matter for me to decide. I simply said the Prime Minister would make a statement on the subject.
Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister, who is also a Scottish Member, that we desire, and have given notice, to discuss this question at eleven o'clock, and it is infinitely more important to Scotsmen to get eleven crofters out of gaol than to keep two officers at the War Office?
Business Of The House
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the business will be for next week?
On Monday, the first order will be the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Thereafter we hope to take the East. African Protectorates (Loans) Bill and the Mall Approach Improvement Bill, and, if time permits, some other small Orders on the Paper.
On Tuesday, we shall resume the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, which will be continued on Wednesday and Thursday.
Prime Minister
May I ask, for my own personal satisfaction, and for the satisfaction of the House, whether the absence of the Prime Minister means that he is ill or that he is engaged elsewhere?
He has gone to Buckingham Palace to see the King.
Bills Presented:
Agricultural Produce Marks Bill
"To provide for the marking of all imported meat and agricultural produce and for the registration of dealers in such meat." Presented by Mr. BARNSTON; supported by Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir Thomas Courtenay Warner, Sir Luke White, Mr. Brace, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Stanier, and Mr. Fiennes; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 15th April, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
Prevention Of Destitution Bill
"To provide for the more effectual prevention of Destitution and the better organisation of public assistance." Presented by Mr. CLYNES; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Thomas; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Bill
"To amend the Law in respect of warning instruments on motor vehicles." Presented by Captain MURRAY; supported by Mr. Arthur Stanley, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, and Sir Henry Norman; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]
Orders Of The Day
Supply
Civil Services And Revenue Departments Estimates, 1914–15
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
National Insurance Act (Administration)
I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words "in the opinion of this House, the working of the National Insurance Act shows that, while the cost to the State increases, the benefits held out to insured persons are, in many instances, not forthcoming, and there is reason to believe, in the near future, that the situation will become more acute and a still larger number of insured persons will suffer."
I propose to divide my remarks into two parts, cause and effect. The first indictment I propose to prefer against the Government is that every working man and working woman is forced to contribute to the cost of an undertaking, the advantages of which, whatever they may be, were never properly explained to the persons who have to pay. No Bill touched so many interests or interfered so much with the liberty of the individual as did the National Insurance Bill when it was before this House, while I think, for inquisitorial methods, nothing like it was ever submitted to this Assembly. Given sufficient time, the Bill might have been framed into a system of national insurance which would have been a real boon to the nation, but by rushing it through as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, at the instigation of the Government, instead of a measure, to use his own picturesque language, of justice and mercy, we had thrust upon the country an act of tyranny and oppression. This, in my opinion, is the main cause of the present unfortunate position. Important Amendments, representing the interests of every class of the community, were never discussed at all, and thirty-three Clauses, together with five Schedules, which dealt with contributions, which were to be paid by insured persons, were driven through the Committee without debate of any kind at all. By the time we came to the Report stage, the Bill, which in its original form occupied seventy-eight foolscap sheets of paper, had extended to 124 pages. Naturally, one expected, as one had a right to expect, that some time would have been given to the consideration of the extra pages. Notwithstanding that 700 Amendments appeared on the Paper, of which 470 were Government Amendments, hardly one of them was discussed at all, and 93 Clauses were never even debated, and when we came to the Third Reading, that was a mere matter of form. 4.0 P.M. I now come to what I describe as a trick on the part of the Government. I trust that expression will not be thought unparliamentary. Notwithstanding all that the Prime Minister had talked about the Second Chamber being a Chamber to revise hasty legislation—and surely if ever a Bill was hastily passed through this Parliament the National Insurance Bill was—and in spite of the further statement that after the Parliament Bill had been passed, there would be left with the House of Lords duties and responsibilities neither small nor unimportant, the Government sent up the National Insurance Bill together with three other important Bills with the demand that they should all be passed through the House of Lords within ten days. This is what they call democratic government How was it possible to pass through the House of Lords and adequately discuss the Bill in the time which was allotted to it? Why even Lord Beauchamp who represented the Government, and who ought to have explained the Bill on behalf of the Government, said he did not know how to do so, as he was not sure whether he understood the Bill himself, and he was quite certain that not half a dozen others understood it at all. Why was there this hurry? It was not on our part. We desired to have the Bill recommitted to next Session. We desired to see some of the regulations that were about to be drawn up, and some of the plans which were about to be submitted to the country for the working of the Act. Up to that time nothing was known as to how the Act was going to be worked. All that we were told was that it was going to be worked by a system of regulations. What was the result of our suggestion? That suggestion was not even considered. Why not? Not because the Government themselves had not the opportunity, if they choose, to recommit the Bill to next Session, but because they were not in a position to do so. This is what I want the country to understand, and after what I say to-day, I think they will understand. The reason was simply this—the desire of the Government to keep the pledge which they had made to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). A Member of the Cabinet has confessed that they were under an obligation to the Irish Nationalist party, and this was one of the ways in which they wished to repay the debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted upon passing the Act through the House of Commons, and he used the whole force of the party machinery for that purpose. In doing this he knew, as indeed all Members of this House knew, that the whole scheme depended for its efficient working upon the co-operation of the medical profession, and yet even when the Bill passed, he could not say that he was in a position to secure that co-operation. In fact, he made 13,000,000 working men and working women begin to pay 3d. and 4d. a week in direct taxation on the promise that he would give certain medical benefits which were to begin six months later. He laid a similar burden on the industries of the country on the basis of the same promise. What did we find? Within a fortnight or three weeks before the promised benefits were to begin, the right hon. Gentleman had failed altogether to secure the co-operation of the doctors, and without that co-operation his scheme of insurance could not be worked. Further than that, in order to secure that co-operation, he had to come down to the House of Commons and demand an extra sum of £2,000,000 which has to be paid by the British taxpayers. Until that £2,000,000 was voted the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no possibility whatever of working the Act which he himself had brought into force. This was not the only additional cost to the tax-payers. Writing to a correspondent, the Secretary of the Literature Department of the Insurance Committee said:—That is the great National Insurance Act which was to bring health and happiness into the homes of the poor, and fill the cupboards of working men with "rare and refreshing fruit." What does it do? It taxes food, clothes, coal, and house rent, and this in spite of the assurances which have been given to this House from time to time, not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Prime Minister, that taxation should be placed upon the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it. But notwithstanding the extra taxation to pay for medical benefit, the choice of doctors is limited. Hon. Members will remember that one of the inducements held out to the people of this country to become insured persons was that they should have the doctor of their choice. On 14th October, 1911, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Whitefield's Tabernacle said:—"I am sorry to gather from your letter that you think the Insurance Act will be a burden to you as a small employer. Generally, I suppose, employers will be able to pass on their share of expenses to their customers in the way of increased prices, and I sincerely hope that your case will not prove an exception to the rule."
Can an insured person get the doctor of his choice? I submit that he cannot, and I say also that somebody else has not to pay for the doctor you get. I shall be told by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an insured person can have the doctor of his choice. That may be possible after he has gone through a great many preliminaries, presented a number of papers, if his story is believed, and if he happens to be alive when that process has been concluded; but that is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us at the Tabernacle—and, after all, that is a place where one expected, at least, the truth—No!—the broad fact is that under the Act an insured person does not get the doctor of his choice, and, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not true to say that somebody else is paying for him. I am informed upon reliable authority, and I do not think it will be disputed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a considerable number of persons who pay for these benefits get nothing whatever in return. I believe their names may be placed upon the lists of some panel doctors, but I am told that they have never made any application to be placed on the list. I believe this number is something like 1,000,000. That represents a considerable amount of money. It represents something like £500,000. Where is that money? I believe it is in the hands of the insurance committees, and that in some cases it has been claimed by the doctors. I do not object myself to the doctors getting it, although I do not quite see what claim they have to it, seeing that they have done nothing for it. At any rate, it should not lie idle. There are many matters to which it could be applied very well. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tell the House what he proposes to do with this very large sum of money which stands in the name of the insurance committees."Under this Bill any insured person can have the doctor of his choice. That is the doctor for you, and under the Insurance Act you can get him. What a fine thing it is to get a doctor you want, and get somebody else to pay for it."
made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not interrupt me with a fire of conundrums, none of which I can understand, and some of which, he does not understand himself. Another matter to which I wish to refer is the number of patients on the panel doctors' lists. I understand that in some cases these extend to thousands, and I do not think that any doctor, however hard he works, can attend to so many patients. Some of the doctors cannot give sufficient attendance to their patients, and that, I believe, is because of the number they have to see. The doctor finds it necessary sometimes to send some of his patients to hospitals, but unfortunately there is no provision, so far as I am aware, for payment to the hospitals for receiving these patients. I admit that the hospitals are very generous in the matter, and that we seldom hear of a patient not being received in a case of necessity. I think power should be taken by a clause in an amending Bill to provide for some payment to hospitals for looking after insured patients.
Another matter in connection with doctors to which I wish to call attention is that under a Section of the Act itself it is provided that a man shall only have disablement benefit of 10s. a week if he is incapable of work. I have had a great deal of experience in this matter of incapacity for work. In the dockyards, we know, that when a man meets with an accident he has to go before a doctor, who has to certify whether he is absolutely disabled, or only disabled to such an extent that he can do something to earn his own living. What do we find? We find that in the majority of cases a man is never certified as being incapable of work, and the result is that he goes about the seaport town hardly able to crawl, with little money to himself, and, if he is married, with no money to support his wife or family. The matter is an absolute disgrace and scandal to the country. I see under this Section the possibility of something of the same kind happening with regard to people under the Insurance Act. We find some doctors saying, "This man is not exactly incapable of work; he can do a little," and the result is that disablement benefit is graded down until only a small sum is paid to the man who is certified as not exactly incapable of work, but who can do some light work. I see the possibilty of disablement benefit being brought down until the man gets hardly anything at all. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this Act was designed to make the poorer classes strong and healthy. If that was the case, surely an effort should have been made to give benefits to all alike, but, instead of that, we find the very poor left out altogether; while in cases where they are not left out, they are forced to pay the same contributions as others, although by the very nature of their employments the benefits they receive are illusory or confined to the amount which they pay in as Post Office contributors. Were we not given to understand when the Bill passed through the House that all contributors would be insured? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Are the Post Office contributors insured? As to the moneys paid in on their behalf, these people might as well pay into the Savings Bank, because they only get out the amount of money they pay in. Then there are the claims of the casual labourer and the outworker. Up to the present these have passed absolutely unnoticed, if we except a Clause in the amending Act which perhaps touches one or other of these classes indirectly. With regard to the Post Office contributors, the Chancellor takes refuge in what I might almost term a boast. He boasts that the number of Post Office contributors is less than he expected, and so he puts back their case until he can make other arrangements. He was asked the other day as to when those arrangements were going to be made, but we could get no satisfactory answer from him. He refused to give us any date, and told us that the matter was still under consideration. Surely we ought to know when these other arrangements are going to be carried out. Nor does the Chancellor tell the public that the condition of the Post Office contributor, if it is to be altered, can only be altered by further taxation. Further taxation means further levies on wages, and further burdens on trade. That is the remedy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes—to rob more hen-roosts, those hen-roosts being the wages of the working classes. Students of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches who go back some time will not fail to observe his great anxiety to help orphans and widows. I hardly remember a speech up to the time that the Bill became an Act in which we did not hear of his great anxiety for these orphans and widows, and what the Act was going to do for them. I must omit any reference to orphans. That is a matter into which I cannot go now. With regard to widows, I cannot see that the Act does anything at all for them. The Chancellor said that it would, and the First Lord also said so. I remember the First Lord telling us that while the Estimates are exceptional, that is no reason why we should delay the system of national insurance, which would make the provisions so urgently required for the widow and the orphan. Yet you find them left out in the cold. The promises of what the National Insurance Act would do for the widow and the orphan have not been fulfilled, nor was it ever intended that they should be fulfilled.On a point of Order. I wish to know whether we are entitled to criticise the National Insurance Act for what it did not contain? I submit that the hon. Member is now complaining that the Act was not comprehensive enough in its scope when it was actually passed, and that his Resolution deals with the administration of the existing Act, and therefore he cannot bring in any complaint that it does not include benefits which do not come within its scope.
The Resolution states that the working of the National Insurance Act shows that the benefits held out to insured persons are in many instances not forthcoming, and that the situation will become more acute, and that a still larger number of insured persons will suffer. That seems to refer to benefits which are not now being given under the Act. If the hon. Member says that the Act ought to have given more benefits and further benefits, he is going beyond the words of his Motion.
I am endeavouring to show the House that the Act does not give the benefits which were promised by the Chancellor, and I can hardly do that without pointing out the benefits which were promised and not given.
I do not object to the hon. Member complaining that it does not give benefits which were under discussion. The hon. Member, as I understand, is going beyond the present Parliament and referring to the public advocacy of the Chancellor, and saying that the present Bill does not agree with some speeches which were made by the right hon. Gentleman before this Parliament sat. His criticism must be confined to the benefits given by the Act.
The words of the Resolution arc "benefits held out to insured persons." One has only got to refer to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Act was passed.
The words should be taken in their ordinary meaning, namely, "held out by the Act." I suppose that if the hon. Gentleman meant "held out by somebody else," he would have put in "by the Chancellor of the Exchequer" or somebody else.
The benefits as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speeches, when he was explaining the actual benefits, have not been carried into effect, and I think it quite fair to infer that this Resolution does mean the benefits as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not think that that is quite correct, because the proper course then would be for the hon. Member to bring in a Bill to amend the present Act in order to confer those benefits which were so held out. I think the words "held out" must mean "held out by the Act."
Could the hon. Member bring in a Bill giving fresh benefits under a State contribution?
Yes—if he provided the funds out of his own pocket.
Look at the poverty of some of these insured persons who are supposed to be deriving benefits under the Act. Taking the Board of Trade Returns for 1913, I find that there are 1,175,000 persons in the textile trade earning 17s. 6d. per week; 1,500,000 persons in the clothing trade earning 15s. a week; 1,250,000 persons in the building trade earning 27s. 6d. a week. Suppose we knock off the odd numbers as representing young persons, we have at least 3,000,000 persons who are supposed to be insured under the Act who are earning only £1 a week. We have the authority of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty for saying that £1 a week is not a wage which the Admiralty desire to pay their labourers, and is not an amount on which any man can live and bring up his family in a respectable manner. Yet we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer passing an Act imposing upon these people a reduction in their wages of fourpence and threepence a week; that in itself is a burden which ought never to have been inflicted. It would not have been done had it not been for the way in which this Act was thrust upon the Statute Book. As the hon. Member for Colchester knows very well—
Do the figures quoted in reference to the textile trade refer to adults or young persons?
I have already said that I have applied the odd numbers to young persons. I think that that is about fair. If the hon. Member thinks not, he can tell me what I should have done; but I do not think that it matters for the sake of the argument. All I want to say is it was possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have taken advantage of the opportunity given by the hon. Member for Colchester, who did propose that the whole matter should not rest on a flat rate. And I would remind the House not only are these poor persons mulcted in fourpence and threepence a week, but there is the rural labourer. I need not remind the House of the picturesque description of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in one of his speeches told us that the rural labourer only received 12s. a week, and he added this meant a gradual but sure progress towards the pauper's grave. Why should he put another nail into these poor men's coffins by adding fourpence a week to be paid out of their wages for benefits they do not want and may not get?
Does a man with 12s. a week pay fourpence?
I am only quoting the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, in order to meet the point raised by the hon. Member, I should have added the additions which are always given to rural labourers. That would bring them within the scope of the Act. I pass on now to the question of sanatoria. In the celebrated speech of the Chancellor at Whitefield's Tabernacle, he said:—
Nor did the Chancellor forget to mention the payment of ten shillings to the family of the, patient undergoing the cure. Over and over again I have asked the Chancellor, and the Gentlemen who represent him from time to time, how many foundation stones of these buildings have been laid by him or on behalf of the Government, and I cannot find up to the present that there has been any foundation stone laid for a sanatorium. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes refuge in the statement that he never meant that the Government were going to provide sanatoria, that what he meant was they were going to assist local authorities to found sanatoria. That may be perfectly correct from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's standpoint. I am not here to say that he did not mean that, but he did not say that; he certainly did not give the audience at the Tabernacle, nor hon. Members of this House, to understand that it was the intention of the Government not to build sanatoria, but to divide the expense with the local authority. What do we find with regard to the number of people who are treated for consumption? We find that only one-fifth of the consumptives in this country are under the National Insurance Act, but even then they cannot be treated, because there are not sufficient sanatoria for them to be treated in. We find that the benefits are confined to insured persons, and those insured persons are only entitled to such benefits as the insurance committees recommend. That is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer led us or the country to believe. Moreover, what is the treatment that they may receive? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said distinctly that they would go to sanatoria, to first- class hotels, where they would receive the best of doctoring, etc. The insurance committee say nothing of the kind. They determine what shall be done with tuberculous persons. They may or may not be sent to sanatoria, but may be treated at home, and the patient may get a couple of bottles of cod-liver oil, or the Committee may consider that a sun-chair in the back garden is sufficient."A man goes to the doctor. He is examined. The doctor discovers at once that he is attacked by tuberculosis, awl he says to him, 'You must knock off work at once; you must go to a santorium.". The workman says to him, 'You are mocking me; how could I go to a sanatorium? I cannot pay.' To go to a great building in the country where he gets the best nursing, the best doctoring, the best food for his case, open air, and lives practically in a sort of consumptive first-class hotel. The doctor will then say, 'Haven't yon heard why the Government are finding one and a half millions, by the Insurance Bill, to build sanatoria throughout the country?'"
And the doctor.
Of course, the doctor. These were not the inducements held out to the country when the Bill was going through the House, nor are the promised sanatoria benefits carried out by the rules and regulations which have been formulated for working the Act. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where is the one and a-half millions? What has become of it? We hear nothing about it. We hear from time to time, or we see letters in the newspaper, about some county or another making application to the Local Government Board, or to the Insurance Department, about some Grant to assist them in building sanatoria, but we do not see any money spent. I think I am right in saying that only about £87,000 of the one and a-half millions has been spent. I submit that that is altogether wrong, and if the money is not spent, what has become of it, what is it being applied to? The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Tabernacle said that one and a-half millions would be spent on sanatoria for the treatment of tuberculous people. He has that money. He has not spent it. Where is it? What is he doing with it? Then there is the important question of minimum benefits. We were told over and over again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every insured person was to get minimum benefits. There are no minimum benefits, and there cannot be any, because there is no State guarantee. But that is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer led insured persons to expect. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman himself in the book to which his name was attached that:—
That is the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The conclusion drawn from it, and the natural conclusion, by insured persons and by the country—at any rate, by nine people out of ten—was that when a society became an approved society, the financial soundness of that society would be guaranteed by the State, and also that the minimum benefits would always be paid. Further than that, if from any cause those benefits were not forthcoming, then the State must be regarded as defrauding the citizens. We know now there is no State guarantee, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us so. The contributors have no security behind them, and approved societies are not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented them to be. Neither is provision made for their valuation, except, of course, at stated intervals, and accordingly there are no minimum benefits, and there is no guarantee of solvency. That position was not represented to the country, it was not represented to the insured persons. And, more than that, we are within a measurable distance of the State being placed in the unfortunate position of defrauding its own citizens. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very angry with some critics of the Act who spoke of it as a fraud; but as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) said, what would have happened if these statements had appeared in a company's prospectus, and, a year or two afterwards, when the company was working and got into difficulties, the chairman of the board of directors said that what he had put in the prospectus was altogether a mistake, and that, in fact, it was untrue. I am very much afraid he would find himself involved in an action for fraud. I submit this Act to be an absolute fraud, and that view is endorsed by no less a person than Sir James Barr, at one time chairman of the Medical Association, who publicly stated, and perfectly correctly, that it was the most gigantic fraud ever perpetrated on the public since the South Sea Bubble. The approved societies, fearful lest they should lose their customers, suspended medical examination, and in this they were aided and abetted by His Majesty's Government, who were only too glad to take advantage of the opportunity to lessen the number of Post Office contributors. As a logical result, what followed? Of course, the natural sickness rate went up higher than ever it did in the time of the old friendly societies. More than that, hundreds of members who, under the old conditions, would never have come upon the books of the society at all, now began to put in claims, and that is one of the unfortunate results of compulsion. Now that a man or woman is compelled to pay 4d. or 3d., and have that sum deducted from his or her wages, and now it is known that the first three days of illness are cut off, he or she is determined to come upon the books of the society, and the members of the societies are doing so in increasing numbers. They say, and very properly, "We have paid our 4d., the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised us 9d., and why should we not get it?" Who can blame them? Hon. Members would have done the same thing. You can find no fault with them for that. In his address to the Manchester Unity, at Scarborough, the Grand Master said:—"My first principle is, that every friendly society must be passed as sound before it can be guaranteed by the State. That is essential, otherwise the State might be in a position of defrauding its citizens. In place of the insecurity of the present societies, in place of the number of lapsed insurances, the workmen will have behind them always security. The societies through which we shall work will be guaranteed by us. We shall have a valuation of the societies, and we shall not work through any society which is not solvent and sure."
The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned the other day that we have no complete returns available, and that probably some years would elapse before actuarily certified figures are forthcoming, but the fact remains that the sickness pay has largely exceeded the sum available for distribution. In the near future they will have to call a halt, and then the bubble will burst. Those discrepancies are especially noticeable in women's societies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted this the other day. I do not want to detain the House with the figures, but I would like to call attention to the fact, which cannot be emphasised too often, that Mr. Cross, of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association, with its 65,000 women members, says that they have overspent the actuaries' estimate in the first half-year by over £10,000, and in the second half-year by much about the same sum. Mr. Ormerod, of the National Amalgamated Approved Society, a very large society, tells us that the financial position is becoming weaker day after day. The secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions states that the sickness amongst women at Cradley was about three times the estimate. I submit that that is a very serious position. The president of the National Conference of Friendly Societies tells us that some societies show from 10 per cent. to 70 per cent. increase in sickness claims, and that, unless drastic steps are taken, this spells absolute financial ruin to the friendly society movement. That is a still more serious position. Again, the Associated Foresters' Court last year, at their meeting, unanimously voted that—"There had been a growing tendency to discourage individual effort, to lower personal obligations, and create a sense of dependence on the community, not only among the very poor, but also among the fairly well-to-do persons in regular employment, who would have shuddered at the idea of old-time pauperism."
Just look for a moment at what this means to the contributors. I am told, and I believe I am correct in saying, that in a society of men an excess of 50 per cent. sweeps up all the margin and all the money provided for the disabled, and that an excess of 80 per cent. means that the society has not only to reduce its rate of sickness pay, but to subject its members to a continuous levy great enough to cover all the cost of all its other benefits. Has the Government intervened in any of these societies? Do they propose to hold an inquiry as regards the solvency of these societies? Not at all. They say, "We have not the time; we must put it off to some other time; some more convenient time, perhaps a time after the General Election." That may be to them a very convenient time. We have been told by the First Lord of the Admiralty that "this Act is now settling down into its stride." Judging from the statements made by Liberal candidates at by-elections, one can hardly say that the Act has settled down into its stride. So far as I can gather, and I have attended a great number of by-elections, the Liberal candidates have been endeavouring to make excuses for the administration of the Act. They have been tumbling over one another in their desire to cry out that there would soon be an amending Bill before the country, and, if that amending Bill was not sufficient, other amending Bills would be brought in until at last we had a perfect Act. I submit that that is not the kind of legislation that this country has been used to, and, if that is the kind of legislation we are to expect from the present Government, it is no wonder that the Acts which they have placed on the Statute Book, espcially the National Insurance Act, cannot be properly administered. There is one very warm supporter of this Act—the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. I wish he were in his place, because what I am going to say would appeal to him. He tells us that it is quite a mistake to suppose that the National Insurance Act is a new thing. "Oh, no," he says, "there is nothing new under the sun." He may be right there. He goes on to say:—"Unless the Act is promptly and drastically amended, the financial existence of the friendly society, and, indeed. their future existence, would be seriously imperilled."
That is quite correct, but the Financial Secretary did not mention what I will tell the House, that in the case of this money compulsorily taken from these seamen for the purposes named, the State itself during the last century has taken away the greater part of that money, and the greater part of that money has not been applied for maimed and injured sailors. It strikes me that is very much the same sort of thing that we may expect from the administration of the National Insurance Act. What we want and what we ask for is that there should be an inquiry not by partisans, not by political people, but by experts, and that those experts should inquire into the working and into the administration of this Act, and to see possibly not only what are the defects, but also whether there is any way by which those defects can be remedied. That is what we should like to see, and I have no doubt, if that inquiry was properly and efficiently carried out, we should find that it would not be altogether impossible to substitute for the compulsory insurance principle a voluntary principle. I beg to move."It might be said that the Navy anticipated the Insurance Act by over 400 years. After the defeat of the Armada in 1588. there was established the Chatham Chest into which every sailor was compelled to pay 6d. per month from his wages to provide pensions for maimed and wounded seamen."
I beg to second the Amendment.
I regret the absence on this occasion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is unable nowadays to grace us with his presence here. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is attending at the present moment to high matters of State at a time of great national crisis, and, under those circumstances, it would not be fitting for me to criticise his absence. I do not pretend to possess the robust eloquence of my hon. Friend who has moved the Motion, nor if I did possess such eloquence would it be quite fitting for me, under the peculiar circumstances in which I find myself, to indulge in it to any considerable extent. Not through any choice of mine, I was two years ago appointed chairman of one of the large associations of approved societies, representing something like five to six millions of insured persons, and I only venture this afternoon to participate in this Debate because I should like, I hope in a nonpartisan spirit, to bring to the attention of the House some of those grievances which are not always voiced in this House, but to which expression is given at the various conferences of those large organisations which from time to time take place. It must be admitted that benefits, very considerable benefits, must result from the application of a sum of money amounting to about £20,000,000 per year. The question is not whether benefits result from the National Insurance Act, but surely it is rather as to whether this large sum of money is being economically expended, and equitably distributed, and is actually producing the benefits for which the Act purported to provide. I should like to refer, quite shortly, to certain respects in which both medical benefit and sickness benefit do not, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those with whom I work in insurance matters, come up to the expectations formed at the time of the passing of the National Insurance Act. As regards medical benefit, the complaint is threefold. There is, first, the inadequacy of medical treatment, owing to the Regulations of the Commissioners; Secondly, the inadequacy of treatment owing to the lack of proper organisation of the medical service; and, thirdly, the total failure in certain cases to obtain medical benefit owing to the complexity of administration. It was mentioned last Thursday night, and I may, perhaps, remind the House again, that medical benefit is defined in the National Insurance Act of 1911 to be medical treatment and attendance, and there is no qualification anywhere in the Act of that definition, nor is there any power vested in the Commissioners or anyone else to alter or restrict the scope of that benefit. By Section 8 of the Act, there are limitations placed upon the surgical and medical appliances to be provided under the Act, and, possibly also, upon the provision of dental treatment, because it is included in one of the Schedules as being a sort of benefit that is to be included as an additional benefit., assuming that hereafter the surpluses of the approved societies permit; but so far as medical attendance and treatment are concerned, not only is it not limited by the Act, but it is expressly stated in Section 15 that every insured person shall receive adequate medical attendance and treatment. It is quite clear and obvious that the insured person is legally entitled to adequate medical attendance and treatment, and to all the assistance that medical science can provide. This, indeed, has been repeatedly amplified and emphasised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in expounding the Act. Quite recently a Regulation of the Commissioners has been issued to the effect, that medical benefit shall include only such treatment as is of a kind which can, consistently with the best interests of the Patient, be properly undertaken by a general practitioner of ordinary professional competence and skill. I venture to suggest that that regulation is quite ultra vires the National Insurance Act, and goes quite beyond the powers which the National Insurance Commissioners are entitled to exercise under that Act. Their powers to make Regulations are strictly stereotyped. and defined by the Act itself. They are confined to headings under which they are given specific powers, and this is not one of them, or to matters necessary to bring the Act into operation. The effect of this, as I suggest illegal, Regulation of the Commissioners is that only the simplest form of medical benefit can be provided by the panel doctors, and anything beyond those simple forms of treatment are treated as extras, which either have to be paid for by the patient or obtained through charitable institutions. I may instance the case which was repeatedly referred to when the recent amending Act was passing through Committee, the case of simple affections of the throat or nose or ear or eyes. Many of them involve quite simple treatment, or quite simple surgical operations, but in most cases, in fact in all cases, as I believe, except as a concession on the part of the panel doctor, those are treated as outside the scope of medical benefit and involve a special fee in order that such treatment may be obtained. Such cases, for instance, as affections of the tonsils, adenoids, inflammation of the eyes, and the like, if a special fee is not asked for such treatment, are directed to go to hospital. 5.0 P.M. I think the House must realise now that the hospital accommodation, particularly in the country districts, is proving wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of insured persons who are recommended to seek hospital treatment. It is all very well in the larger towns or in many of them, where sufficient hospital accommodation is no doubt available, but in those other districts it is increasingly difficult, largely as the result of the passing of the National Insurance Act, to maintain the hospitals as they should be maintained, and in those districts patients have to wait, sometimes for several weeks, in order to receive the hospital treatment which their panel doctor recommends. That, of course, involves a concomitant charge, and sometimes a very serious charge, on the sick fund of their approved society. Then of course, as we all know, there is no proper provision being made for diagnosis. All those cases which are not simple cases ought undoubtedly to be dealt with as the result of consultation between one medical man and another. Such additional diagnosis and consultation would verily, I believe, result in an enormous saving of national money, both by way of medical benefit, and also by way of sickness benefit. It is not at all an unusual experience, especially where a doctor has a very large number of insured persons on his panel, for persons to remain in a hot, overcrowded waiting room sometimes for as long as two to three hours, and then eventually to be told, after explanation of their symptoms that they are suffering from dyspepsia, colic or gastritis, when in fact, it is proved on a more complete diagnosis that they are suffering from it may be appendicitis, or gastric ulceration, or similar complaints, requiring much more drastic treatment. For those reasons, as the result of that lack of diagnosis, and as the result of this bustling system of dealing hastily with much too large a number of persons, by the panel doctor, an increased and very heavy charge is being thrown upon the finances of the approved societies. Now I come to the organisation of the medical service. The proportion of doctors to the population is in many areas notoriously much too small The case of London is perhaps the best known. By way of illustration I may say that in Hoxton, Shoreditch, and Poplar, there is one doctor to every 5,000 or 6,000 of the population, whereas in Hampstead there is one doctor to every 476 people, and at Bath the proportion is one to every 521. It is, in fact, estimated that in many populous towns, owing to the present system of selecting panel doctors, one-fifth of the doctors are treating, or purporting to treat, something like half the total cases of sickness arising amongst the insured population. In any case it is no unusual state of affairs to find from 2,000 to 3,000 insured persons on the list of a single panel doctor. In the year 1913, in many districts, from 60 per cent, to 80 per cent. of the insured persons upon those lists actually visited the doctors and required treatment. On the face of it it is quite impossible for one man, in the absence of proper assistants, to deal with anything like from 2,000 to 3,000 persons, of whom something like 60 per. cent. or 80 per cent, visit him in the course of the year. I am not referring to cases where there are assistants; in such cases. the numbers upon the panel doctors' lists run much higher than 3,000. Every day in such areas consultations are being given and so-called treatment provided for hundreds of insured persons who are seldom able to remain with their medical advisers for more than two minutes at a time, during which period it must be quite impossible for even a thoroughly skilful doctor, with full knowledge of diagnosis, to, ascertain the nature of their maladies, and decide upon the course of treatment. Then I come to the complexity of the administration, and the occasional vacciliation of the administrators as represented, by the National Insurance Commissioners. Perhaps the most flagrant case of this vacillation occurred in the course of last autumn, when, as the result of an Amending Act, persons out of employment and in arrear with their contributions were authorised to pay a single contribution—that is, their own contribution, and not the employer's contribution as well. That made a difference, in the case of men, as between 7d. and 4d., and in the case of women, as between 6d. and 3d. What actually happened? No Regulation was issued by the National Insurance Commissioners until the month of December, although, in fact, the Act came into operation—I am not sure whether it was in July—January.
Although the Act came into operation in January, and during the period between the passage of the Act and its coming into operation, a large number of insured persons were paying up their arrears. The result of that was that a large proportion of the more honest and thrifty insured persons, at great sacrifice to themselves, were paying up arrears for which, in fact, if they had not paid them, they would never have been asked, whereas their less scrupulous and less thrifty friends were in default with their contributions, and eventually as the result of the regulation of the Commissioners, were necessarily let off those arrears altogether.
I do not think the hon. Member means to suggest that they were let off the whole of the arrears; he means the master's contribution, does he not?
I mean that portion of the aggregate arrears referable to the employers' contribution. What I suggest in that particular case is that if the Commissioners had been a little more alert and a little less vacillating—because they withdrew their first regulation, as I understand, and issued another in place of it—they would have caused a great deal less embarrassment to the approved societies, and fairer treatment would have resulted to those who were most scrupulous in paying up their arrears. What I want particularly to refer to is the system of the card index, and, in connection with that, the use of the various medical tickets. It has proved to be a most cumbrous and, to the approved societies, a most laborious scheme, and has involved insured persons in an immense amount of inconvenience and, in some cases, loss of the benefits that the Act was supposed to provide.
Does the hon. Member mean the existing system or the old system?
I will explain quite shortly what I mean. In the first place, colossal labour was involved in getting 14,000,000 insured persons card indexed. I have always doubted, as the result of my experience on an insurance committee, whether that enormous labour, both to the approved societies and to the insurance committees, has been justified in the result. These cards were written out by the societies and sorted out amongst the various insurance committees. But the card index was doomed to failure ab initio, because it was clearly impossible to keep it up to date as an indication of the present address of the persons to whom it referred. The card index in the case of every county and borough in the country is, I believe, quite incorrect, and it is absolutely impossible to keep pace with the changes of address of insured persons. No change of address has, in fact, been reported by the insurance committees since the 1st January last. Moreover, the method of application to doctors for medical treatment has changed no less than four times in the course of thirteen months. Can you imagine anything more confusing, both to the approved societies and to the insured persons? During that period there have been in use what is known as the red ticket, the buff ticket (which is now in use), Form 32, and Form 50, involving four entirely different and conflicting sets of instructions to insured persons. Every insured person should have been in possession of a buff ticket as his medical voucher on the 12th January last. Those tickets are only now being distributed by the insurance committees on the basis of this card index, which is hopelessly inaccurate, and has involved unparalleled confusion in insurance administration. Those who have not received their buff tickets, probably owing to a change of address, are being told by the doctors that they cannot be treated by them until their cards are presented. These are only obtainable from the insurance committees, and in all cases, I think, the lapse of at least a month, and sometimes longer, is involved before the card is available, and therefore before medical treatment can be obtained. The result is that many insured persons when they fall sick are having to pay out of their own pockets for the medical attendance and treatment which the Act purported to provide for them. There is also an undoubted confusion of ideas amongst both doctors and insured persons as to the arrangements for a change of doctor when an insured person changes his address. I hope that something will be done by the Commissioners to avoid the frequent embarrassment and often injustice that results owing to the impossibility of obtaining medical benefit on a change of address by an insured person.
I want next to ask whether the Insurance Commissioners cannot do something to provide skilled nursing for insured persons. I had the privilege last autumn of presiding over a largely attended conference, at which delegates were present from approved societies all over the country, from insurance committees and from various nursing organisations. At that conference a resolution was unanimously adopted in favour of the provision of skilled nursing as a part of, or in addition to, the medical benefit, on the ground that it would undoubtedly effect the more speedy and more certain recovery of sick persons, and thereby result in a large saving of money which is now being expended upon medical benefit and more particularly upon sickness benefit.Where is the money to come from?
I am trying to point out that, so far from costing more money, it would result in a saving of money. There are a large number of cases about which doctors are quite prepared to give evidence, in which, if proper nursing was forthcoming, recovery would be more speedy and the doctors' work would extend over a much shorter period than is the case in the absence of any provision for nursing. The hon. Member opposite asks me how the money is to be provided. May I suggest one method by which, if any additional money be necessary, it can be provided? By Section 1 of the Amending Act of 1913, the Commissioners constituted a special mileage fund in order to make medical benefit more complete. This is at least as important as a special mileage fund, and I suggest that a special nursing fund could similarly be provided under this Section. It would, I think, result in a great saving of the national expenditure upon health insurance. To sum up the suggestions which I have to make with regard to medical benefit: they are, first of all, that there should be the provision of surgical treatment in all simple cases, and also where necessary of the more complex medical treatment as well as nursing, in place of, as now, the provision only of the simplest possible medical treatment in many cases without effecting the recovery of the insured person. In the second place, there should be the provision of facilities for confirming doubtful diagnoses and assisting the panel doctors with a second opinion in difficult cases. Thirdly, there should be the better organisation of medical service, and the provision of more doctors in congested areas. Fourthly, there is needed the provision in such areas of convenient and sanitary dispensaries, in place of the small, often overcrowded and stuffy waiting rooms in which persons have to wait in some cases for hours before they receive attention. Last, but by no means least important, we need the simplification of the present somewhat complex administration of the National Insurance Commissioners and above all, less vacillation in dealing with matters of serious importance to insured persons seeing that the present occasional experience of doubt and delay may result in financial loss to the insured persons.
Just shortly I want to refer to sickness benefit. I want to admit in speaking of sickness benefit, that in most cases the sickness benefit provided by the Act, and promised by the promoters of the Act is, in my opinion, being provided. There is, however, undoubtedly an excess of sick pay, which has to be paid as the result of the uneconomic administration of medical benefit to which I have referred. May I say, in passing, that conditions would be immensely improved if larger hospital accommodation could be provided. There are exceptions to the general rule, and the chief exception is the case of the small society which has a large number of married women, and to be found, I think, mainly in the textile districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, though such are also to be found in other places. We know this, from the case of Cradley Heath and certain societies which comprise the women workers in the boot trade of Leicester and its district. The Government actuaries with little or no experience to guide them, have wholly underestimated the sickness experience in the case of the women's societies; particularly of those women who are employed in factories, and particularly at times of pregnancy. The Government advisers seem to have entirely overlooked this latter matter in their actuarial estimates. In these cases it is all very well to provide maternity benefit. But we are all aware that prior to confinement a woman, particularly if she is employed in a factory, is bound to have a period of rest. That period of rest may amount to two or three months. In the case of hard work in a factory I myself hold that three months is none too long a period. During that period the sickness benefit has to be provided by these women's societies, and that sickness benefit cannot be provided on the basis of the Government actuarial estimates, with the result that these societies, in order to save themselves from extinction, quite improperly, but necessarily, are reducing the benefits which are being given to their members in the case of what they consider as the more trifling or temporary ailments, such as influenza, bronchitis, anæmia, and such-like. They are limiting their sick pay in these cases to periods of two or three weeks, and then declining to give any more sick benefit after the lapse of that period. I do not know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers are going to deal with this problem. It is a difficult problem which was not foreseen at the time of the passage of the Act, but, in fairness to these societies and these women, something has got to be done. Of course, it may be that it was wrong to allow them to become segregated in small local societies, instead of being brought together in a large central society or fund, as, I believe, is the case in Germany, and some other Continental countries. In any case, the sickness experience is very alarming in connection with some of these societies. There was a case which was brought to my notice quite recently in Leicester where the sickness experience is 300 per cent. of the estimate. I am not sure that in that case these restrictions were being put upon the period and the amount of the sick pay, but if not it only shows that where such restrictions are not being made in the case of the benefits to which insured women are entitled the alternative is the financial breakdown of the society. What is going to happen after the valuation of 1915? It is common knowledge that the valuation of 1915 will show a large number of women's societies and some men's societies to be insolvent. Let me just ask hon. Members to consider what is going to happen when it is found as a result of that valuation that certain societies have a surplus and that a very considerable number of societies have a deficit? There will be a transfer of an enormous number of persons from the societies with a deficit to the societies with a surplus. The result will be that the present position from a financial point of view will become seriously aggravated. Another result will be that all your good lives will become aggregated in one class of society, and all your bad lives will become aggregated in another class of society. In other words, as has often been said in this House in other matters, you will find yourselves with one law for the rich and another for the poor. I do not want to burden the House with any further observations, except to suggest that the doctors—we are all so afraid of the doctors in this House, and I cannot see why!—the doctors want their administration tightening up as well as the Insurance Commissioners. It surely is not fair to the approved societies that the doctors should issue certificates contain- ing as a description of the complaint from which the insured person is supposed to be suffering such terms as "debility" or "catarrh." They ought to make it perfectly clear what is the actual ailment from which the insured person is suffering. We, in this House, suffer from debility as a result of the atmospheric condition of the House. We sometimes have catarrh for the same reason. That does not necessarily prove that we are incapable of work. In fact, some of the most active Members of this House undoubtedly suffer from catarrh. I have noticed it amongst the most assiduous Members of this House; those who have most ability and attend most of our deliberations. But I hope that the Insurance Commissioners have realised that this system of vague description of maladies is not fair to the approved societies, and that a more specific description should in every case be given upon the medical certificate. It is worthy of note that some of the societies comprising persons engaged in hazardous or unhealthy occupations, such as the Steel Smelters' Society, have had a different sickness experience in one part of the United Kingdom to what they have had in another part. In the case mentioned, Scotland has a far more favourable record than Wales, or even than England, which indicates that possibly the housing conditions are rather better in one part of the United Kingdom than another, but which also indicates that the administration by the Insurance Commission for that part of the Kingdom is more effective, possibly more drastic, than that of our English or possibly our Welsh Commission. I have reason to think that the Scottish Insurance Commission is about the most capable Commission of the four Commissions who administer the Insurance Act. Possibly they are not subject to the same influences as those to which the English Commission is necessarily subjected by carrying on its operations so close to the Palace of Westminster. However that may be, if it is possible to tighten up the administration in Scotland, surely it is quite possible to tighten it up in other parts of the United Kingdom! In conclusion, I would suggest that quite apart from the provision of additional money, it would be the truest economy on the part of the Government to provide further hospital accommodation, to provide skilled nursing for insured persons, to include surgical treatment in medical benefit, and to provide a diagnosis and consultation in all such cases as have not received adequate treatment in consequence of inadequate diagnosis or ignorance on the part of the panel doctor.I gather that we are able this afternoon to discuss the adequacy or the inadequacy of the benefits under the Insurance Act. I notice that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side, when they are discussing the benefits, put forward this argument: They say that because some insured persons are getting adequate benefit—and for the moment I propose to deal with sanatorium benefit—that because some insured persons are getting some sort of sanatorium benefit therefore everything is all right. We have very often to listen to that sort of argument. It is not put so concisely, perhaps; but the point we have to consider is whether all insured persons ought, or ought not, to get the adequate benefit which is held out for them under the Act, but which has not been given. Insured persons are paying for treatment they are not getting. They are paying, that is to say, for inadequate benefit. I realise fully the difficulties the Government have in promoting treatment in institutions on a big scale, and bringing it within the sphere of all the local authorities. I realise that there is immense difficulty, and that there must be delay. But it is because hon. Gentlemen are apt to claim, and do claim, too much that I am here this afternoon to say that, in my opinion, insured persons are not getting that form of benefit which they were promised and which they are paying for. I am referring now to the sort of speech made the other evening by the President of the Local Government Board as typical of what I have in my mind.
The President of the Local Government Board, when dealing with sanatorium and other institutions, gave the House the impression that everything was all right. I think he used the expression "the beds are there in institutions and in sanatoriums," and he certainly conveyed the impression that there was an ample supply of beds for insured persons, who ought to go into those beds. Similarly he dealt at some length with domiciliary treatment, and explained how valuable it was, and he laid very great stress upon its value. That is the type of speech I refer to as a speech which claims too much. If he had claimed that the Government had done their best, that they had encountered enormous difficulties, and that they Were making the best use of their money, and if he admitted that in some cases persons were not getting the benefits they were entitled to, I should not be speaking here this afternoon. The point I want to put before the House is that all insured persons under the Insurance Act should get adequate benefit, and by adequate benefit I mean adequate in the medical sense. Insured persons were promised adequate sanatorium benefit. As the House remembers, the definition of sanatorium benefit is very wide. It means treatment in institutions or otherwise. That is a blessed word, "otherwise." It has stood the Government in good stead during the last few months. I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite ever read the sporting papers. If they do they will see that in a race So-and-so is placed first, and another second, and another third; and then there is a long list of those who "also ran." It seems to me there are a certain number of persons who get treatment in sanatoria and other institutions, but the large bulk for the last few months have come under the terms of "also ran" and of the treatment "otherwise." There is no limit, no restriction in the Insurance Act to the time which should be given for the treatment in institutions of insured persons. As I said just now, sanatorium benefit may mean treatment in institutions or at home. Without wishing to disparage dimiciliary treatment, and for the purpose of being brief, I may refer to it as "the cod-liver oil treatment." There are some people to whom the President of the Local Government Board referred at some considerable length who derive great benefit from and ought to get domiciliary treatment. There are certain cases where people are better treated at home than in institutions. Therefore domiciliary treatment is the best for some, but, on the other hand, while domiciliary or cod-liver oil treatment is the best for some, treatment in institutions is essential for others. The point I wish to put before the House is that some persons who ought to have treatment in institutions, and are paying for it, have to have domiciliary treatment because there are not enough beds or the beds are not ready. Therefore, some people are not getting the treatment promised, and are not getting the full value for their money. The other day, as the result of a question and answer, the President Of the Local Government Board announced that at the present moment, out of £1,100,000, in round figures, which was evidently earmarked for England out of £1,500,000 capital Grant, only £40,000 had been actually given to the local authorities for the building of institutions. And he went on to say that £120,000 had been earmarked and promised to local authorities for the building of institutions. That leaves £950,000 still unallocated, and if we deduct £100,000 for institutions for children, it leaves over £800,000 still unallocated and unspent. If everything is all right, as the President of the Local Government Board claimed the other day, why bother to go on spending this £800,000? If the institutions are there, why should the ratepayers and the taxpayers go on spending money on institutions. Insured persons only form one-third of the population of this country. Nowhere near one-third of the £100,000 has been spent in erecting institutions. We have not nearly enough accommodation in sanatoria, hospitals, or other institutions for insured persons. What do we mean by "adequate treatment?" First of all, diagnosis, and then treatment in sanatoria, in hospitals, and domiciliary treatment. Look at the question of diagnosis first of all. The President of the Local Government Board admitted that he did not know the facts in connection with the examination of sputum. One of the first essentials is the provision for the adequate examination of sputum. It is one of the first essentials in the diagnosis of tubercle. Next, the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis said that the whole keystone was the tuberculosis officer. There are thirty-seven local authorities that have not yet appointed tuberculosis officers; therefore I think it is fair to claim that insured persons are not getting the first-class diagnosis they are entitled to. Here I come to the treatment in sanatoria, and I would like to refer to replies to questions given mostly in this House by Mr. Masterman. I do not want to go through all the replies he has given, but when I mentioned one or two cases on previous occasions, when I took it for granted that it was admitted there were gaps in the treatment, the statement was not challenged when I made it, but whoever replied took it that I had not given proof of the inadequacy of the treatment. Mr. Masterman, in reply to one question, said there were 263 persons recommended for treatment in sanatoria receiving domiciliary treatment. That is to say, they were not getting that form of treatment promised to them, and which they are entitled to, and for which they pay.These are figures for England?
Yes, these are for England, and this was some months ago. I am dealing with the position as a whole Again, Mr. Masterman said:—
If you are put on a waiting list instead of sent to a sanatorium, you are not getting the form of treatment you are entitled to."I am informed that the insured persons referred to and recommended for sanatorium treatment will be admitted into sanatoria as soon as possible The number of cases in the area awaiting removal to sanatoria is 105, and I am advised they are receiving domiciliary treatment."
What is the area?
I have not got the area, but the date was 30th June. I have got numerous other instances proving the same thing, but it would be mere repetition to go through them. There was another case this month which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury referred to, where eighty-three persons are on a waiting list in Dublin. The hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) did not deny that there were eighty-three persons on that waiting list. His reply was that in the interim they were getting other treatment. Nobody suggests that they should not get interim treatment; but was that the treatment their medical advisers thought best for them? Next comes the case of advanced tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman said beds were available in institutions; but I would remind him of his reply to his question last month, and in that reply he said that in some districts there is insufficient accommodation at present for advanced cases, but that the councils are taking steps to provide additional accommodation. I brought that forward as evidence that he was not justified in saying there was ample accommodation for insured persons. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, and said these were advanced cases. The Insurance Act does not say that insured persons who are so unfortunate as to have tuberculosis in an advanced stage are not to receive sanatorium benefit. I should rather think these unfortunate persons who have advanced disease are in a less favourable position than others; and I should think it would be rather for those insured persons paying their money weekly, like anybody else, that the right hon. Gentleman would have tried to provide institutions. Not only have we to consider these people themselves, but there is also the danger to the community and to the family and neighbours of infection in advanced cases of tubercle. The right hon. Gentleman therefore—and I think he will probably admit it on consideration—was not entitled to say without qualification that the beds were there. It would be more accurate if he used the phraseology he used on the 19th of February, and said that in some districts there is insufficient accommodation at present.
I did say that.
Only after I spoke.
No, I said it the other night; I said, taking the country as a whole, there was ample accommodation, and the number of beds were sufficient, though in particular districts they might be short, but that was because the local insurance committees had not made adequate arrangements; but, taking the country as a whole, I said the beds were there.
There are two points on that. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I referred to the reply given by Mr. Masterman that in one district there was a waiting list of 263 persons.
You said in England.
Those cases occurred in one district in England.
No.
The 263 persons referred to are those recommended for sanatorium treatment which are receiving domiciliary treatment in England.
If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer he will find that it refers to a particular area.
I know London is the worst, but it is not anything like that.
I rather thought the figures given by me referred to London. At any rate, in another area there was a waiting list, on the admission of Mr. Masterman, of 105. On this question of going out from one's own area to an- other, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if there is a restricted amount of money the insurance committee is spending that to the best advantage in railway fares? If an insurance committee is not able to provide a bed and an institution in Kent or Surrey, for instance, and has to pay railway fares and send persons to the other end of England, it is evident that those limited funds are not being used to the best advantage. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is only one insurance committee in the whole of England which is able to give institutional treatment within its own area, it becomes evident that a large amount of the money available is being spent in railway fares, and would be of much greater advantage to the insured persons if the institutions were nearer at hand. I do not wish to suggest that every area ought to have its own institution, but I know there are a large number of counties and county boroughs which could run their own institutions. The hon. Gen-man in his reply said there was only one area, the Isle of Wight, which was able to supply full institutional treatment within its own area.
Who said that?
The hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East said that in reply to a question that I put to him. My point is that sanatorium benefit is restricted and limited. There is always great confusion when people think in terms of sanatorium treatment when they should be thinking of sanatorium benefit. A large number of persons whom doctors think ought to be in a sanatorium or institution are now receiving domiciliary treatment, which is not best for them, and so they are getting inadequate treatment. A large number of insured persons who go to institutions do not remain there as long as they ought to. I know they are instructed and taught how to be non-dangerous to the public and their families, and then they go home, but they are not kept in those institutions for the full period which is necessary. The other day I referred with some grief and surprise to the attitude taken up by the Labour party on the whole question of sanatorium benefit under the Insurance Act. The Labour party claim to represent the insured persons, but when we are here discussing the Insurance Act and the value of the benefits, and the adequacy or inadequacy of those benefits, they do not take the trouble to be present and join in our discussion or criticise the Government. I do not suggest that the Members of the Labour party ought to vote against the Government, but there is nothing in their action in the past which makes me believe that, after having criticised the Government, they would be deterred from voting for the Government. They sit silent and do not take their share in criticism. I think we are entitled to say that they are not representing labour or directly representing insured persons, but they are more like representatives of that association that is known as Our Dumb Friends' League. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are the Conservative Members?"] They are here. In dealing with sanatorium benefits, those of us who have studied it know that one of the great difficulties was that in preparing the Insurance Act the Government actuaries had not sufficient data. It was very difficult to know how much money would be required to provide full and adequate sanatorium benefit. Mr. Masterman, in June of last year, said:
That is to say, Mr. Masterman practically admitted, by the reply which he gave to a question put to him, that there was not enough money to deal satisfactorily with sanatorium benefit. I do not blame the Government. We are all prepared to admit that there was not sufficient experience and that we had not enough data, but the Government have no right to come here or go to the country and say that there is enough money to deal with full sanatorium benefit, and claim that everything is all right, and that insured persons are getting that first-class treatment that was promised them and which they are paying for. With regard to the money available for tubercle treatment, the Insurance Act provides 1s. 2d. Sixpence of this was given to the doctors, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a letter of 31st July, 1912, to Mr. Hobhouse, the chairman of the County Councils Association, promised to pay out of the Treasury half the cost of treating the population, irrespective of whether they were insured or non-insured dependants. But for the Hobhouse Grant the insured persons would be getting less satisfactory benefits than they are receiving at the present time, and it is only because a certain number of local authorities have agreed to meet the treatment of insured, as well as non-insured, persons out of the rates, that the insured persons are getting in many districts as good benefits as they are now obtaining. On this point of the inadequacy of the funds, may I point out that Section 17, Sub-section (2), says:—"The experience in the sphere of tuberculosis before the passing of the Act was too limited to be of much practical value in arriving at an estimate of the amount required for sanatorium benefit:"
The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's-in-the-East told me the other day that in Scotland, in twelve areas, twelve authorities had agreed to meet this deficit half out of the rates and half out of the Treasury. That is to say, in twelve areas it has been proved that the funds were not sufficient to give full sanatorium benefit to insured persons. The mere fact of there being a deficit shows that the money is not enough to go round and give full and adequate treatment. I would just like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question for information. The dependants of insured persons may receive sanatorium benefit, which may be extended to them. Or else they may get treatment under the Hobhouse Grant as members of the population. I take it that if they came in under the Insurance Act they would get the full sanatorium benefit given to insured persons—that is, treatment in an institution or domiciliary treatment—but if those dependants come in under the Hobhouse Grant and get treatment only under that Grant and not under the Insurance Act, I want to know whether I am right in believing that those people do not get domiciliary treatment? The hon. Gentleman said that a certain number of local authorities had applied for extending sanatorium benefit to dependants, and that it had been decided not to give them treatment under the Insurance Act, but under the Hobhouse Grant. I want to know whether by that decision the Commissioners or the insurance committees or local authorities have, as a matter of fact, deprived these people of domiciliary treatment? I realise the difficulties which the Government have been against, and it is only because in my opinion that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite claim too much, and will not admit the inadequacy of the treatment given to a large number of insured persons, that I have been tempted to speak here. I realise the difficulty, but hon. Members opposite have no right to come down and say everything was all right, and that the insured persons are getting that form of treatment which they are paying for, and which they are entitled to by Act of Parliament."If there is a deficit the local authority and the insurance committee may agree to meet that half out of the rates and half out of the Treasury."
6.0 P.M.
We all recognise the value of the criticism of the hon. Member who has just spoken on the subject of tuberculosis, because we know he speaks from a close examination of the subject. If his criticisms had been confined to that subject we should have had less to complain of. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who spoke the other evening in connection with sanatorium benefit, described the treatment as something that was fobbed off on a large number of insured persons. Those are the kind of criticisms which evoke a defence of the Act which does not commend itself to the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Member's main complaint seems to be that there are some insured persons who are not getting in a complete measure that form of treatment which, under ideal conditions, would be considered right and proper for their case. I have no doubt that that is a perfectly correct statement in regard to a considerable number of cases. We have been referred to a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, I think, is referred to almost in every Debate in this House on this subject, in which the expression "first-class hotels" comes in. I find nothing in that speech to suggest that every insured person within two years of the commencement of benefits was promised all those things which the hon. Member opposite complains are not forthcoming. Let us take the statement which the hon. Member has made. He says, quite rightly, that sanatorium benefit is described as treatment in institutions, "or otherwise," and he suggests that the majority of the insured persons are like those who "also ran," and some within the description "or otherwise." Generally, the "also ran" applies to more horses than those who actually win, and it was fair to assume that the hon. Gentleman's metaphor suggested that the "or otherwise" applied to the larger number of tuberculous persons than those treated in sanatoria. I am glad to think that he did not mean that; and it is well to correct any misapprehension on the point, because the facts are entirely against it. Those treated in sanatoria of one sort or another are more numerous than those who have not had that treatment in any form or other. I have not the figures by me at this moment, but it is a very large majority. Let me take this case and look at it entirely apart from trying to get a dig at the Chancellor of the Exchequer for any speech that he has made. Let us look at it as practical men in the light of what has been done within the time that sanatorium benefit has been made available. That really is the fair test. It is not fair to complain that the Government within the two years, or whatever it is, have not provided for every insured person everywhere the most perfect and up-to date treatment for tuberculosis in all respects without delay or difficulty. That would not be fair. You might as well complain that after all these years of elementary education you have not provided for every child in the country the most perfect and up-to-date system of education. That would be an equally fair criticism of any particular Government. Everybody knows that it takes a long time to perfect machinery on this gigantic scale, and you have not got your machinery perfect in the matter of education after you have been going twenty times as long as you have been in the case of sanatorium benefit for insured persons. Personally, I am exceedingly surprised that the number of beds is so great as have been provided already.
I quite admit, as the hon. Member suggested, that in some places they are to a great extent regarded, and frankly regarded, as make-shift arrangements. Of course, they are. They had to take what beds there were, and make the best of them until the proper organisation could be got in order. Take, for instance, the hon. Member's criticism that the amount of money which has up to the present moment been actually spent in the provision of institutions is small in comparison with the £1,500,000 available for the purpose. It is quite true. He knows something about local administration, and he knows perfectly well that what was required was, and is, that the local authority should prepare a scheme. That scheme has to be negotiated with the insurance committee, and in many cases with various sanitary authorities within the county. After all these difficulties have been removed and got over, the scheme is brought to the Local Government Board and is criticised and discussed there, and then is finally brought back to the county council. After a long time it gets through the various committees and is approved by the county council. Plans have then to be got out and criticised and arranged before any money is spent on the buildings. Anyone who knows anything about administration knows quite well that kind of thing takes a long time. The only point of criticism of the Government is this: Have they done their best in the time sanatorium benefit has been available to provide treatment for insured persons in this way to the best of their ability throughout the country. I think nobody, looking at the facts without prejudice—and I am quite sure there is no one who looks at the facts in this respect with less prejudice than the hon. Member for Plymouth, whom we all know is really interested in this kind of thing, and looks at the matter fairly—and considers the large number of schemes which have already been approved, remembering the difficulties which have been got over in many areas, will deny that what we have already done in treating about 20,000 insured persons in institutions is a most remarkable achievement. It is not, of course, a perfect system such as may he evolved in the course of years. He himself was chairman of the committee of tuberculosis, and I am quite sure that he knew then, as he knows now, that that committee was largely responsible for advising the Government on this machinery; but the committee never pointed out, nor were the Government in adopting their regulations, or the public led to believe that the whole of this vast organisation could be brought into existence and into full working order in eighteen months or two years. I shall be very pleased myself if we can get it in a reasonably efficient condition from one end of the country to the other in five years. Then we are asked: What about your man who was going to the first-class hotel? I need not defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will not go over old ground again, but of course the description was of the sanatorium to which a man was sent, and 20,000 people at the very least have been to these institutions already. I do not know that they are first-class hotels in the sense that they are the most perfect thing in sanatoria which has yet been devised. We know that fashion changes a good deal, and it is quite likely that what is now regarded as the best thing in sanatoria may not be so regarded in five years' time. In this connection, as it seems rather fashionable nowadays to quote letters in Debates, I may refer to a letter which I received from a medical man the other day. He has been twenty-six year in practice, and, when I inquired about him, I found that he is a man of high quality. The interesting thing in his letter is that he has been a member of a Unionist Association, and that at the last General Election he seconded the nomination of a Unionist candidate for one of the divisions of Cambridgeshire. I will not not say whether that gentleman was elected or not. I would like to spare his feelings. The writer goes on to say that at the beginning he disliked and distrusted the Act, butThen he goes on to give his experience of the sanatorium benefit. It seems that in his practice there are a considerable number of military men connected with a large military camp in the neighbourhood. He says that a great deal of nonsense is talked about the sanatorium benefit, but there lives near him an ex-guardsman, and he found him to be tuberculous. He got him into the Banstead Sanatorium. He was there six months, and is now home again and uncommonly well. The following day he sent me a letter about another man in the Army. This man is employed in the Army Aircraft Factory. That rather locates it. He has been in the sanatorium, and here is a postcard (exhibited) from him giving a photograph of the sanatorium, which seems to be a good deal better than some first-class hotel. Incidentally, the man says that he is getting on real well and adding to his weight. I quite admit that is an isolated case. The hon. Member has quoted cases of people who are kept waiting, and have not yet got into any sanatorium. One must regret that they have had to wait, and no doubt the local authority, if they are doing their best in that area, will do all they can to reduce the waiting period as much as possible. The hon. Member knows that the difficulties with local authorities are not confined to the machinery of the Insurance Act. We have had difficulties with local authorities of which we know something in London, and they are not confined to the machinery of the Act by any means. The London County Council hitherto, for reasons which I need not go into, have not gone out of their way to do anything to help forward the Insurance Act. It seems a very shortsighted and small-minded way of looking at a big question of this kind, seeing that there are 50,000 persons within the London area affected with tuberculosis. The insurance committee have made arrangements with the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which has beds at the present moment to spare, and which are at the disposal of the London Insurance Committee, so that, notwithstanding their difficulties, they have done uncommonly well in London. There is another effect of sanatorium benefit, which, I think, we ought fairly to mention, and it is its effect upon the Poor Law. The Hobhouse Grant is, of course, available for all persons affected with tuberculosis in any area, whether they are insured or not. That means, for example, that in Middlesex practically all the tuberculous persons will very soon be treated under the schemes which are being arranged. It will mean that they will be gradually removed—at all events to a great extent, though I do not say completely—from out of the charges which fall upon the Poor Law. There was an investigation of 4,000 cases of tuberculosis in workhouse hospitals some time ago, and it showed, as far as you could see, that 60 per cent. of them were in the workhouse because they were tuberculous. The Poor Law Commission found the same kind of thing. The effect of the Act upon the charges which fall upon the Poor Law in respect of tuberculosis will be very profound. They are a very large proportion of the charges which fall upon the Poor Law, and, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would devote their very great influence in the country to urging local authorities to push forward comprehensive schemes for the provision of sanatorium benefit in their area, instead of picking up tag-ends of speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must say that they would be rendering greater service to the community. I am not applying that particular remark to the hon. Member for Plymouth. He knows very well that I am not. It does not apply to anything that he has said, either here or elsewhere. The hon. Member commented on the lack of provision for advanced cases. I quite agree, and everyone must agree, that it is of the first importance that full provision should be made for such cases, particularly in London, and in crowded centres, where they are more likely to infect other members of the household. But do not blame the Government for a fault which is not theirs. The Government and the Insurance Commis- sioners have work enough. The administration of this particular portion of the Act has been entrusted to the local authorities; the insurance committees have no power to provide institutions at all, and can only make arrangements with the authorities to do so. The London Insurance Committee has no power to provide institutions for advanced cases on its own account. That is the present position with regard to a large number of advanced cases. The way to remove the difficulty is not to cast stones at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is to point out their public duty to the London County Council. I should like to say a word with reference to the question of the medical benefit. I was glad to notice the other evening that the Member for Glasgow arid Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik) seemed to have changed his tone. In a speech which e delivered earlier in the Debates upon this Bill, he spoke of "mere panel doctors." The change in his tone is a welcome change. He pointed out, quite rightly, that in many districts there is a shortage of medical men. In some parts there is only one to 3,000 persons. That is not the fault of the Insurance Act. It is not a criticism of the Insurance Act. What the Act has done has been to bring men into these overcrowded areas, and in places where, before the commencement of the Act, there was only one medical man to 5,000 population, more men have been introduced. This has been one result of the working of the Act. We know well enough, as practical men, that one has to work with the men and material which are available, and hon. Members are not entitled to complain of that Act merely because it has not done the impossible. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University suggested that nowadays people waited in queues in the street outside the doctor's surgery, whereas formerly they went to the hospitals. He seemed to suggest that that was a bad thing. I agree it is a bad thing, for a person who is ill, to wait in a queue in a street, but I do not think that often occurs, and it is more a subject of journalistic imagination than of fact. I have been round to many of these places and have not found these queues to exist, and I should say there are very few instances of it. The old system under which the industrial population were driven to the hospitals was the very worst thing for the medical service. It meant that the men practicising in an industrial district shelved their responsibilities on to the hospital. We want them to be stirred up in order that they may become more efficient professional men. Anyone who has studied this question knows that one of the great complaints made against industrial practices, as they existed before the Insurance Act came into operation, was that they encouraged medical men to send their more difficult—and sometimes their ordinary—cases to the hospitals, and they lost the stimulus which such cases provided to becoming more efficient. The hon. Member went on to say that the Act had crippled the resources of the hospitals. I should like to know on what he bases that statement. We know that at the commencement of these Debates all kinds of dismal prognostications were indulged in. But, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the effect has not been to cripple the resources of these institutions. It may be possible that in some cases where the income of the hospital was largely derived from workmen's contributions there may have been a falling off since the Act came into force. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) shakes his head. That is an indication, to my mind, that working men are more public spirited than the Jeremiahs to whom I have referred would have led us to anticipate. I was pleased to gather from the Debate the other night that hon. Members opposite had at last been reading a serious criticism of the Act—one issued by the Fabian Society. That criticism was clearly reflected in some of their speeches, and some of the phrases used by hon. Members were familiar to my mind. One complaint they made was as to the number of minor cases treated. If that is a complaint against the Insurance Act, I must say it was one of a very flimsy and unsubstantial character. It means that people who have a right to medical benefit, and to have their cases treated early, have gone for such treatment while their cases were minor cases, instead of allowing them to drag on until they became seriously ill. Instead of that being a discredit to the Act, it is about the best testimonial that could be given to it. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) suggested that certificates were granted on frivolous grounds and in a loose manner. At various times there may have been some substance in that complaint, but you must give people a little time to put their house in order. This is a matter to which medical men and medical committees are turning attention, and they are making it uncommonly uncomfortable for anyone who is not carrying out this duty with proper care. The General Medical Council has issued a serious warning that the issue of certificates in an improper manner will be considered as a serious ground of complaint against a professional man. It is easy to cast a stone against a roan who issues these certificates in regard to the terms in which they are couched, but it would be well if hon. Members who raise this point would put themselves in the position of the person who is ill, especially if it is a woman who is not particularly anxious that the full description of her ailment should appear on the medical certificate. Plenty of women said to be suffering from dyspepsia are, no doubt, suffering from something else as well, and they do not want it described in full on the certificate. I think it might be an improvement if some central machinery could be created whereby, while a proper disclosure were made, it could be so arranged that the certificates could be dealt with in such a manner that the medical man would feel quite free to put everything without reserve upon the certificate. As to the amount of malingering, I should say that the number of deliberate cases is relatively trivial. It had been stated that a considerable number of cases of anæmia—long dragging cases—exist among members of women's societies. That is one of the things which has been brought to light by the Act. It is quite a good point for the hon. Member for Wilton to suggest that more provision might fairly be made to deal with sickness associated with pregnancy. Complaint has been made that provision for proper treatment is not complete in all respects. I quite agree that there is much still lacking in the matter of special services and in the necessary arrangements for making diagnosis. It is fresh in our memories that the Government were assailed from one end of the country to another; they were faced with immense difficulties; they had to work with the men on the spot, and I say it would have been impossible for any Government, with the best will prevailing from one end of the country to the other, to have established all these special services by this time. To ask the Government to set up a wholly perfect machinery of laboratories, with special facilities for consultations, and so on, would be to simply ask the impossible. The complaint is that these special services have not been provided. The point I made with regard to the sanatorium benefits applies equally to these other services. The system has to be built up. You cannot bring the whole thing, cut and dried, as a machine perfect in every detail. It takes many years to do that. I quite agree that we need laboratories, special services, and consultants. In due time they will no doubt be provided, but, as a matter of fact, there are not enough medical men in the country to provide those services at the present time. If you could establish from one end of the country to the other laboratories for making all the different examinations, with all the necessaries for our complicated methods of diagnosis, if you could establish all these laboratories to-morrow, you could not find trained men in the whole length and breadth of Great Britain to staff them. It takes years to train a man to do this kind of work. Everyone who has any real interest in this Act is fully alive to all these considerations. I wish we could have a little more assistance from hon. Members opposite in helping to improve and perfect our machinery. We have plenty of criticism, and I think we have good ground for complaining that we do not get much help. I have here a leaflet issued in the recent election in South-West Bethnal Green, in which this description is given of the Act:—"I have gradually come to have a warm interest in it, and my dislike and distrust are now transferred to the Party which is working up this wretched campaign against the Act."
That is a description of the Act used in the course of the election on behalf of the hon. Member who was elected. Is it likely to facilitate the provision of the benefits which hon. Members complain are not provided in full? Is there anything in this world more calculated to prejudice that provision or make it difficult to make the arrangements to provide the benefits than descriptions of the Insurance Act of that kind? We are entitled to know, when criticisms are brought against the administration of this Act that it does not do more than it does at the present time, who the prying officials are. The only prying officials who are paid out of the earnings of the poor—that is, the contributions under the Act—are the officials of the societies. The officials of the Insurance Commission are paid for by the Treasury. Therefore we can take it that the description I have quoted is the Unionist description of the officials of the approved societies. When we look at this criticism, and I have heard plenty more like it, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that this Act has experienced a campaign of obstruction and misrepresentation which is almost unexampled in the case of British Acts of Parliament, and, to my mind, in the case of London certainly, it fully explains why, with regard particularly to sanatorium benefit, we have not got along quicker than we have done. While you have this atmosphere of suspicion and obstruction from one end of the country to the other, it is not reasonable or fair to expect that the Act will work smoothly and quickly. The only real contribution by way of suggesting an improvement has been that we should place the Act on a voluntary basis. On the Motion before us it would not be in order to go into that proposition, and therefore I do not propose to do so. Those who know anything about the matter know that it would not mean an improvement in the administration of the Act or an increase in the benefits it is to provide. It certainly would not insure those who most need insurance; it would certainly do nothing for the casual labourer or the deposit contributor; it would probably wipe out the whole disablement benefit, and in a very short time it would ruin one-half of the societies. So far as I know, that is the only real suggestion which has come from the official Opposition with regard to the improvement of national insurance and the work of making the benefits more-accessible to the insured persons. I sincerely hope that on some future occasion we shall have an opportunity of going fully into the suggestion advanced by the Opposition as to the possibility of placing insurance on a voluntary basis. I shall welcome the time when the Committee which we are told is going to be set up to inquire into this subject is appointed, because I have a feeling at the back of my mind that the fate of that Committee would be very much like the fate of the Committee appointed by the Unionist party to inquire into the subject of old age pensions. That Committee reported that none of the schemes presented to it were practicable. It would not require a very far-seeing man to suggest that that would be the result of the Committee which is to inquire into voluntary insur- ance. Those who father it and suggest its appointment will afterwards, perhaps, be more glad than anyone else if it recedes with very welcome expedition into the twilight of oblivion."It puts the working classes under the heels of prying officials, whose salaries are paid for out of the hard earnings of the poor."
I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for some fruitful suggestion as to the method in which we might improve the administratoin and the effect of the Act or the benefits which the Act gives—benefits that are admitted on all sides to fall somewhat short of what the House expected or what was promised. While the hon. Member had a good deal of criticism to direct against his political opponents, I am glad to think that that criticism was a little milder than it has been hitherto. He made no suggestion. He invited suggestions from us. We have made a good many in the past, and a good many of the suggestions we have made found expression in the amending Act passed last year. If the hon. Gentleman, with all his friendliness towards the present Act, would do a little something now and again to make suggestions for its improvement, he would really do a greater service to the insured persons than he does merely by making attacks upon his opponents. If I cover again to-day some of the ground I traversed only a couple of nights ago, it is because the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, who was put up to reply on behalf of the Government, studiously avoided any reference whatever to the questions that had been raised in the temperate and very careful speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Resolution. I do not say anything about my own speech, because I do not know whether it was temperate or not. I want an answer, if I can get one from the Government, to the points we ventured to put forward the other night, because they are points of importance. It is not at all sufficient for those who speak on behalf of the Government to get up and content themselves by making a strong personal attack upon their political opponents. I confess I should have thought that on an occasion of this kind we might have had, in the enforced absence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the author of the scheme, the pilot of the measure, the man who conducted the negotiations with the various interests involved, the man who raised and subsequently wrecked the highest hopes with regard to the usefulness of the Insurance Act. I am sorry that he cannot be here; I am also sorry that the President of the Local Government Board cannot be here. I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's-in-the-East, because I can assure him that we on this side of the House sympathise with him in the difficult task he has to perform. I do not know whether we may express the hope that he may find himself discharging it on a more permanent basis before very long.
I want to turn for a moment to the question of sanatorium benefit, and very briefly say what our complaint is. It is that people who are recommended for sanatorium benefit, for treatment in institutions, do not get it. I do not say that all the people do not get it. Of course, there is a very large number of people who do; but there is a number of people who are recommended for treatment in sanatoria, who have paid for the benefit, but who do not get it, or are subjected to long delay before they get it, with disastrous consequences to their own health. How are we met when we make that statement? The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes one line, the President of the Local Government Board takes another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "How unreasonable you are to adopt that line of criticism. You cannot expect all these sanatoria to be built in a day; you cannot expect accommodation to be provided for these thousands of insured people who are suffering from this awful scourge all in a moment." We sympathise with him when he takes that line. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) also took that line. I sympathise with him when he says that you cannot expect provision to be made for all these people in a day. That is not the line taken by the President of the Local Government Board. He says there is ample accommodation for all insured persons who are suffering from tuberculosis. I confess I was astounded when I heard two nights ago the President of the Local Government Board give expression to that opinion. I took a careful note of it at the time, and I have confirmed my recollection of what he said by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the following morning. Here is what he said:—If there is adequate accommodation now for all insured persons suffering from tuberculosis, what is the object of spending any portion of the £1,500,000 which has been set aside to provide buildings by the provisions of the "People's Budget?" If there is ample accommodation for every insured person who is suffering from tuberculosis, how comes it that all the people who are recommended for treatment in institutions are not getting it? The President of the Local Government Board told us the other night that since the Act came into operation 20,000 people had been treated in institutions, and I think he said that 10,000 people had received domiciliary treatment. Would those 10,000 people have received domiciliary treatment if there had been room for them in the institutions? The President of the Local Government Board will tell me that that entirely depends upon the medical advice. Bearing upon that, I noticed a rather interesting paragraph in the Report of the meeting of the Scottish Association of Insurance Committees, which wits held in October of last year. There was an attack upon the adequacy of the funds for the provision of sanatorium benefit, and Mr. Johnson, who was one of the delegates, in reply to the discussion, said that during the whole course of treatement in this country, they had not had a single application on behalf of an insured consumptive for domiciliary treatment. They had not had a single doctor order that treatment for any case. Every recommendation which was made in respect of these consumptive insured persons was a recommendation that they should receive treatment in an institution. If there is ample accommodation for the insured people in institutions, why do they not get it? The right hon. Gentleman in another portion of his speech said:—"There is adequate accommodation now in the sanatoria for all insured persons suffering from tuberculosis, … 1,500,000 has been voted by this House for those buildings—and the Treasury have undertaken to find half the cost—to provide treatment for the non-insured persons suffering from tuberculosis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1914, col. 322.]
The right hon. Gentlemen is not satisfied with the efforts which the insurance committee have made. He blames them for not having provided ample accommodation for all the insured people within their area. I think the insured person and the Government owe a very great debt of gratitude for the efforts which the insurance committees have made—efforts which have not been attended with com- plete success. I know that the insurance committee for Kent has been unsparing in its efforts to provide accommodation, to provide proper treatment, and to do everything they can to see that this Act is properly and beneficially administered. I do not think it is fair for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to bring such a charge against insurance committees. It is not their fault that accommodation is not forthcoming for all the insured persons. What does the right hon. Gentleman say with regard to the amount of accommodation which is necessary? He says there are in existence now something under 5,000 beds in sanatoria and hospitals in England—he was only speaking of England—for the accommodation of tuberculous insured persons. It is rather a pity that we cannot find someone who will tell us something about the whole of the United Kingdom, but I suppose we must be content with the modicum of information that we are able to extract in regard to England alone. The 5,000 beds, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are ample accommodation for all insured persons suffering from tuberculosis. Is that the information that he has at the Local Government Board? What becomes of all the estimates which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he told us that there were between 400,000 and 500,000 people in this country who were suffering from tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman will say, of course, that they are not all insured persons. Of course they are not all insured persons. We brought into our scheme of national insurance about a third of the population. The people that we have brought in are subject, I am afraid, more than any other section of the community to the ravages of this particular disease. The proportion of the population affected by the disease increases the lower down in the scale you go. People who live in the slums and the congested areas of our great cities, suffer more from consumption than do those who live under healthier conditions. Even if you put the number of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis at no more than 100,000, are 5,000 beds in institutions in England ample accommodation for every insured person suffering from tuberculosis? It is nothing of the kind, and I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to so mistaken a statement. We have had a statement from a roan who has had experience as a tuberculosis officer. By the way, I notice that I was made in the OFFICIAL REPORT to describe him as a "tuberculous" officer, which I should be very sorry to do. The tuberculosis officer of Marylebone Dispensary points out the truth of the old saying, that you may call a rose by any other name and it will smell as sweet. It remains a rose. You may call a fever hospital, or an an isolation hospital, or a ringworm hospital a sanatorium, but you do not make it so. He points out that in many cases the institutions which are approved by the Local Government Board are overcrowded, that the treatment which is given is too short really to attain its fullest possible results, and that the results of the whole system are unsatisfactory because they are incomplete. Why is the detention of the patients in sanatoria too short to be of the fullest value? Because there is not enough money. I am not saying this in order to make an attack on the Government. I say it because I believe it to be true, and unless something is done the Government is not fulfilling the obligation which it undertook in regard to the insured people. What I say with regard to the provision of sanatorium benefit, applies to domiciliary treatment just as much as it does to institutional treatment. The Act provided 1s. 4d. for the provision of sanatorium benefit. One penny was to be retained for the purpose of research, and 1s. 3d. was to be available for the provision of sanatorium benefit. That was the provision that was made when this House parted with the Bill, when it first became an Act, and it was only after this House had parted with the Bill that the negotiation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the medical profession resulted in the diversion of 6d. out of the 1s. 3d. from the fund for the provision of sanatorium benefit towards the payment of doctors who gave domiciliary treatment. It is not that the doctors do not deserve the extra money; it is not that they do not give services which entitle them to extra remuneration. The point is that the money ought not to have been taken away from the fund which provide sanatorium benefit. It ought, in fairness to the patients, to have been provided from some other source, because what has been the result? Instead of having 1s. 3d. per head in order to provide institutional treatment and domiciliary treatment, you have only nine-pence for other than domiciliary treat- ment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Bill, told us that this 1s. 4d. was the minimum sum which could provide the benefit which the House was determined to give. He said he was assured by those who had taken the matter carefully into consideration, including the President of the Local Government Board and his very able staff, that it will enable us at any rate to do something for the purpose of stamping out this terrible scourge. The whole of the actuarial calculation for the provision of sanatorium benefit demanded the provision of 1s. 3d., and it is not right; it is not fair to the insured people that the sanatorium fund should have been denuded to that extent. I want to know what steps the Government are going to take in order to make that sum good. We are told, of course, that treatment in an institution is not the only form of sanatorium benefit. Of course it is not. Treatment in the home may be perhaps in some cases the best kind of treatment under proper conditions. But not a single man in this House can pretend for a moment that where you have a father and mother and perhaps two or three children living in one room, that is a case in which domiciliary treatment is appropriate at all. I have quotations here from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he describes the evil of tuberculous people living with their families. One of the things we all started out to do when we began to consider this Act, was to try and provide some means by which a man who was living under conditions of that kind might be able to go into an institution to avoid infecting his family, and to cease to become what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called a recruit in the destructive army. We wish to prevent him from injuring mortally those to whom he is most attached, and scattering infection and death in his own household. The fact that the fund for the provision of sanatorium benefit has been depleted in the way I have mentioned prevents local insurance committees from giving institutional treatment to a large number of persons who otherwise ought to have it. I can give you cases, and give the names and addresses, where this very thing is happening now—single-roomed families, the father infecting his own children—and that is a thing of which we all ought to be ashamed. Whether we sit on this side of the House or whether we sit on that, we ought to bring pressure to bear upon the Government in order that the sanatorium fund should be restored to the figure at which it was intended to stand. 7.0 P.M. One word in regard to medical benefit. I repeat the point I made the other night because I want the hon. Gentleman to give me some answer The House decided that the medical treatment was to be adequate, but serious illness ought to be treated as well as slight. The hon. Member (Dr. Addison) said that one of the best features of the Insurance Act was that it attacks illness and disease at its beginning, treats it while it is slight, and prevents it from becoming severe. That is what we want. We also want serious illness to be treated where serious illness exists. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course, want it as much as we do, but under the Regulations that are made that treatment is impossible."It may be that particular insurance committees have not in their own districts provided adequate accommodation. That is their fault."
I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to say anything unfair. Adequate treatment is not impossible under the Regulations for any disease which can be treated at home. Pneumonia and other diseases can be adequately treated at home. The hon. Gentleman is referring to those cases which require special forms of treatment.
I will put it no higher than that. I take the case as the hon. Gentleman says. This House never laid down that the adequate medical treatment to be given was to be limited to treatment to be given in the home, and I venture to think that the hon. Gentleman has carried the matter a good deal further than the Regulations allow. I think he will find that there is a good deal of treatment that could be given in the home that is not allowed by the Regulations. The point is, that owing to the necessities of the case—there is not enough money—the intention of this House has been limited by the Regulations made by the Commissioners far more drastically than the House expected or intended when the Bill was passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it was intended that every patient was to have the best treatment of a doctor and the best drugs. There was to be no limit to the amount of money Spent upon drugs. I do not wish to labour the point. I only wish to remind the House of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the intention of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
That is what we all intended. That is what the Act provides, but people do not get it. This is what the Leeds Insurance Committee says—I am quoting the "Yorkshire Post":—"We have separated the drugs from the doctor and if the doctor thinks that a certain drug is the only thing to save a man's life or health, we tell him to write it down and the State will see that he gets it. For the first time in the history of the country, fifteen million workers can secure as pure and potent medicine treatment as the richest duke in his palace."
That is what the House said, but the people are not getting these remedies. I say that these things demand, and ought to receive, the attention of the Government, and I hope that the Government are not going to put us off by beating the party drum and by attacks upon their political opponents. I have endeavoured, so far as I could, and my hon. Friends behind me have done their best, to treat this matter from the business point of view, and we are entitled to expect that the Government are going to treat it from the business point of view as well. In the hope that we will hear something which will encourage us to believe that they are going to deal with this matter in the interest of insured persons, and deal with it very thoroughly, I shall wait to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to tell us."In moving the minutes of the medical benefit subcommittee. Mr. Kelly read a letter he had written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3rd March, in which he said. 'I am desired by the Leeds Insurance Committee to communicate with you in reference to the deficit on the committee's drug fund for the year. The committee have been compelled to restrict the supply of expensive medicines, and have declined to allow certain drugs and other similar remedies to be provided for insured persons owing to their considerable expense, although the same have been strongly urged by the medical profession on the committee. The large deficit on the drug fund will not allow these remedies to be prescribed. Moreover, the committee have had expert evidence showing that many of these remedies ate very effective, and would really effect a cure where others have failed. The committee feel that it would be a crime for any class of human beings to be debarred from these remedies.'"
I am afraid that the pressure of Departmental work has prevented me from hearing the whole of the Debate, but I heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) and the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster), who dealt mainly with sanatorium benefit, which is the part of the subject with which the Local Government Board are primarily concerned. The hon. Gentleman put his question in the form of a dilemma. He said, "If it is the case that there is now adequate accommodation for insured persons in sanatoria, why are you proposing to spend £1,500,000 on the provision of sanatoria? Either the accommodation now is inadequate, or else your further expenditure is wasteful?" There are two answers to that. In the first place, the £1,500,000 is not intended for the provision of sanatoria only for the insured population, but for the whole population. That Grant is to enable health authorities to provide buildings for the population as a whole, and therefore, whatever accommodation there may be now for insured persons must be multiplied at least threefold before we are able to provide accommodation for the whole of the population. Secondly, much of the accommodation hitherto provided for insured persons is avowedly of a temporary character. It is not inadequate for its purpose, but it might be better. Hospital buildings, which may have been built for the treatment of infectious diseases, and which are not used for that purpose, have been placed at the disposal of the insurance committees, in order to house tuberculous cases. It is obvious you cannot in a moment erect all over the country the sanatoria which are needed for the accommodation of the persons who suffer from this most grave disease. Neither the Local Government Board, nor the insurance committees, nor the health authorities, are satisfied that the accommodation which has been provided from the outset is the best which can be provided, and they are of opinion that far better sanatoria may be provided if they are planned specially for the treatment of this disease than can be provided in buildings which were not erected for that purpose. Therefore, for these two reasons, in the first place, that the whole population has to be provided for in future, and not only the insured population; and, secondly, that the temporary accommodation has to be replaced by permanent accommodation, it is proposed to spend this money. The hon. Member put another dilemma. He said that many persons are receiving domiciliary treatment. I myself stated the other day, on the authority of the Insurance Commissioners, that about 10,000 insured persons were receiving domiciliary treatment in addition to those who were receiving treatment in institutions.
How long?
I cannot give the time. The Insurance Commissioners are now preparing a return which will shortly be laid before Parliament, but I have not seen any statistics. The hon. Member says that if these 10,000 people are receiving domiciliary treatment, it is obviously because there is no accommodation in sanatoria, or no money to send them there. He himself gave a much better answer, for later in his speech he said that if the conditions are proper, treatment in the home may be the best kind of treatment. There is the answer to his own question.
I pointed out that domiciliary treatment is proper where the conditions are proper, but not where the conditions are improper.
The hon. Member says that domiciliary treatment under improper conditions is a bad thing, but he does not say that the conditions are improper in every case, and that, therefore, no one should receive domiciliary treatment. The hon. Member has stated that if the home is not overcrowded, not poverty stricken, and so forth, and if the conditions are proper, domiciliary treatment may be the best form of treatment. He did not say that every person receiving domiciliary treatment is receiving it because he cannot be provided for in a hospital. That I could understand, but he did not say so. He said the opposite. If he admits that it is right in some cases to treat patients in their own homes, then he cannot say that because some persons are receiving treatment there, it is because there is no room in sanatoria, or no money to send them there. The hon. Member speaks on this matter with great authority. He has devoted most laborious attention to the whole subject since the Bill was first introduced. I think he was the first Member to speak on it when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his proposals, and ever since then he has watched it with a great deal of care. But I am sure that he himself would not suggest that his authority on these matters of diagnosis and treatment is comparable to that of the Committee known as the Astor Committee, of which the hon. Member for Plymouth was chairman, which included my hon. Friend (Dr. Addison), who is not only a Member of Parliament, but also a medical man who has specially studied this matter, and which included also the principal medical officers of the Local Government Board and the Board of Education, the Medical Officer of Health of Manchester, and some twelve or thirteen of the most distinguished medical men in the country, each one of whom was put on the Committee on account of his expert knowledge. That Committee said that it is not necessary to send every case to a sanatorium or to an institution. The Committee further said:—
"The advantages of this form of treatment can, in many instances, be given to patients who are living in their own homes, or in shelters. In sonic of these cases it may be desirable to secure that the patient should be provided with additional food or a separate room or bed in order to insure efficient treatment. Under suitable conditions, especially if the treatment is being carried out on the advice of a medical man with special knowledge of modern methods, home treatment may be in all essentials sanatorium treatment."
Read out lines 5, 6, and 7 on the following page.
It says:—
That passage says that in most cases, but it does not say in all cases."Without prejudging the question as to whether sanatorium treatment should be carried out at the patient's home, in a hospital, or in a sanatorium, it may be said that under existing conditions most patients suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis would be given their best chance by a period of treatment in a sanatorium. It should, however, be borne in mind that a short stay in an institution in which the patient may be educated, followed by a course of home treatment in shelters, etc., under close medical supervision, is a form of sanatorium treatment which has certain advantages, and which may be successfully adopted in a large number of cases."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in all cases.
I very much question if he did. This Committee says that in most cases sanatorium treatment is the right treatment; that in some cases it may be brief and followed by treatment in the home under suitable conditions. No one will dispute that. The figures which I gave the other day showed that the number of cases of domiciliary treatment are only half the number of the cases of sanatorium treatment under the Act. The hon. Member would almost suggest that in no case ought there to be domiciliary treatment and that in every case there ought to be sanatorium treatment. And the hon. Member, in order to support his view, asks me to quote another passage, and I have read that passage, from the Report of the Committee, and it does not bear out his contentions.
I thought that you would like to put the complete statement before the House.
I read the whole of this particular passage, which was an answer to the hon. Member who was suggesting that if there was any domiciliary treatment it must be be- cause the sanatoria were inadequate. I hope I have dealt with that sufficiently. The hon. Member who has just spoken laid emphasis on the report of the tuberculosis officer of Marylebone, which was also quoted in debate the other night. I have here an extract from a newspaper which happened to be published on the same evening as that on which the debate took place, giving the reply of the Sanatorium Benefit Sub-Committee of the, London Insurance Committee to the criticisms of the medical officer of Marylebone. They protest emphatically against his statement that there was an unfortunate tendency to limit the stay of all patients in sanatoria and that patients are sent out to make room for others, and they say that both statements are absolutely inaccurate, so far as persons recommended by the committee are concerned. As many as 936 patients have remained in sanatoria for more than three months. How many patients would have remained in sanatoria for a single day if there had been no Insurance Act?
They pay for it.
What proportion of the cost of their treatment is really represented by their contribution? But if there had been no Insurance Act these patients would be infinitely worse off than they are now, because while they would keep in their pockets the few shillings or the pound or two which they have paid in contributions, they would have lost, on the other hand, three months' sanatorium treatment which they have been able to enjoy in consequence of the Insurance Act. Of the 936 patients who have been in sanatoria for more than three months, 109 have received institutional treatment for varying periods, in all cases exceeding six months, and in three cases exceeding a year. The average duration of the institutional treatment given to all patients is necessarily low owing to the fairly large proportion who are admitted for the purpose of observation or for instructional purposes. That is in accordance with the recommendations of the Astor Committee in the passage which the hon. Member asked me to read. Then the hon. Member has said that obviously the number of beds is inadequate, because in the vast figures which he represented as based on a statistical basis of his own he said there must be so many hundreds of thousands of insured persons who are tuberculous for whom accommodation has not been provided. Again, we go back to the Astor Committee. The Astor Committee made their interim Report, giving the number of beds that the Government and the insurance committees should see were provided. When they issued their final Report some months later they saw no reason to modify their previous conclusions. As I stated the other day, on the basis of that Report, 2,100 beds would be required. At present 5,145 are available in sanatoria approved by the Local Government Board for this purpose, so that the estimate of the Astor Committee has been exceeded. The insurance committees have also gone considerably beyond that estimate. Last month there were, in fact, in these sanatoria 3,215 persons, or nearly 50 per cent. more than the Astor Committee thought it necessary to provide accommodation for. For hospital treatment the Committee suggested there ought to be 2,100 beds. There are, in fact, 2,580 available, and 1,658 insured persons are being treated there.
How many applications have been received which have not been Acceded to?
I cannot say that. Of course every consumptive person thinks that he ought to have sanatorium treatment, and for such length of time as he may think desirable; but everyone who has studied this subject knows that there are many cases which are not detected until they have been for some time under observation, and there are many for whom it is clear that sanatorium treatment would be of no use. There is not the least use in sending advanced cases to sanatoria. Therefore, when a person in an advanced stage of consumption comes, or the friends of that person come, to the insurance committee, and they say that he wants to go to a sanatorium, it is not necessary. Of course it would be a kindly act if funds were unlimited to send him to a sanatorium. but from the medical point of view it is not a proper case to be sent to a sanatorium. On the other hand, there are cases which are in the very first stage of phthisis, or which may be still under observation, and they may have to be under observation for a very considerable time before the tuberculosis officers can tell whether it is really a case of tuberculosis which ought to be sent to a sanatorium or not. The diagnosis of this disease in its earliest stages, as everyone knows may be a difficult one. There are, no doubt, many applications which are refused on that ground.
The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to suggest that the estimate which he quoted was a final estimate; it was only the minimum number. If he will look at the Report, page 26, he will see that the figures given in this Report must be taken to be extremely tentative and provisional. Nor did the Committee feel in a position to make a reliable forecast. All the Committee said was that they felt that a minimum of 9,000 beds would be required. The right hon. Gentleman has rather suggested that the 9,000 was the full number which they anticipated would be required.
That is for the whole United Kingdom. The smaller figure which I gave was for England.
One per every 5,000.
That is for the whole population, insured and uninsured. I do not want to repeat the speech which I made the other night, but I then made it quite clear to the House that the Committee did their best to present as reliable an estimate as they could, knowing that the data on which they had to go were very scant, and I emphasised that, and therefore did not repeat it to-day. I am well aware, as the hon. Member has stated quite correctly, that the Committee stated that the estimate must be a minimum one.
A minimum estimate.
That minimum estimate was 2,100 beds for insured persons in England, or 9,000 for the whole population of the United Kingdom. Instead of 2,100 beds in sanatoria, there are 5,145, and there were, in fact, 3,215 insured persons in these sanatoria, or 50 per cent. more than the minimum estimate that was made.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say there was sufficient accommodation for advanced cases of tuberculosis. I would ask him to refer to one of his own statements, in which he says that in some districts there is insufficient accommodation at present for advanced cases of tuberculosis, and that the councils are taking steps to provide fuller accommodation. If that is the case, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that there is at present sufficient accommodation for advanced cases?
So far to-day I have said nothing about advanced cases. I was talking about sanatoria on the last occasion. I said then, and I now repeat, that there are districts in which the insurance committees have not yet made adequate arrangements for all their local cases in their own neighbourhood. If I gave the impression on the last occasion that I thought that everything was perfect and that no progress needs to be made in the future, and that the country is now adequately dealing with the whole problem of tuberculosis for insured persons and others, that is an impression which I did not intend to convey, and I do not think that I did convey it. There are districts in which further efforts should be made and are being made; but taking the country as a whole, the number of beds available is statistically adequate for the number of tuberculous persons among the insured population. There are districts where, at present, the insurance committees have got some persons on their waiting list, or had some time ago. They are making the greatest efforts to make good that deficiency where they exist, and they are being urged to do so by the Commissioners and by the Local Government Board. I can assure the House that we are watching this matter with the utmost care and that we shall not be contented until every district has within reasonable reach of its own locality full and adequate accommodation of a permanent and not merely temporary kind for its own population who can properly be recommended for that treatment.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to another aspect of this subject, namely, the way in which the Insurance Act has broken down and has affected the position of small friendly societies. I am glad to see Members of the Labour party in their places, for I am sure this question is one which affects, not only friendly societies, but trade unions as well. I should like to quote to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) a letter which I have received from the president of the Gilbert Greenall Friendly Lodge of the Loyal Order of Oddfellows, in my Constituency. This small friendly society is in a healthy agricultural district, and up to the time of the Insurance Act it had always been very flourishing. The short account which I received of its condition I think summarises the most disastrous effect which the Insurance Act has upon these small friendly societies. I am informed that this case, about which I have received information, is identical with others in different parts of the country. The president of the society said:—
I wrote to this gentleman, who informed me that the Gilbert Greenall Lodge is an independent lodge, and that there had been delay in the payment of money that was due to the fault of the Insurance Commissioners, and not of the provincial office of the order. Since then I have heard from him that the remainder of the money due from the Insurance Commissioners has been paid up, so I do not propose to dwell upon that further. But what I do desire is that the lion. Member for St. George's-in-the-East will consider the matter. I want him to picture for himself the position in which the society must feel itself to be. Here is a society which has been the centre of the village for over 100 years, and which in that time accumulated nearly £800. Every year there was a fresh increase to the funds and resources at their disposal. The Act has now come into operation, and, in two years, over £200 of their reserve has been dissipated. What is the position in which the men of this society find themselves? They find that the society is going to absolute ruin. If this sort of thing continues for a few years longer, the society certainly will have to face the alternative of either raising the contributions or winding up the society. In order to show hon. Members how the Act has affected the finances of this lodge, I will quote from the balance sheet before the Act came into operation, and since it has been in operation. The index to the prosperity of any society is to be found in the sick fund, whether there has been a profit on that fund or a loss. [HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] It is a very good index."We have eighty-four members, and had a capital of £700 or £800 invested. After so short a time (since the Act came into operation) this has been reduced by £200. No young men joining; they say we cannot afford to pay to two. The State Section is in a very bad way indeed. We cannot get money from the Commissioners to pay the sick. Up to Saturday last we were owing to sick members £10. One man was actually six weeks behind. He thought some of the other members were worse off than himself, so he would wait. Another member, the secretary, found the money out of his own pocket, as the poor sick man was badly in need. Last Friday we sent in a requisition for £17. Yesterday I received £10. This amount you will see is all owing up to last Saturday. As our Member, is it possible you can give us any advice. I may say our little society has been going more than a hundred years. The contributions are 4½d. per week, and the benefits are 10s. per week for fifty-two weeks, 5s. for fifty-two weeks, £10 at death, and £8 at the death of wife Now we have reduced the sick pay to 8s. and 3s., respectively. We are now considering whether to break the thing up or raise the contributions."
You require to take the average age.
I agree with the hon. Member that it is necessary to take other factors into consideration, and I think I have already pointed out to the House, in the letter which I read, that no young men are joining this society, because they cannot afford to contribute to it and to the State section as well. It is one of the most serious points with regard to the society that no young men are joining. Therefore, the financial position of the lodge may very well be worse than would appear from the figures.
Will the Noble Lord give the average age?
I think that can he extracted from the balance sheet. According to it, the sick fund, in the year 1910, showed a total gain of £29. In 1911 there was a total gain of £13; then, in the year 1912, the first year of the working of the Act, there was a total loss to the fund of £44, and again last year of £36.
Is the number of deaths each year given?
The total loss in the last year was £36 16s. 3d. These figures show that since the Act has been in force there has been a loss on the sick fund. Previous to the Act being in force there was a gain, and that gain must have been regular to accumulate to the amount of £800 during the last hundred years.
It would have been the same if there had been no Act.
This society found that the young men of the district could not afford to pay under what they called the State scheme and also under the voluntary scheme. We know that in this House it was expected and anticipated that the two would be amalgamated. You have got to consider the ways in which these small friendly societies work. They have their own traditions, they have their own esprit de corps, and they did not want to be amalgamated under the National Insurance Act. They have made every effort to keep their own individuality, but the result of the Act is that they are being crushed out. I say this—not as an enemy of the Insurance Act: I have always tried to deal with that Act in a fair way—but I do say that unless drastic Amendments are made in this Act these small societies will be gradually driven to the wall. I should like the Government, if they can, to give their attention to this case. I will send the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, if I may, the full facts and a balance sheet, and I will ask him his advice, because I am sure his advice would be respected by the committee of this particular society, and that they would welcome any assistance that the Government could give them to divert the ruin which their president sees staring them in the face. If these small societies are crushed and if their work of generations is to be-broken up and put on the scrap heap then, indeed, the Insurance Act will have done a great deal of evil as against undoubted good which it is doing in other directions. It is because I realise that the Insurance Act has done great good in some directions that I do urge the Government to consider the individual right and individual character of those small societies, which I am sure have played a very great part in building up a spirit of thrift arid sense of responsibility and experience of government among the workers in different parts of the country, and I do make an earnest appeal to the Government to give their attention to the state of this particular society, and many others that are in the same position, and which have a splendid record behind them, though a dismal future seems to threaten them at the present moment.
I will first deal with the question put by the Noble Lord. I am glad, in the first place, to hear that the complaint made by this small society appears to have been settled, and that the money having been paid by the Insurance Commissioners, they have received satisfaction on that point. It is quite impossible to say what may be the position of one of these small societies until the necessary material has been obtained as to the age of members, the conditions of membership, and other factors of that kind. The Act provides that there shall be credited to these societies certain sums, varying according to the age of the members, and other particulars. Until the facts have been ascertained, it is quite impossible to say whether this or other societies is in an insolvent or a solvent position. I would point out that the society to which the Noble Lord referred had a reserve, but that no young members joined, because they said they could not afford to join the approved system as well. The Noble Lord said that the result of this was that the little society is in danger of ruin. If that be the fact, the society is living on the subscriptions of young members, instead of accumulating a reserve as it ought to do.
It lived for 100 years.
I am not arguing that point—I am dealing with the facts. The society should have in reserve in respect of its members sufficient to meet the claims of those members, and if this is a society which could not do so because young men would not join, then I say the society is doomed to failure. The hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Bathurst) raised points which were also raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) as to the adequacy of the medical service, local dispensaries, nursing, and so on. I make bold to say that nobody, when this Bill was passed through Parliament two years ago, was under the impression that for a contribution of 4d. per week that insured persons suffering from every sort of illness, however complicated and difficult, would receive medical or surgical attention. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that 4d. per week was intended to cover complicated and difficult cases in which surgical treatment and surgical appliances were necessary?
Treatment adequate for the disease.
Does the hon. Gentleman opposite say that 4d. is sufficient for surgical operations?
I do not say surgical operations, but all other cases, certainly.
The words, "adequate treatment" are not a description of medical benefit. What the Act contemplated, and what everybody contemplated, was that the same treatment as is given by the family doctor or general practitioner to the family of a man with £160 per year, should be given to everybody insured under the Act. Just as we know that we would never think of asking the family doctor to do things at critical moments without a second opinion, or the assistance of a specialist. It was impossible to contemplate that an Act levying contributions of this kind should have contemplated assistance of that nature to every insured person. I do not recollect that that was contemplated at the time, and I do not think anybody in the House believed that it was.
May I remind the hon. Member that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly insisted on modern methods of exact diagnosis.
I think that everyone that hears me will agree that what the Act contemplated was to provide a general practitioner for everybody insured under the Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did the Chancellor say?"] The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment put the point that a certain number of persons had not selected their doctor, and consequently their names were not on anyone's lists, and he complained, because the money in respect of those persons, 7s. per head, was being paid to doctors who had not earned it.
I made no complaint of that. What I said was what had become of the money.
The money is there for the doctors who are on the panel. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that a doctor is paid 7s. for attending a sick person, and he does not seem to understand that the doctor is paid 7s. per head for persons sick or well, all alike. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tried to make people believe, when the Act was being passed, that whatever happened the minimum benefit was guaranteed to them. He says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that point at the time. The hon. Gentleman referred to a book. In that book the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically spoke about a society becoming insolvent, or unable to pay minimum benefit, and pointed out that a man transferring from one society to another carries with him his transfer value arising from deficiencies and so on. He made it perfectly clear in the book that deficiencies might occur owing to bad management. Does the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) say that however badly a society or branch was managed, the benefits were to be guaranteed for ever to its members. I am sure nobody thinks that, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer never stated it.
made some observations which were inaudible.
Nobody took more care than hon. Members opposite to make clear that there was no official guarantee. Here is one of their leaflets of the hon. Gentlemen opposite:—
"Insurance. Is there a State guarantee. Certainly not. Any statement that there is is untrue."
That is not my point. My point was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was to be a State guarantee.
No, the Chancellor of the Exchequer never did, and never could have made the statement that however badly a society or branch of a society was managed, its members were to receive minimum benefits, because if he had done so, he would have undermined the whole principle on which the Act is based, which is, that the approved societies shall manage the moneys for themselves. As to the question of nursing, to which the hon. Member for Wilton referred, I am not quite sure that it is within the competence of an insurance committee under its powers under the Act to set up nursing associations. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that it is within the power of a society to contribute to associations for that purpose, and perhaps if societies turn their eyes in that direction something of the kind which he desired might be done. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about deficiencies in the drug fund. He read a letter from the Leeds Committee complaining that there was not enough money to meet the charges. I did not gather whether it was an official or private communication.
Written on behalf of the committee.
The fact of the matter is that in this case of the drug fund the regulations and the agreement with the chemists provide and always contemplated that the tariff which had been drawn up should be regarded as a tariff and not as the schedule of fixed prices. It was on that basis that the tariff was agreed to by those who made the negotiations when the Act first came into force. It was on that basis that the regulation provided for scrutinies of the prescriptions with the bills by the members of the medical profession and the chemists respectively. In the case which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is pressing constantly in this House, there is such a scrutiny going on at the present time. The hon. Member complained on Tuesday night that I did not answer his point. Unfortunately time did not permit for everything to be said which we desired to say, but the fact of the matter is, as regards Manchester and Salford, where a deficiency between the bills and the amount available is apparent, the scrutiny is proceeding by a joint committee of the chemists and doctors, and the chemists themselves have entered into an agreement for a fresh year with the committee on the understanding that the prescriptions would be scrutinised by this joint committee. The reason I did not answer in the sense the hon. Gentleman desired—the questions he put to me about the alleged deficiency—was that that scrutiny is proceeding, and it is therefore absolutely premature at the present moment to make any statement as to what may be done. Moreover, as I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman himself, he is not authorised by any official body of chemists in Manchester or Salford to make such representations. Then, again, in some districts whereas there appears to be a deficiency until scrutinies have taken place, in many districts there is, in fact, a surplus, and some part of the floating sixpence will not be required to meet the chemists' bill. For instance, although in Manchester and Salford the prescriptions appear to be in excess over the money available, on the other hand, in Liverpool, St. Helens, Southport, Warrington, and other places, there is, in fact, a surplus, and the provision to meet the charges of the chemists is, in fact, adequate.
There is only one other point with which I wish to deal. Some hon. Members have represented that Section 11 of the Act is doing some harm to working men. They represent that when a man receives compensation for an accident, if that compensation exceeds the amount of sickness benefit to which he is entitled, that then that compensation is taken into account in determining the amount of sickness benefit. The fact of the matter is that this provision has had a most valuable effect in increasing the funds available for the working men and insured persons generally for meeting their needs in case of accidents or in cases of sickness. It has also resulted in actions being set in motion by approved societies, and I will give the House one or two examples from those which have been given to me. Here is a case of a woman run over by a pair- horse van, with her ankles broken. The owners denied liability, and judgment was obtained for £500 against them. Here is another case of a bricklayer's labourer who fell from a scaffolding, and who was said to be suffering from the effects of the accident, and eventually succeeded in obtaining £40. Then there are cases of £25 and of £20, and of £50, and so on. Those are sums which have been recovered at the instigation of the approved society, and the result is that instead of sickness benefit being drawn by those members of the society they have recovered money under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the other money for sickness benefit which would have been paid to them has gone into the funds of the society, as the actuaries contemplated it should. I hope I have met most of the points which have been raised, and I do not wish to occupy the time of the House further in order that other hon. Members may have the opportunity of speaking.The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer) seldom ever addresses this House without having a sneer at the Members of the Labour party.
He is not present to hear you.
8.0 P.M.
I think I was here when the hon. Gentleman who interrupts was not here. At any rate, I repeat that the Noble Lord seldom, if ever, addresses the House without a sneer at the Members of the Labour party. I assume that that is a part of his nobility. As a member and as an official of an approved society, I desire to say that individually I am conscious of many defects in the Insurance Act. At the same time, not only from my experience prior to the passing of the Act, but my experience since it came into operation, with all its defects, it has been of incalculable benefit to the lower paid workers in this country, male as well as female. One of the points I desire to place before the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. W. Benn) is with reference to the women. I remember when the Government calculations were made there was no actuarial experience with respect to sickness so far as the women are concerned, and a great many of the societies all over the country which have great numbers of women members find that the allowance under the Act is altogether insufficient to meet the responsibility and liability that they have undertaken. I had hoped that the two Members of the Government who addressed us would have given the House some assurance on that point, that they would not see the various societies bankrupted as a consequence of that deficiency. The amount of sickness benefit which women get at the present moment is so small that were the amount to be reduced it would hardly be worth having. I desire to press upon the Government the necessity of taking the House into their confidence, and telling us what they intend doing so far as that particular feature on the Insurance Act is concerned. I know that as the result of my own experience there is not a deficiency so far as the women are concerned. In the society of which I have the privilege of being secretary we have some 800 women workers who are employed in the tinplate trade in South Wales, and the sickness experienced there is perfectly normal, and the allowance under the Act meets the liability and responsibility of the approved society. I can therefore, as the result of my knowledge and experience of other societies, press the more strongly upon the Government the necessity of doing something in this matter for those other societies, because of the fact that I am not begging on behalf of my own. Something has been said with respect to the doctors. My experience is that the heavy sickness experienced, particularly with respect to males is absolutely due to the fact that the doctors do not do the duty that they are paid for doing. If you talk with a doctor, and ask him why he gives certificates so indiscriminately, the invariable reply is: "If I do not give a certificate, they will leave me and go to another doctor who is not so particular." That experience is not confined to any one society. Every approved society complains of exactly the same thing. The only remedy is a State medical service. That would place doctors in such a position that they would not have to dread individuals changing from one panel to another. The doctors themselves have said that they want a system of medical referees established: that is, they want to cast on to a second party a responsibility which rests upon them—and that after all that we have heard about the dignity and honour of the medical profession. As secretary of an approved society, I have also had experience with respect to sanatorium treatment. On the whole, I have really nothing to complain about in that respect. The greatest difficulty in some districts arises from the local authorities not being in harmony with the provisions of the Act, and doing everything they can to harass and hamper its operations.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have from time to time criticised the defects of the Act in a reckless spirit. They wax very eloquent with respect to the misdeeds of the Government in not accepting their advice in the framing of the Act. The old maxim with regard to people in glass houses not throwing stones holds good. I remember an Unemployed Workmen Act being passed by the party opposite, and, after our experience of that Act, it appears to me that their criticisms of this great measure are in consequence impotent. With respect to the Amending Act passed last year, I venture to say that we on these benches were largely responsible for it. Many of its provisions were provisions which we had suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the original measure was going through the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not see eye-to-eye with us, but as a result of experience it was demonstrated that our suggestions were of a practical character, and they have now been embodied in the law. The hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Forster) depicted the horrors of a man suffering from consumption, and living with a family of three in one room. He pointed out the dangers arising to the family in such a case and the necessity of the man's being sent for sanatorium treatment. But after the man has undergone the treatment, what is the use of putting him back under the same conditions? If there is any sin so far as that is concerned, the hon. Gentleman and his party are not guiltless, for when they were in power they did nothing to remedy the conditions which he so eloquently depicted. We have a remedy for these things, but that remedy does not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Devonport had some rude things to say about the Members of the Labour party. He can take it from me that we are not going to be made tools of by Gentlemen such as he.Will the hon. Gentleman elucidate a little what he means by the phrase, "Gentlemen such as he?"
I am very sorry if I re ferred to the hon. Gentleman. It was not he whom I had in mind; I meant the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor). As a consequence of our experience of the untold benefit that has accrued to thousands of men, who otherwise would not have been provided for so far as sickness is concerned, we are not going to be duped by Members such as the one to whom I have already referred.
As there are only two or three minutes remaining, the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) will perhaps excuse me if I do not follow him in reference to the points he has made. I want to deal rather with two observations of the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. W. Benn). The hon. Gentleman, when dealing with the question of minimum benefits, said that we on this side did not think that the minimum benefits were guaranteed, and he called attention to a leaflet on which the question "Are the minimum benefits guaranteed" was set out, and the reply, "Certainly not" given. I never thought that the minimum benefits were guaranteed. What I objected to was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say that they were. In the book published by him he said as plainly as anything could be said, that the State would guarantee the benefits. It was because of that statement, and statements made by other Members of the Government, by Mr. Masterman himself, that that leaflet was issued. Mr. Masterman, speaking on 31st October, 1911, at the Croydon Public Hall, said that the Bill gave a State guarantee where the insurance societies might be insecure. That is reported in the "Daily News" of 23rd October, 1911. I remember, too, that the hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose) made a very strong statement to the effect that one of the things he liked most about the Bill was that in future the benefits of insured persons were to be guaranteed. It was because of that sort of statement that the leaflet was issued. It will not do for the hon. Member now, two years after the publication of the book, to say that somewhere else in the book there is a contradictory statement. It is quite true, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always contradicting himself. He has never withdrawn the statement. He might withdraw it now if he chose.
Another question raised to-night was in reference to the medical benefit. We have asked that a Return should be made showing how many of the insured people, all of whom are paying for medical benefit, are in fact getting it. There is no difficulty in making that Return, but it is always refused from the Treasury Bench. The chairman of the London Insurance Committee, the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Dawes), joined with me in asking for that Return, but owing to the formalities at the Table the Return could not be put down in two names. It is not a party question at all. There is a real desire to know how the medical service can be improved, but we have not the figures. In London nearly 25 per cent. of those who are being charged 9s. every year for medical benefit are not getting medical benefit at all; they have neither chosen a doctor nor had a doctor assigned to them. In Essex the percentage is about thirteen. Out of 325,000 insured people 42,000 have neither selected a doctor nor had a doctor assigned to them, although £15,000 a year is being taken from them with that object. Can the hon. gentleman say that that is an adequate medical service for the people who are being charged for it? It is no use saying, "It is their own fault; why do they not get a medical ticket and choose a doctor?" I know that that is the answer that is given. But with whom are you dealing? With people who are not yet accustomed to the Act, with people who are, if you like, careless. But you are not giving them the medical benefit for which they are insured—rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(In the Committee.)
National Health Insurance, Joint Committee
Class Vii—Vote 2
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £223,864, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, including Sundry Grants in Aid."
[NOTE.—52,000 has been Voted on account.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (30th March).
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. Whitley, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Private Business
Local Government Provisional Orders (No 21) Bill—(By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I propose in whatever I say to say it in no party spirit. I move the Amendment which stands in my name as a substitute for that of my hon. Friend, who has not been able to be present to night. As practically a new-comer to this House, my excuse, if I may say so, for taking part in this Debate to-night, is because I happen to represent one of the Divisions of the county that is almost vitally affected by the Bill. I remember that on the former occasion of debate in this matter the right hon. Gentleman who sits for a neighbouring Division welcomed me to this House because we happened on that occasion to be in unison on this particular question. I remember, though to my regret, that he told us that he had done everything possible to prevent me being here. I think, however, that it is a great point with us that we Members who represent Cambridgeshire in this House are united against the desire. of Cambridge to become a county borough. I remember that upon the former occasion a very able speech was made by the hon. Member for West Ham, and also that a speech was delivered from this side of the House by the hon. Member for Cambridge Borough. An hon. Member said that if these two Members had been transposed we would have heard equally able speeches from a different point of view. That may be the fact, but I think besides that there is in this question to-night a very great question of principle over and above the actual county re borough concerned. I think that the whole of our difficulty arises from how we translate or what interpretation we put upon the word "desirable" in Section 54 of the Local Government Act of 1888. I, for one, hold very strongly that the word "desirable" means desirable from every point of view; not from one point of view alone. In that expression of opinion I am aware that I differ somewhat from the Chairman of Committee before whom this Bill came since it was in this House last. He said that he thought that, so long as a borough expressed the opinion that it was desirable from their point of view, that the borough probably made out its case. I look at it from an opposite point of view. The interpretation that I put upon this word is that we must see that the benefits of the borough distinctly outweigh the hardships that it is going to inflict upon the county. Possibly as a member, for the last four years, of the London County Council I may be somewhat prejudiced in favour of the county council view over and above the county that I represent at the present moment, because I would remind the House that it is Parliament itself that has set up the, machinery of county councils throughout this country, and I claim the indulgence of hon. Members and their patience, and I ask them to weigh the borough claims which are going to be put forward to-night to overthrow the machinery which this Parliament has itself set up, and which I submit county council members have most loyally carried out, in spite of the additional burdens put upon them from Year to year. The particular county of which I speak to-night is Cambridge. I think the time has now arrived when we may with justice ask what is going to be the policy of the Local Government Board in future, for I remember most distinctly that on the former occasion when this Bill was before us one of the reasons put forward in support of the boroughs' claims was, that in no single instance have the claims of boroughs been put aside. Does not that fully entitle us to ask what is going to be the future policy of the Local Government Board, because, as I have already said, I think this question to-night really turns on how we are to construe the word "desirable"—whether it is from every point of view or simply because the borough has attained a population of 50,000 inhabitants that, ipso facto, it shall have its way if it applies to be made a county borough? I would submit that in this county we have several grievances put forward. In London, taking my own experience, I happen, unfortunately, to live very close to Harrod's, in Brompton Road, and I see that in the last few years they have built an enormous garage at the back of my own house, and that garage has been built entirely for the housing of those big motor-vans going out from London all over the counties, and in that way competing with local tradesmen in different parts of this country. I say that that is going on to the same extent in the county of Cambridge. In these days, I am thankful to say, there is a great deal of sympathy being shown with the industry of agriculture, and I submit that if we pass this Bill to-night, not only are we not showing any sympathy whatever with agriculture and local tradesmen and small tradesmen in the villages, but we are deliberately helping other big firms to enter into competition with small tradesmen of the villages. I remember, too, that on the last occasion when we were debating this matter in this House the hon. Member for the Borough of Cambridge advanced as one of the reasons in support of his argument the question of the bridges within Cambridge itself, and he said that there were a lot of old bridges not up to modern requirements there. In Cambridge itself there were only two county bridges, and both these have been built with every modern requirement. They are both cast-iron, arched girder bridges. One is the Great Bridge, built in 1823, and the other the Silver Streak Bridge, built in 1841. These are the only two bridges in Cambridge. But surely if they put the blame on to the county council they should look into the matter a little further and see whether they are not themselves to blame in this matter as well. I think the county council most of all must take care of the thoroughfare through the city and the requirements of local traffic. It does not concern itself with the improvements of the city. We find that the actual breadth of these bridges—and I will take them separately—the actual breadth of the Great Bridge, taking the whole roadway extent, is 20½ feet—not very wide, I grant. If we look at the roads that lead to that bridge, I think we may say that we can show a breadth of 16½ feet on the one side, and on the other side of 16 feet of road. I will guarantee to say that if the borough wishes to widen these roadways themselves, the county council will use its best influence to widen the bridges accordingly. But I do say until that is done the county council ought not to be required to widen these bridges uselessly. I know a good many Members wish to address the House on this question to-night, and I submit in conclusion that before we pass this Bill we should really weigh in our minds whether the Bill is desirable not only from the borough point of view, but whether it is going to act with greater fairness to the county as well as to the borough which is pressing for it.I rise to second the Amendment.
I have never been able to understand why the three boroughs are put into one Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield evidently appreciates it, because I believe it is common ground that his case against the boroughs of Cambridge and Luton is a very much stronger one than the case against the city of Wakefield. I propose to say a few words from the point of view of Bedfordshire. I will not cover the ground already so well traversed by my hon. Friend opposite. I want to give the House a few simple facts and to ask the House on the consideration of these facts to reject the Bill. With regard to Luton we are faced with this position—that Luton is only half the rateable value of the whole county of Bedford. The county council has worked well and amicably in the past, and county business has been ably and economically carried out. The whole principle of county government is that the weak shall help the strong and the thickly populated districts shall stand shoulder to shoulder with the scattered population. If the application of the borough of Luton is granted merely because it happens to have just over 50,000 inhabitants, the borough of Bedford will take immediate steps to qualify, and in that event the county council administration becomes absolutely impossible, and the solidarity which conies of acting together will altogether vanish. But there is another aspect of this case. The whole proceedings under these provisional orders tends to become automatic, and the merits of the question scarcely arise. The moment a borough reaches a population of 50,000 and puts in the application the Order is made by the President of the Local Government Board, and it is merely subject to confirmation by Parliament, and in this way, by a single stroke of the pen, the whole relation of a borough to a county may be shattered. I think that Parliament ought to reconsider the whole question of the creation of county boroughs. It is a very serious matter, and I am perfectly certain that when this Clause was put into the Local Government Act it was never intended that it should work automatically. It is on that ground that I submit that Parliament ought to seriously consider this question, either by the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, which could look into the whole subject from top to bottom. This Bill will seriously damage county government in the counties of Cambridge and of Bedfordshire. The case of Cambridge is stronger than that of Bedford, because, if this Order is granted, we shall still have the borough of Bedford, while Cambridge will be left practically stranded, and while county government will be damaged, I submit to this House that there will be no corresponding advantage to the boroughs concerned. Further, the financial difficulties of the situation are very real. I know I shall be told that suitable compensation will be given, but whatever compensation is awarded will not really compensate for the real loss that will accrue to the county. The counties concerned will be left with hundreds of miles of roads to maintain at a constantly and inevitably increasing cost. There is also the question of rural education. Small schools in scattered parishes are admittedly the most expensive to work, maintain, and administer, and I believe that the marriage of these boroughs with the county is an immense advantage to all concerned. For these simple and obvious but convincing reasons I ask the House to reject this Bill by a large majority.I wish to know if I should be in order in moving an Amendment, that the application of Wakefield be granted and the others refused. As a member of the Committee, I was fully persuaded that Wakefield's claim was made out, and that the others entirely failed. I am now in an awkward position. I would much prefer to be able to vote that the application of Wakefield be granted, and the others refused. Unless I can do that I shall have to vote against the Bill.
I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Member because the Amendment has already been moved, and I must put it.
I rise to support this Bill. I would very respectfully say to my hon. Friend who has just spoken that if there are no more serious arguments against the claims of those three boroughs than those which have been urged by previous speakers, I do not despair of the result of the Division that will take place upon this Bill. The hon. Member for the Newmarket Division (Mr. Denison-Pender) referred to a speech which I made on the Second Reading, and I gather from that that his chief cause of complaint is one connected with the traffic coming out of Cambridge, and the remarks I made upon some of the existing bridges in Cambridge. He did not quote the part of my remark on that occasion to the effect that the borough had the greatest trouble in getting the Grants for the bridges when demands were made. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, in which he said that it was a pity that all these three boroughs had been put into the same Bill, I can only respectfully say that that is not the fault of Cambridge, and it should mot be a serious argument against this Bill. The hon. Member used the argument that Parliament should reconsider the whole question of these Local Government Orders. I have no objection whatever to that, but I take up the case on this point on behalf of these boroughs, because they have all been put to very serious expense and a great loss of time, and it would be a very great hardship if because Parliament had not seen fit to alter the Bill, that they should lose their present status. I have the greatest admiration for the way in which our opponents have attacked us all along the line for a long time past, but I suggest that we have made some progress, and that ought to be an argument for the passage of this Bill.
It is very well known to the House that most searching examination was made by the officials of the Local Government Board before they consented at all to give this Provisional Order. The late President of the Board stated on the Second Reading that a primâ facie case had been made out for each of the three boroughs. He argued very fairly that this House is not the place in which it is possible to go into all the facts and figures in connection with these separate boroughs. It is obvious there is not sufficient time allotted for that, and that the proper place for a discussion of that kind and for a severe examination of a Bill is in a Select Committee. I thought that on that occasion I advanced seine very substantial arguments on behalf, particularly, of the borough of Cambridge. I am not going to weary the House with a repetition of those arguments; in fact, they were advanced both before and since the Second Reading in the various circulars sent to every Member of this House. It has struck me that the main bone of contention now is the question whether the county council would be so weakened that it could not be efficiently administered if the borough were taken out of their area. That question was discussed at the time, and, as the House will very well remember, an Instruction was agreed to without a Division—it was not one which, under ordinary circumstances, could be considered favourable to the boroughs, but they made no objection—and it was that the whole of the question should be thoroughly gone into by the Committee. The Committee met and sat a good many days, and reported favourably. I am bound to say that the Report said that the county would be to a certain extent weakened by the loss of the borough assessable value, but it would not be so impaired, they said, that it could not be efficiently administered. It further went on to say that there are powers by which a proper financial adjustment could be made if this Bill were passed into law under the principles which were laid down by the Devonshire Joint Committee in 1911, and which were finally passed in the Local Government. Act of 1913. It should be remembered that the Joint Committee was set up at the request of the County Councils Association, and that association agreed with the findings of that Committee. If the argument that the administration would be weakened by the borough being taken out is a sound one, I would respectfully urge that there are powers under the Local Government Act by which they can get more members to strengthen the county administration. The boroughs came unwillingly into the new alliance, and at considerable cost to themselves, and now, when there is a question of their going out of this alliance under this Adjustment Act, of course, if the thing goes through, they will have to meet the cost, and will have to pay very consider- able damages extended over a period of years. Many hon. Members in this House believe in the principles of Home Rule. The borough is the local authority for the administration of the police, public health, sanitation, elementary education, and many other things, while the county council contributes to such things as main roads, and higher education. The County Council of Cambridgeshire has sixty-four members, of whom twenty represent the borough, but these twenty are not allowed to sit or vote on any question in regard to which the borough is not assessed with the rest of the county. The county, apart from the borough, is probably more agricultural and rural than almost any other part of the country, and yet, while the borough is one of the oldest and has the greatest university in the world, it is the county and not the borough which is the authority for higher education. If it were not so very serious it would be a farce. I might add that the university sent their representatives to support the town in their claim. I would further urge that the fact that if the borough is taken from out of the county it would be almost entirely agricultural is rather an argument for this Bill going through than against it, because in these days it is well known that agriculture is on the up grade, and that Parliament is giving more and more attention to one of the greatest of our industries.The greatest.
Yes, the greatest. Therefore, seeing that this county council, as I have already said, could be strengthened, they would be very much better off if they had an accession of members who would be more likely to know much more about agricultural matters than the average representative of the borough. I think hon. Members will have seen the letter and the leading article in the "Times" of 19th March, published by a curious coincidence on the morning of the day when this Debate was likely to take place. Fortunately the Debate did not take place on that day, and there has been time to investigate and meet the arguments contained in that letter and leading article. I want to state in that connection that they made a statement that the county of Cambridgeshire had already been mutilated and weakened by the fact that Newmarket and Royston had been made county boroughs. Neither of those two places are county boroughs; they are governed by urban district councils, and it is a fact that but for a very small portion New- market is in the county of Suffolk, and not Cambridge, and almost all but a very small portion of Royston is in Hertfordshire, and not Cambridgeshire.
Wholly in Hertfordshire.
The rest of the argument, or at least that part of it which I remember, seemed to me to be strange, and really to amount to this: If a man has been caught he ought to ask the judge of the Court that his case might be postponed until he could get Parliament to change the existing law. Now, the hon. Member made a reference to one of the arguments that has been advanced all along—that all the boroughs that have asked to be made county boroughs and have complied with all the requirements of the law have had that permission granted. That seems to me a very strong argument in our favour. It seems most unjust that Cambridge should lose this Bill. I take it that the other two in that case will also lose their Bill. They have all been put to very great expense, and have suffered much loss of time, and, therefore, it seems to me this is a case in which I can appeal to the sense of justice of Members of this House. These places have met all the requirements of the Statute; the arguments they have brought forward have been seriously considered by a Select Committee which sat eleven days, and, I may again urge, repeating in substance what the late President of the Local Government Board said, that this House is not the place to discuss the details of these three different boroughs. It may justly be asked to accept the decision of the Select Committee, and, in so doing, it will only confer justice on the three boroughs concerned.
9.0 P.M.
I wish to speak particularly with reference to the case of Wakefield, a borough which I have the honour to represent in this House. Wakefield is in a very different position to the two boroughs concerning which we have had a certain amount of discussion. Its position, as has been said, is practically incontestable; and that is the view that was taken upstairs by the Committee upon this question. The Committee sat for some days considering the cases of Cambridge and Luton, and it was very much divided in regard to the merits of granting a Provisional Order in those cases—in fact it was equally divided, and it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman that the matter was sent forward a further stage. In regard to Wakefield, however, the Committee was unanimously in favour of granting a Provisional Order, and the position that they took up was borne out by the facts in relation to the progress of the Order, from the inception of the movement until it reached the Committee, and particularly by the conduct of the West Riding County Council, for when notice was given to that county council that Wakefield intended to follow the example of two other large boroughs which had been successful in their application the year before, the county council deliberately decided that it would not oppose the Provisional Order contained in the Bill, and Wakefield went on with its application on that basis. Conferences were held from time to time in which it was assumed on the part of Wakefield, and conceded on the part of the county council, that no opposition would be offered. When the inspector of the Local Government Board came down and held an inquiry the county council was in the position of having firmly and definitely pledged itself not to oppose the Provisional Order, and, in fact, it did not oppose it. What has happened since that time to change the situation? Certainly the West Riding County Council is no poorer; it is not a case of more dire necessity now than it was then, for it has made good, and more than made good, by natural growth all that it lost by county borough powers being conferred on Barnsley and Dewsbury in the previous year. I do not think the hon. Member who on the last occasion opposed this Order will now advance any argument that the West Riding is short of recuperative power either in regard to rateable value or population. Of course, something has happened since the West Riding County Council deliberately took this step, and what has happened is this: Cambridge and Bedfordshire have organised an attack on the whole scheme of granting county borough powers to boroughs, and one can imagine that they persuaded the West Riding County Council, through the medium of the County Councils Association, to which they belong, that they had, in fact, a much better case than they thought they had, and they thereby brought them into this great movement. See what follows. Handicapped as they were, stultified by their own actions, they came to the Committee upstairs. That Committee assumed, after hearing two witnesses only for Wakefield, that they had abundantly proved its case, and called upon the county council to make good its objection. This the West Riding Council utterly failed to do. As far as I am able to judge their case, and as far as it was stated in this House on the last occasion when this matter was before us, they do not today oppose this Order on the ground that there are any faults to be found with Wakefield's application, but they oppose, almost entirely, it on the ground that if this process goes on there will ultimately arise a situation that will be extremely dangerous to the West Riding County Council.
We know there are in the West Riding of Yorkshire three other boroughs that may possibly, in the course of the next few years, come to this House and ask for similar powers to those which Wakefield are asking. They are Keighley, which has a population of 43,000; Batley, with a population of about 36,000; and Harrogate, which is not now growing so rapidly as it did, and the population of which approaches 33,000. When one realises there is really only one borough at present within anything like measurable distance of being in a position to make this same application, I do not think the West Riding County Council can on that ground say there must be nothing more done for a long and indefinite period to give to these-boroughs what have been assumed to be certain rights and powers of autonomy which they so rightly claim at the hands, of this House. The position in regard to Wakefield is this: If to-day this Provisional Order were granted the West Riding County Council would only lose 3½ per cent. of its population and.24 per cent. of its acreage, and the latter loss, I venture to think, would, if anything, be an advantage to the West Riding, in the view of those who know the varying characteristics of this huge area. I would venture to suggest to its distinguished representative in this House that certain parts of the county would be much better for being liberated from the shackles and burden of having to look after the main roads of Wakefield. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is going to ask for any more powers for the West Riding County Council than it now possesses. I do not suppose he would get them if he did. But I do submit that the county council does nothing for the main roads of Wakefield. It takes about £3,000 annually out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and spends it on county roads in other parts of the county, and I want to put it to my hon. Friend whether he thinks it fair that we should continue to pay this £3,000 every year for the upkeep of roads in various parts of the county, some more than sixty miles away, and in no sense relating to the borough of Wakefield, or having any kind of connection whatever with it. The case that has been made out in regard to Luton, and the case made out by the hon. Member for Newmarket (Mr. Denison-Pender) who moved the rejection of this Provisional Order, were the cases of towns that send out into the county and over the main roads of the county a considerable amount of traffic. Nothing of the kind happens with regard to Wakefield. The traffic sent out into the main roads of the West Riding of Yorkshire is sent out almost entirely from two centres, Leeds and Bradford. In regard to Wakefield, there are only eight heavy motor vehicles licensed in Wakefield. It is absurd to contend that Wakefield has any relation whatever to those parts of the county sixty or seventy miles away in the North-West, between which and Wakefield there are two large county boroughs, which cut it off from any connection therewith. If we are to wait for that period when, it may be, that a Royal Commission will have sat, although the Prime Minister held out no hope of that being the case, it may be that we shall ultimately have an inquiry into the whole relationship of counties and boroughs, but it must necessarily be a very long time. Meanwhile, the citizens of Wakefield are continually paying, although heavily rated themselves, large sums of money which they need for even the most elementary purposes which have not been attended to in the town of Wakefield. Wakefield is a very old borough, and has many of the defects of an old borough, and when it comes to wanting to remedy them and remedying them by spending every available penny out of its own rateable value, we are met by the plea of the wealthy county council that they cannot give up what is a paltry sum to them, the sum of £3,000 per annum. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), on the last occasion the matter was considered, was pleased to make great play with regard to our population. I think he alleged that Wakefield only reached the limit by including a large number of lunatics in the county asylum.
And in the prison.
I cannot say how many there are connected with the prison, but probably some 400 or 500 at the outside. In any event, the population of Wakefield, according to the last Census, was 53,000, which is well over the mark. Since that time the Wakefield Corporation have been able to go more carefully into the subject of population than I was able to do when I last spoke on this subject in this House. I find that now the population of Wakefield must be over 60,000, and it is increasing with very considerable rapidity, the town itself being extremely crowded, many of the houses holding an average of five persons per house, instead of the basis upon which we reckoned when I said that the population was 56,000 or 57,000 last year, namely, a basis of just over four persons. In view of the fact that so many other speakers wish to go into the general question, I do not want to do so, but I will call attention to the fact that Sir John Horsfall, the Chairman of the West Riding County Council, speaking on this subject said that the financial loss, if any, would be a very slight one. In his evidence before the House of Commons Committee he said that the profit was over £3,000 per annum. I should say that the county council are making what to them is a slight profit, but what to us is a serious matter, a profit out of Wakefield in regard to main roads solely. I see that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lane-Fox) shakes his head, but Sir John Horsfall said before the Committee that the profit was over £3,000 per annum.
If that is so, and I see no reason to challenge his statement, it is a very serious thing for the Wakefield people to know that for no conceivable advantage they are paying this money over to the West Riding County Council every year. I have only one other word to say, which is that the services we want to take over, the main road services, if taken over under the powers conferred upon us by this Provisional Order would be a distinct advantage. We do the repairs ourselves, and then send in, according to the usual custom, our bill to the West Riding County Council, and they pay it, so that the West Riding County Council, in regard to the main roads, do nothing for us except make a profit out of us. That is a thing which ought not to be perpetuated in a poor industrial town, which has a, rate of 8s. 10d. in the £ now, and which has, in addition to that, a very high basis of assessment, which makes the rates much higher than they actually seem to be from the figure of 8s. 10d. As to education, the West Riding County Council is the authority for secondary education, whereas we should be the authority. We have an able education authority in our own town which is capable of administering the elementary education and also secondary education if it has the opportunity. I claim that on the most elementary principles of democratic government the Wakefield Corporation is now entitled to come to this House and claim that this Bill which affects it so vitally shall not be rejected at the hands of this House.I wish to repudiate the suggestion of several speakers that Wakefield has not got a case, although I admit that the case of Wakefield rests on rather different grounds than that of the other two cities concerned. The hon. Member who has just sat down made a strong point of the fact that the county council did not oppose, in its initial stages, the proposition that Wakefield should assume county borough powers. That is very easily explained. I am able to speak on behalf of the county council, having been a member of it for a considerable number of years, and I need hardly say that I speak in no sense of opposition to Wakefield as a city. I have every reason to be fond of Wakefield, and no wish to oppose or injure it. The county council did not oppose the initial stages in these proceedings, because they had already come to the conclusion that it was absolutely hopeless in view of the practice that was then growing up in the Committees of this House to accept Provisional Orders from the Local Government Board as absolutely final. In view of what happened recently in the case of the granting of powers to Dewsbury and Barnsley, on very inadequate grounds, the county council came to the conclusion that it was a mere waste of money, under existing conditions, to oppose this application any further. When we found that there was a chance of success, it was mainly owing to a very remarkable speech by the Prime Minister in response to a deputation, in which he admitted that the action of the Local Government Board in granting the Provisional Order ought not to be final.
That was long after the West Riding County Council had organised its opposition.
I am quite aware of that, but the Opposition did not actually fructify until after that speech was made. They had been considering it long before that, I admit. The speech of the Prime Minister led us, and a good many people, to suppose that Committees of the House in future would deal on the merits with each particular question, and would not accept a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board as finally settling the case. The hon. Member also dealt with the question of roads in Wakefield, and suggested that the county council was making a considerable profit out of the city. I think perhaps the less he said about the roads in Wakefield, considering that Wakefield administers and repairs its own roads, the better. We have provided the money, and though the hon. Member says we made a profit of £3,000 a year out of that, Wakefield has had the advantage of using the main roads in all this area for a considerable time, and as the city increases and develops and its trade develops, so the traffiic on the main roads will be all the heavier. I wish to deal with the main principle on which we wish to oppose the granting of these powers. The Committee did not consider the case on its merits. Under the chairman's ruling it was inevitable that the case should go against Wakefield. He ruled that granted that the borough passed a resolution in favour of this, and granted that it proved his case in the matter of population, that was sufficient. In passing the original Act in this House, by the word "desirable," it was intended to show that it was desirable from all points of view. No evidence was asked for in the case of Wakefield to show that it was desirable in the interests of Wakefield or that Wakefield would benefit by the change which is suggested.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misinterpret, but he is referring to an intimation which, as Chairman of the Committee, I gave, that we could not attach very much importance to evidence offered by the county council, intended to show that the granting of county borough powers would not be a good thing for Wakefield in the face of evidence called by the borough of Wakefield to show that it was. I did not intend to go further than that, and I do not think I did.
The fact remains that no evidence was called to show that Wakefield would benefit.
Certainly; two witnesses were called.
I think a very small proportion of evidence was called on that point. At any rate, since that evidence was brought before the Committee a considerable number of new facts have come to light which strengthen the case very largely, in addition to the evidence brought on that occasion. We have had a considerable number of new county boroughs in the last few years in the West Riding. Before 1912 there was only the new county borough of Rotherham. Since then, in 1912, there were Dewsbury and Batley, and in 1913 the Wakefield application was made, and there is evidence of several more prospective boroughs wishing to got county borough powers in the immediate future, and also the possibility of the amalgamation of various populous urban districts, which may at any time aggregate themselves into a body which can have county borough powers. Under the figures which have actually been published in the newspapers in the matter of the extension of boroughs already created, we stand to lose in the West Riding a population of 180,000 and a rateable value of £850,000. When the hon. Member says we only stand to lose 2½ per cent. of our population he has left out of account the fact, not only that we stand to lose by the creation of the new county boroughs, but also by the extension invariably applied for as soon as they are created. Not only that, but in addition to these extensions which are asked for, already we know, though these facts have not been so fully published, that there are others which will raise the loss of the population to about 500,000, which will mean that out of a population of 1,600,000 we shall be losing 500,000.
Does that include the Leeds and Bradford extensions, because they have been entirely abandoned for the moment.
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that they are not permanently abandoned. I said these extensions and losses we have to contemplate in the near future. There is also proof that Wakefield itself, if it gets county borough powers, intends to extend. I will quote from a speech of an ex-mayor of Wakefield in which Mr. Alderman Hudson on 6th May definitely stated that when Wakefield becomes a county borough that would be merely a stepping stone to greater things, and that after the full realisation of their ambition there should be, no such thing as standing still. They must show the Local Government Board that they were not only capable of governing their present area, but also those outside the borders who are enjoying its wealth and prosperity. That was a reason why he considered that Wakefield, in the near future, would benefit from being a county borough. The West Riding County Council is a very progressive body. It is not one of those councils which is entirely composed of bald-headed reactionary country gentlemen who have no wish except to keep the rates down. It has a most progressive system of higher education, and it stands the risk of being left with a certain number of patches, or rural and moorland area, and having all its urban area taken away from it. What is going to be the future? We have built up a large system of county government; we have great buildings; a very large staff. We have a very complete system of higher education. We have a very elaborate and progressive system of sanitary organisation, and our sanatorium scheme is one which everyone admits to be excellent. All these things will be made impossible and crippled and done away with to a large extent if these applications continue. I do not mean to say that the mere application of Wakefield is going to have this effect, but the cumulative effects entitle us to say that before this process goes on we ought to have the whole question thoroughly gone into and the whole system of county government revised by a body competent to do it, either by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, or a Royal Commission, or something of that sort. One witness before the inquiry suggested that if this process went on the county would fall away. That is exactly what we are afraid of. I think we are entitled to come before this House and make a protest as a body, having done our best for the county. Nobody can say that we have been reactionary, and everyone must admit that we have made the best of our opportunities. Wakefield will not lose by waiting. Wakefield gave a definite pledge when we originally built our county hall there that she did not wish to become a county borough.
Can the hon. Member quote that pledge? I deny its existence.
It is a pledge that many of the old members of the county council remember, but I dare say it was not given in writing. If the hon. Member knew the case better he would not question the statement. I appeal to the House that before the application is granted, there should be a proper inquiry into the whole system of county government.
We have heard much about Wakefield and Cambridge, but very little about the progressive borough I have the honour to represent. I ventured to remark last year that in approaching this subject it was one of considerable embarrassment to myself. I am rather in the position of being pulled different ways by contending forces. I do not pretend to have the privilege of representing a compact Parliamentary borough or a compact Parliamentary area. I represent both, and my position is one of some difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vote against the Bill."] No, I shall support it. Having regard to what in this House are called the relevant circumstances of the case, I have decided to support the Third Reading of the Bill, for these reasons: The Bill has been through all the statutory stages. There has been a Local Government inquiry, as I understand. There has been the making of the Order by the Local Government Board, and the Bill has passed successfully through a Select Committee of this House. I cannot imagine any reason why the Bill should not pass other than the general reason of principle. It may well be argued whether it is in the main a good thing for these urban areas to be cut out of the county areas. I can well imagine a very fruitful discussion on that topic, but I think this is not the time or the occasion to go back to elementary first principles. This point, in my judgment, should have been decided by the Government before these Bills were introduced. It would be grossly unfair to these three boroughs to reject their Bill at this stage. They have been encouraged by the unvarying practice, as I understand, of twenty-five years to seek for county borough status, and I do not see why these boroughs should be stopped by the House of Commons on this occasion, and, least of all, the borough of Luton. Luton is a town of fast increasing population, great enterprise, and great municipal character. I am not contrasting its virtues with those of the County Council of Bedfordshire, a body for which I have a little respect. But I notice that the borough of Luton is on all possible grounds entitled to the full benefit of the Act of 1888, and I do submit that this House would be doing that borough a very serious injustice if it refused a Third Reading to this Bill to-night.
I have very few words to say, and I hope I shall receive the indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time. I have the fortune or the misfortune to represent a borough council and a county council, and I am somewhat in this matter between Scylla and Charybdis, but I have made up my mind to support the Bill. I do so for several reasons which seem to me to be sufficient. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Denison-Pender) said very truly that the word "desirable" in this Bill is a very important one. I quite agree with him, but I do not put the same interpretation on it as he does. I have the misfortune to remember the Bill brought in in 1888. I was mayor of the town I have the honour to represent, and with other representatives of boroughs we did our best to get an admittedly high standard placed upon the boroughs in the first instance. The small boroughs exercised great pressure to have a lower number, and with this success—that it was reduced to 50,000. I think that was held out as a bait or reward to boroughs, if they increased largely and showed generally that it was desirable, that they should be made county boroughs. I have often found that the county council has been rather hard on the borough council. In many cases which I could mention the county council have rather put pressure on the rates of the boroughs. There is one notable instance in the town I represent, where they would not help to improve a bridge by widening it. Although that bridge is more than sufficient for the purpose of the town itself, almost the whole of the traffic to the West of England and Wales is served by it. We could get no grant from the county for the purpose of widening the bridge, with the result that it has remained sufficient for the town itself, but absolutely insufficient for the traffic it carries to the West and North of England. I do not wish to speak of Luton or Wakefield in particular, because I know little about them, but as to Cambridge, the county council think if anyone ought to be exempted it is that town, but their arguments seem to me to be thoroughly bad.
First of all, we are placed in a perfectly ridiculous position as regards education in Cambridge. If Cambridge is a non-county borough, as at present, it is actually under a county council in a county where there are no large towns, where they say they cannot find efficient men to man the county council. Cambridge town shares with Oxford the high position of being the leader of higher education of the whole world, and yet it is actually subservient to the agricultural county of Cambridge. The argument against Cambridge being made a county borough, that they cannot find members in the agricultural parts of Cambridge to fill the county council, is one that I do not agree with. The members who represent the borough on the county council do not either speak about or vote for anything that concerns the agricultural part of the county. They have got their men in there, who cannot take any real part in the affairs of the county, that do not affect their own borough. Those two points are of great importance on the question whether Cambridge borough shall be included in Cambridge county? Oxford, with a smaller population than Cambridge, is not under the Oxford County Council. Those two boroughs are twins. If Oxford, with all its prestige, has this privilege, I think that Cambridge may fairly claim to be in the same position.We, on this side of the House, cannot hear a single word that the hon. Member is saying.
I am extremely sorry, but I have now finished my remarks.
Questions such as those before the House to-night have great interest for a very large number of Members, and this feeling of interest shows itself in the feelings of some of those sitting upon these Benches. The whole point seems to me to be what right have we to place any check upon the public spirit and initiative of areas when they have attained a certain population, and when they do possess within themselves and are anxious to exercise the powers of local government which were given twenty-five years ago? After all, I think we have a right to get back as far as we can to the first principles that animated Parliament when they were dealing with these questions. We may differ as to what those first principles were, but, for my own part, I think we ought to see how far we agree. It is clear that in 1888 Parliament thought there was great chaos existing in the whole machinery of local government. They desired to bring the local government more within the reach of the people themselves than previously had been the case. Therefore they established a county system of government with certain qualifications, saying distinctly that when a particular area of government, or of modified government, had attained a population of 50,000 there at least there was a primâ facie case for that borough to become a county borough—that is to say, they held it to be desirable that such a large body of people possessing that population might be presumed to possess other capacities and other desires, and to desire to take their place in the ranks of progressive municipalities and be vested with the powers necessary to make those desires effective.
That certainly seems to me to be the essential thing in the constitution of county boroughs, and to be the essential basis upon which the Local Government Act of 1888 proceeded, because, remember, that six years later Parliament went even further. In 1894 they proceeded to give local life to even smaller bodies of people. They created parish councils, urban district councils, and rural district councils, all with the object, as it seems to me, of giving the people in the smaller areas a more vital interest in those matters that affected their every day life—education, sanitation, housing, and a hundred and one things which I need not enumerate were all to be brought in increasing measure within the scope of the people's own competence in the management of their own affairs. That seems to be a recognition of the first principle that animated Parliament when they desired to bring local government more and more within reach of the people themselves. Now the idea is put forward that when a county council is erected, and has launched out into certain lines of expenditure and administration it will lose by the creation of county boroughs. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash has said we shall lose so-and-so. What is meant by the phrase "we shall lose"?What I said was that when a county council has gone to every considerable expense in building up a great scheme of government, and a great area is taken away from them, that scheme is no longer required, and there is so much lost.
If the term is not used in the sense of making a definite loss in the matter on the part of a certain body of people, I do not know how it can be used at all, because there is to be financial adjustment, I take it, which would be spread over a term of years, and there is to be thorough consideration given to the fact that the county council has lost on many lines of expenditure, and they are to be, so far as account can be taken, indemnified against that kind of loss. But what vested interest is there? No body of people, however much they may desire to magnify their own affairs, has a right to say to another enterprising body of people large in population, who desire to keep pace with modern thought and conditions, who may desire perhaps to educate their people on different lines, who really do know more of the local spirit and are more susceptible to local influences, and will be able to know the local ways, that they shall not carry out their desires. What possible vested interest can there be in any county council to say that adequate expression shall not be given to these influences and these desires? We have no right to assume that there is a vested interest in the county council as regards people who do not live near that county council at all. After all, what great loss would there be in the case of Wakefield? Everybody agrees upon the desirability of that city having control of its own government. The people of that city themselves are desirous of taking a little better rank among the progressive municipalities; they want powers which they feel very well capable of exercising; they know their own conditions and desires better than outsiders; and what reason is there why these powers should not be conferred upon a city like Wakefield? What is the extent of the loss? I have just gone very roughly into certain figures, even if the term "loss" can be applied at all. Personally, I strongly contend that it does not. The population of the West Riding of Yorkshire is a little over 3,000,000. The area is about 1,700,000 acres.
Does the bon. Gentleman mean the West Riding of Yorkshire? If so, his figures are wrong.
I think the hon. Gentleman must be including the big county boroughs.
The West Riding area is only 1,600,000 acres.
I said 1,700,000 acres, so that I am only about one-sixteenth out. My figures are true to the extent of 94 per cent., according to the hon. Gentleman's own statement. Supposing we take the hon. Gentleman's own statement of 1,600,000 acres; it is only a difference of 100,000.
May I point out that my hon. Friend is speaking of people and the hon. Member opposite is speaking of acres.
I was talking about area, and the hon. Member very properly undertook to put me right on that matter.
I understood the hon. Gentleman said the population of the West. Riding was 3,000,000. I apologise. The West Riding area is nothing like that.
One moment the hon. Member speaks of population and the next moment he is speaking of area. Do not let us mix the two things up. Anyway, I will speak now of area alone, and the area is at least 1,600,000 acres. Is that right?
I do not know.
It is proposed to take out of that area Wakefield which has 4,000 acres, and so far as the total area is concerned it is a very considerable slice which is being taken. The population, including the county boroughs and all the large boroughs of the West Riding, is well over 3,000,000. Supposing that we assume there is only 1,600,000 acres taking the non-county boroughs and the rural areas, is is suggested that a population of 51,512, on the latest returns, comes out of the total population. That is not a very serious slice, though it seems to me that to go into these figures at all is to divert the attention of the House from the real issue. Where a large population has been developing we have a right to assume that that population have the same desires as all other large populations—that they have the desire to keep pace with modern progress, to utilise all the advantages of civilisation, to exercise the right of governing themselves in their own affairs, and so long as they can prove themselves to be fully capable of managing their own affairs this House ought not to refuse those powers except upon overwhelming evidence. It seems to me that the same principles apply in the other cases of Cambridge and Luton, though the slices there to be taken are very much bigger than is the case in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Here you have the same aggregation of people, believing that in those matters they can manage their own affairs better than people far removed from them.
The whole principle of local government, remember it is local government brought as nearly as possible to the homes of the people themselves which is in question, and where there is a definite community of interests, and the people are desirous of exercising the powers that civilisation affords, it is only on overwhelming evidence that those powers should be refused. I shall certainly vote in favour of this Bill. It has passed all its stages. It seems that there has been perfect good fellowship on the part of the authorities who find themselves at present in contention, and there does not seem to me one single objection that can be effectively urged against the powers sought in this Bill. Personally, I do not believe that there is any such thing as vested interests in the county council There will be a financial adjustment, and if the particular county council finds itself shorn of a few thousands of the population, what does that matter? After all, it is not bigness, or bulk, or aggrandisement of office, that ought to be sought after; it is the wellbeing of the whole of the people, and if the people themselves say that they are capable of doing this work, that they can look after education, rating, and sanitation, and that they can do this work better because they know the local needs better, then I think it ought not to be possible, except on overwhelming evidence, to refuse them those powers.I have been asked by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to oppose this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has agriculture to do with it?"] Agriculture has everything to do with it, as indeed the borough of Cambridge, which is mainly dependent upon agriculture, realises. The hon. Member for Ince addressed the House with his usual eloquence and strength of advocacy, and he certainly proved a most formidable supporter of the Bill; but no convincing argument, I suggest, has been used by any supporter of the Bill in favour of its passage through this House, save the one argument that a certain mechanical treatment has been meted out in similar cases in the past, and that therefore the same mechanical treatment ought to be meted out to this Bill. I should have no doubt whatever, on the merits, that this Bill would be rejected on the Third Reading if it were not, possibly, for the inclusion of Wakefield within its terms. I am not in a position to judge of the particular claims of Wakefield, but, as has been already said in this House, I have reason to believe that, if the two cases of Cambridge and Luton were to be judged on their own merits by impartial persons, the Bill could not possibly, without injustice, be given a Third Reading. The Member for Ince suggests that in every case where there was public spirit and initiative in any urban community, there was really a prima facie case for incorporation as a county borough, and that the community was entitled to have the benefits, whatever those benefits may be, of such incorporation.
According to his argument, surely every county in England and Wales and Scotland would be entitled to a Home Rule Government. If because there is public spirit or local initiative confined to a particular area in the country, that area is to have self-government, then such an argument, I venture to say, would lead the hon. Member into very dangerous and impossible places. But, he said, it was not a very serious slice that was proposed to be taken out of the county in such a case as this. Yes, perhaps the first slice is not a serious loss, but if a large number of slices are taken away from a county, including all the plums, the remaining slice is not of very much value. That is just what a good many county councils are beginning to realise to their great apprehension.Tory caucuses.
10.0 P.M.
The hon. Baronet will believe me that this is in no sense a party question. The hon. and somewhat amphibious Member for Luton and Bedfordshire, and I am not quite sure which is his strongest position that on land or water, told us that this Bill should be passed because it had already gone through all its statutory stages. That has been a purely mechanical process. He went on to tell us that it successfully passed through a Select Committee of the House. Is that an apt description of what took place? As I understand, the Committee was equally divided, and the Chairman gave his casting vote, professedly not on the merits, but in order to allow this House to deal once more with the matter in the way in which the majority of the House might desire. In his judicial and impartial position he decided that the House ought to have the last word on this question. That does not indicate any very successful passage of this Bill through the Select Committee. We have got to a point in this question of county and county borough government, when I think we are justified in asking the Government to lay down some sort of principle upon which in future we shall proceed. So far, when a borough has found itself with 50,000 inhabitants, as a purely mechanical process and as of course it has invited the House to convert it into a county borough, regardless of the consequences upon the area of which it is no longer to form part. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has just become President of the Local Government Board not to allow anything to be done which might in effect destroy the machinery of county government in the counties of England and Wales The Local Government Board has in the recent past been regarded as somewhat more concerned with urban districts, without very much knowledge of rural affairs, and without very much sympathy with the authorities which administer those affairs. I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will set a precedent, as I have some reason to think he may, by showing somewhat greater sympathy, not with town conditions only, but with town and rural conditions alike, and deal with them with equality of treatment and with equity. We are approaching the stage at which, if county councils have removed from their areas bit by bit those portions which contribute most to their rateable and assessable value, county administrators will strike, and will say that it is utterly impossible to continue county government under existing conditions. So far as these county boroughs are concerned, they talk about the maintenance of their roads. I am not quite sure that they do maintain in every case their own roads, but if they do, the bulk of the traffic for which they are responsible does not pass over their roads exclusively or mainly, but passes over the main roads of the county in which they are situate. In fact, the wear and tear of those county roads is mainly caused by the populations of those urban centres which are either now county boroughs or are seeking under such orders as this to become so. In the interests of future county administration, and in the interests of economic self-government, because it is not from the point of view of economy wise to separate the government of borough and county, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Provisional Order Bill so far as it applies, at any rate, to Cambridge and to Luton. I venture, in conclusion, to suggest that it is not so much the public spirit and the enterprise of the inhabitants of those boroughs that dictate a policy of this sort, but rather what I may call a pardonable municipal vanity which may be carried to such extreme lengths as to render local administration impossible.
Since I have had the privilege of occupying my present office, this controversy between the counties and the boroughs was the first matter that claimed my attention. I was naturally very anxious, if possible, to effect a settlement between these two disputing parties, and the course that most obviously appeals to anyone who seeks to find a settlement in circumstances such as these, is to adopt the easy course of appointing a Committee or a Commission before which all the parties might appear. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made that suggestion. It had been suggested to my predecessor, and was also suggested to myself, and it engaged the consideration of both of us. But before you appoint a Committee or Commission to investigate a matter such as this, I think that you ought to have some clear idea as to what the outcome of that inquiry might be, not any definite idea, but some general idea of what the inquiry might possibly result in. Otherwise the appointment of a Committee is a mere expedient for delay, and is little less than a shirking of responsibility. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said you ought to appoint a Committee in order to discover some principle on which these matters could be decided. What principle? No one yet has ever suggested to me, nor has anyone suggested, so far as I am aware to anyone, any new guiding rule that could be laid down. You might, indeed, say that, instead of a population of 50,000, a minimum of, say, 75.000 should be necessary before a borough could become a county borough. But that would not be a principle. It would not in any way deal with the objection raised on behalf of the county councils. From the point of view of the county council, as soon as you take a borough out of its area and give it autonomous powers you are inflicting an injury on the county council. Whether that happens when the borough reaches 50,000 or when it reaches 75,000 matters only in this regard: That if the higher figure is chosen the blow to the county when the separation comes would be even greater than when the lower figure is taken.
Can anyone suggest a wider word which will include more completely all the elements of the case than the word which appears in the Act of 1888, which is now the guiding principle in this matter—the word "Desirable?" If it is desirable that a borough should be constituted a county borough, it should be done; if it is not desirable, it should not be done. Is it possible for any Committee or Commission to suggest any more specific term than that? All that it could suggest would be that instead of the word "desirable" you should insert the words "expedient in all the circumstances of the case." That would carry us no further. It is not the case that, as a matter of course, always when a borough reaches 50,000 it is granted a Provisional Order to constitute it a county borough, for where special circumstances arise, such as in cases in the neighbourhood of London, the Local Government Board is entitled to refuse county borough powers on the ground that in all the circumstances of the case it is not desirable that they should be granted. Could any Committee or Commission recommend a better procedure than the present for settling this matter? That procedure is that in the first instance the Local Government Board holds an inquiry in the locality, hears all the parties in the case, and forms an opinion on the matter. That opinion is not binding. It is laid before Parliament, embodied in a Provisional Order. The House of Commons appoints a Committee, which considers the matter, and the House itself, as it is doing to-night, afterwards deals with the case. Then it has to go to the other House to receive further consideration. I do not know that anyone has ever suggested a better procedure than that which now prevails. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend and predecessor and the Prime Minister, who gave much personal attention to this matter, came to the conclusion that really a case had not been made out for holding an inquiry, because no one has suggested, to be laid before such a tribunal if it were appointed, any better proposal than that which is embodied in the present law and practice. I have felt myself obliged to come to the same conclusion. I agree that you ought to consider in these matters, not only the interests of the borough immediately concerned, but also the interests of the whole community. It is a case in which you have to try to arrive, as best you can, at the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The case for the county certainly should not be ignored. How does it work out, in fact, in the three cases with which we are hero concerned? I will take, first, the case of Wakefield, which is the clearest. It has been suggested that, piece by piece, the county of the West Riding is being eaten away by the creation of county boroughs within its area, and that the cumulative effect will eventually be disastrous. The county of the West Riding has now existed for twenty-five years, and this process has been going on all the time. The boroughs of Barnsley, Dewsbury, and Rotherham have, in fact, been constituted county boroughs and taken out of the county. If the borough of Wakefield is also taken out by Parliament, what will be the cumulative effect of all the subtraction during that period of twenty-five years? The population of the county of the West Riding when the county was first formed—that is, at the Census of 1891—was 1,351,000, and the population of the county, omitting the boroughs which have been created county boroughs in addition to the borough of Wakefield, will be 1,416,000, or somewhat more than it was twenty-five years ago. The rateable value then was £5,867,000. It will be, omitting these four boroughs. £7,827,000.I do not think it is quite fair to call it a period of twenty-five years. This process has only begun during the past three or four years.
I do not think that that is quite accurate. In any case, I am only showing that the cumulative effect over a period of nearly twenty-five years leaves the county with a somewhat larger population and with a rateable value increased by something like 40 per cent. The position in the case of Wakefield is, in my opinion, quite clear, and Wakefield ought to have county borough powers. The application of Wakefield for these powers was not even opposed by the county before the Local Government Board inquiry; and when the matter went to a Committee of this House, although the Committee were equally divided with respect to Luton and Cambridge, and the matter was decided by the casting vote of the chairman, in the case of Wakefield the Committee were unanimous. There are indeed some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. W. Spear) has shown that he is one of them—who think that Wakefield should receive these powers, but that Cambridge and Luton should not. I think that the House or some Members of it may feel some difficulty in the matter because the three cases are contained in the same Bill. In order to remove that difficulty—not in the interests of securing either the passage or the rejection of the Bill, but because I think it is fair to the House—I shall undertake, if the House rejects this Bill, at once to introduce a Provisional Order dealing with Wakefield alone, because I do not think it is quite fair that the case of Wakefield should be defeated mainly or partly because it is treated by the House at one and the same moment as the more doubtful cases of Luton and Cambridge.
Is it possible under the forms of the House to introduce a Bill dealing with Wakefield alone if Wakefield is included in a Bill which has been rejected by the House?
I have been informed that it is, but I will make further inquiry. It seemed to me that it would be very unfortunate if the House, having decided against Wakefield, possibly merely because it was combined with Luton and Cambridge in one Bill, should not have an opportunity subsequently of considering the case of Wakefield alone.
Is it not a fact that it would be entirely out of Order to introduce in the same Session a Bill dealing with the same subject as that dealt with by a Bill which had already been rejected by the House?
I will not reply to that on the spur of the moment. I had been previously advised that this could be done, but I will make further inquiries.
The House must be informed before we go to a Division.
Perhaps that point might be put to Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
On a point of Order. Might I ask whether it would be in order to take the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman?
I am bound to say that I am not prepared to give an answer at a moment's notice upon a novel point of that kind.
Would it be possible to accept the proposal standing in my name, namely, that the Bill should be recommitted with an Instruction that it should be divided into two parts, one dealing with Luton and Cambridge, and the other with Wakefield?
That could only be done if the present Motion to reject the Bill were withdrawn.
If the present Motion were lost, would it then be possible?
No; the decision would have been that the word "now" was to stand part.
Supposing that the Motion which you are to put from the Chair on this proposal, that the word "now" stand part, is rejected, the effect is that the word "now" does not stand part; that would be an indication of the wish of the House not to pass the Bill as it stands. If that conclusion were come to, would it not then be in order to deal with the Instruction which the hon. Member for Wakefield desires to move?
Does the rejection of any Bill by this House in any way affect or curtail the power of the Local Government Board to issue a Provisional Order—a power which Parliament have conferred upon the Local Government Board?
As I said before, the point has been sprung upon me and I am not prepared to give a decision, but I think the hon. Member is right.
With respect to the case of Luton, the position there is that when the county of Bedfordshire was formed the population was 160,000. If Luton is taken out, the population will be 144,000, or slightly less than the original population, whilst the rateable value, which was £759,000 originally, will be £877,000 now. The matter is very different in the ease of Cambridgeshire. There the original population was 121,000. The last Census showed it to be 128,000. If Cambridge is taken out of it, the county will be reduced to a population of 73,000, all of it rural, whilst the rateable value, which was originally £652,000, and which now stands at £833,000, will be on the reduced basis £449,000, or about two-thirds of what it was when the county was originally constituted. At the same time I do not think, although these facts show that the detriment to Cambridgeshire will be much greater by the elimination of Cambridge than the detriment to the other two counties by the elimination of the other boroughs that are in question, that it proves that the county of Cambridgeshire, as it would be left, would be in any degree an impossible local government unit. For as a matter of fact there are at the present time no fewer than eleven counties in England and Wales which have a smaller population than Cambridgeshire would then have, and there are ten counties which have a smaller rateable value. I cannot believe that in a population of 72,000 there are not to be found forty or fifty men who are fully capable of carrying on the government of the county.
There is another consideration. If this county is unduly weakened by the elimination of Cambridge there is an alternative to retaining the borough within the county against its will. As part of the geographical county of Cambridge, though not as part of the administrative county, there is the Isle of Ely. That has a smaller population than Cambridgeshire would have. It is only now 69,000. It has almost exactly the same rateable value, and it would have about the same rate in the £ as Cambridgeshire would have. It is a matter for consideration whether the right course may not be to combine these two counties—the Isle of Ely contains two or three towns, not very large towns, but still towns—and to form from them one homogeneous county. They are both parts of the geographical county. I do not like to express any formal and decided opinion as to the merits, because it is a case which might possibly come before the Local Government Board to adjudicate on, after a formal inquiry. But I think it is quite clear that, if Cambridge, with 72,000 population, is too small to exercise county government powers, then the Isle of Ely, with 69,000 population, is also too small to perform the same functions. But the fact remains that in the borough of Cambridge there is very strong feeling, so far as I can gather, in favour of county borough powers, and I cannot believe that it will really conduce to good local government to compel Cambridge to remain as an unwilling partner of the business of the county. The case is almost, in fact, on the border line, because there are strong arguments on both sides, and that being so, approaching the matter with an impartial mind, I have been unable to form any strong opinion, and I do not desire to make any strong recommendation to the House. But on balance my own view is that a case has, on the whole, been made out for constituting Cambridge a county borough, and, therefore, so far as I am personally concerned I shall vote for the Bill as it stands.I feel that if I rise immediately after my right hon. Friend nobody in the House will for a moment assume that I am speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government. In fact, I find myself in very trying personal circumstances.
Do not resign.
Oh, no, but I find myself in complete harmony with the hon. Member for Newmarket, and I can only console myself by finding myself in my normal condition of opposition to the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is very regrettable that I should have to place myself in opposition to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, but I am consoled by the fact that he did not make a strong recommendation to the House to approve of the Third Reading. I desire with all the emphasis I can command to make a strong representation to the House to reject this Bill. When I addressed the House upon the Second Reading, a very successful and by no means unpleasing taunt was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that if I had been a Member for the borough of Cambridge or for any borough, I should take a directly opposite view to the one I now take. I acquit myself on that by saying I am only the representative of part of my Constituency in this matter, because I have many constituents in the borough of Cambridge, and I regret to find myself, not only as representative, but as a neighbour of theirs, in opposition to the view they express. The case we made against this Bill on the Second Reading, so far as Cambridge is concerned was, that it had for its object the taking out of a small county efficiently managed, the only town which there is in that county. The hon. Member for Cambridge talks of part of Royston and Newmarket, but the whole of Newmarket is in Suffolk for local government purposes, and the whole of Royston is in Hertfordshire for similar purposes. The only town we possess is Cambridge, and the whole of its trade is brought to it along the county roads of Cambridgeshire and the railways that run through it, and all our roads converge upon that town. Our agricultural produce is the best in England. It is bought and sold in the town of Cambridge, and the lives of the people who live in Cambridge are so interdependent upon all these circumstances that it would be a grave misfortune to separate them. We did not press our opposition to the Bill to a Division on the Second Reading because an Instruction was accepted that the case of Cambridge would be particularly considered by the Committee, and we thought that if the Committee assisted us so much the better. I say, with all respect to the Chairman of the Committee and every member of it, that that Committee has been of no assistance to us in the matter at all. Two Members of the Committee decided that Cambridge should be excluded and two decided that it should remain in the Bill. The Chairman of the Committee decided that Cambridge should remain, because the House was the proper place to express an opinion upon the matter. Therefore we have this position—that the House said the Committee was the right place, the Committee said the House was the right place, and now hon. Members have to come to a decision upon this Bill just as if we were deciding the Second Reading.
It is not a question of money, because no financial consideration can recompense us for the loss of the centre of the county of Cambridge. Every year that goes by puts upon the county council new and arduous responsibilities. We always accompany these demands with new calls upon the purses of those who live in the county. It is not enough for the Committee to say that the area still left to Cambridge is a possible area. That may be possible, if you use the term in its extremest and widest sense, but no one can say that an isolated group of villages situated round a town which is not part of the county is a conveniently governable area. You are dependent for your local government machinery upon the efforts of patriotic men, and if when they have built up a government for which I challenge comparison in any part of England, Scotland or Wales, they are to have their efforts frustrated and their county disembowelled, you bring local government to a standstill, and you will not get the right men to do the work. I do not wish to speak of Wakefield or Luton, because I know nothing of their special case. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire did address us on the case of Wakefield, and he convinced me of the merits of that case. I do not think the hon. Member for the West Riding or the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, who sedonded the Resolution, will deny that our case in regard to Cambridge is even stronger than their case. In this particular measure all three boroughs are included in one Bill, and therefore any hon. Member who objects to one must vote with us for the rejection of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, throws out the suggestion that it might be possible if Cambridge was lost to the county of Cambridgeshire that we might be able to amalgamate with the Isle of Ely. I would suggest to him that we would rather see the proposal for amalgamation before we consent to the loss of Cambridge. The rearrangement of these historical boundaries, and the ending of the separate corporate existence of places like Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, is likely to be a much more difficult matter than my right hon. Friend supposes. The proposal before us is for the exclusion of Cambridge. Upon that question it seems to me that our position is unique. It is the only case which anybody can quote in which the single town, the centre of the whole county, is proposed to be taken out of the county, and I confidently appeal to the House to reject this Bill on the Third Reading.I would ask for sympathy in endeavouring to follow the very eloquent and effective speech which has just been delivered from the Front Bench, but I would ask the House to contrast that speech with the speech delivered by the President of the Local Government Board with all his official responsibility. The President of the Local Government Board spoke with absolute impartiality. He spoke purely from the standpoint of good government. He was not impelled in the slightest degree as was manifest throughout the whole course of his speech by any individual feeling in regard to the particular matter in dispute. The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke in a very different style. He spoke with considerable feeling, very natural feeling, but with also a natural bias. I am one of those who have nothing to do with either of the counties or with either of the boroughs which are now under the consideration of the House. I endeavour to approach the question as far as I can purely from the standpoint from which it was approached by the President of the Local Government Board in the interests of local government, and with that object I support very warmly its Third Reading. The President of the Local Government Board has not left it at all clear what will happen if the Bill should be rejected even as regards the one particular borough of Wakefield which, apparently, all the House seems to desire should have its way. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The only safe thing, I submit, for this House at this stage is to pass the Third Reading of the Bill as the natural and proper sequence to the whole of the proceedings which have already taken place. We have had the Second Reading of the Bill carried in this House. It has followed its regular process in going to the Committee upstairs. It has now come down here having passed the Committee stage, and it seems to me that it ought fairly to receive a Third Reading from this House.
The chief argument, so far as I have been able to follow the course of the Debate, and I have endeavoured as honestly as I can to follow it from the standpoint of what is best in the interests Of good government, which has been made against the claim for Cambridge to be a county borough seems to me throughout to have been advanced purely from the county standpoint, and not at all from the borough standpoint. The borough claim as the best method of governing their own city to have absolute self-government, and the county say that in the interests of the county the borough should be included in county government. It seems to me that if it be vital for the interests of Cambridgeshire that Cambridge city should form a part of the county government, then Cambridge city ought to take a far more prominent part in the county government than it does. I submit that it is not for the county council to demand so much in support of county government when it places the city in a subordinate position. Take two or three facts that arise out of these considerations as between the borough of Cambridge and the county. One significant instance is manifest at once, even in regard to the cost of the proceedings now being brought to a close. Whatever the result may be the borough of Cambridge will have to pay all its own costs, and it will, in addition, have to pay its share of the county's costs. Supposing that the county costs be equal to the borough costs—and we may assume that to be the case—the result of these proceedings will be that the unfortunate borough of Cambridge, if it loses or if it wins, will have to pay three-fourths of the total cost, while the county will have to defray one quarter only. It is easy to see why the county council are making not a specific objection, but a general case against the claims of boroughs. I submit that this is not fair in relationship as between the two. If the retention of the borough of Cambridge is so vital to the interests of Cambridgeshire, let the borough take a larger and more effective part in the government of the county. As a matter of fact, by reason of the conditions which exist, it takes a subordinate part. It has only a minority representation, and it is always outvoted on matters in which it is peculiarly interested, and, what is infinitely worse in the interests of good government, of the twenty men who are compelled to go to the meetings sixteen earnestly desire to be relieved of the duty and responsibility for county administration. The proceedings are largely connected with the county itself and have no interest for the borough, whose representatives consequently have to be silent upon them. This is not fair, and it is not in the interests of good government. The whole course of the arguments to-night show that the claims of the county, as made here, have been in the interests of the county and adversely to the true interests of the borough, and that the interests of local government in boroughs can only be properly secured when they have the control of their own affairs. That is all they ask. They would leave it to the county to look after county affairs. In my opinion, a good case has been made out for the whole of the Bill, and I trust, therefore, it will be given a Third Reading.
Having acted as chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill upstairs, I do not feel called upon to offer any apology for having, in regard to the Cambridge and Luton Orders, given my casting vote in favour of the Preamble of the Bill. I understand that the forms and established practice and usage of this House provide that where a Committee on a private Bill is equally divided, the chairman should give his casting vote in such a way as to keep the Bill alive and to give the House as a whole an opportunity of further considering the measure. That was the principle on which I gave my casting vote, but it was not the principle on which I gave my original vote. I gave my original vote in favour of the Bill because I believed in it. But speaking for myself and myself only, I may go further and say that having regard to the very far-reaching consequences which will follow our decision upon this Bill, I would like to echo the language of the Chairman of the Local Legislation Committee in the case of the East Ham Bill last Session, and say I thoroughly welcome the reconsideration by this House as a whole of the decision at which the Committee upstairs arrived. I may remind the House that we passed the Bill after hearing evidence on eleven days—two being devoted to the Wakefield case, and here is the volume of evidence offered by the witnesses.
I do not propose to deal at any length with the evidence which was given before us upstairs. I would rather invite the attention of the House to those larger issues which I believe to be involved in the decision at which we are about to arrive. I would remind the House, first of all, that under Section 31 of the Local Government Act, 1888, every borough which on 1st June of that year possessed a population of 50,000 was put into the Third Schedule of that Act as a county borough. It cannot be disputed that had these boroughs possessed then the population which they possess now, they would, without any Local Government Board inquiry, without any Provisional Order, without any consideration before a Private Bill Committee upstairs, have been scheduled as county boroughs. That is a point which has always to be borne in mind when we are considering the facts that have grown up under the further part of the Act. Sixty-one county boroughs were included in Schedule III. when the Bill was set up. There is a provision in that Act for the further creation of county boroughs. It was laid down that whenever a borough reached a population of 50,000 it could apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order. The Local Government Board had then to hold a local inquiry, and then grant a Provisional Order, which did not come into force until it had been confirmed by Parliament. Under the working of that Section of the Act, since the year 1888—that is, in the past twenty-five years—there have come into existence seventeen other county boroughs, in addition to the sixty-one scheduled in the Act. In no single case where a Provisional Order has been granted by the Local Government Board has the subsequent confirmation of that Order by Parliament been refused. I do not think that with the exception of boroughs, such as East Ham, coming within the Metropolitan ambit, the Local Government Board has ever refused a Provisional Order. But where the Local Government Board have, as in this case. after holding a local inquiry, granted a Provisional Order, that Provisional Order has never been refused confirmation by the House. Further, this is the first occasion upon which it has ever been challenged in a Committee upstairs. It follows from that that if the House now rejects the Third Reading of this Bill it is establishing a new precedent which will upset what has become the established procedure under this Act. I would again remind the House that this is an Act which was passed by the Conservative Government in 1888. That would be upset after twenty-five years of established and uninterrupted usage. In my opinion the rejection of this measure would inevitably create a new arid very serious situation. It would bring to a standstill the operations of Section 54 of that Act. No further county boroughs could be created, as is contemplated by that Act, if this Bill is rejected, and it is allowed to go forth that whenever a county council can show that it is prejudicially affected by the withdrawal from its area of a county borough, that is a reason for refusing to the borough what has been granted to seventy other boroughs. How could you justify denying to Cambridge what you have given to Dewsbury? What is the answer! At any rate, I am glad to think the decision upon this momentous issue will be a decision taken by the whole House, and not by a small Committee. If I may turn to individual orders, with regard to Cambridge, while it is manifestly true that you cannot abstract from the administrative county of Cambridgeshire the borough of Cambridge without halving the rateable value of the administrative county, and without depriving the county council of the services of those of its members who are resident in the borough of Cambridge, yet I invite the House's attention, and this, that it was put to the Chairman of the Cambridgeshire County Council specifically, "If Cambridge is divided from your area, are you prepared to say that it will be impossible for the county council to continue their administration of the remainder of the county council area?" The Chairman carefully guarded himself from assenting to that proposition, and, indeed, it was given in evidence upstairs that already in the immediate neighbourhood of Cambridge there are three administrative county councils which possess a smaller area, a smaller population, and a smaller value than would the administrative county of Cambridgeshire if you took the borough of Cambridge out of it. I agree with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that it would seem to be a more appropriate remedy, if you are going to diminish the powers of the county council and the ability of the county council to administer that area by abstracting Cambridge, to consider the question of removing the archæological division which gives two county councils in the geographical county of Cambridge and of coupling up the Isle of Ely with the Cambridgeshire County Council rather than refuse to give to Cambridge what you have already given to Oxford. As regards Luton, I must confess, having heard the evidence in that case, it seemed to me impossible to distinguish the case of Luton from that of almost every other borough of a similar size which has come before this House and asked for the confirmation of a Provisional Order. It is a rich and growing manuturing town in the corner of the county of Bedfordshire. As regards the case of the borough of Wakefield, that was a case upon which the Committee upstairs was unanimous. I do not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board that that is an easier case. I think if it is once allowed to go forth that there has been a change of policy, and county boroughs are to be created and rich rateable units abstracted from their area, the County Council of the West Riding have more serious grounds for complaint than the County Council either of Cambridgeshire or of Bedfordshire, and for this reason: If you abstract from Cambridgeshire the borough of Cambridge, and if the county council are left with the remaining area, they have not to face in any reasonable period of time the prospect of the creation of any other county borough. The same remark applies to Bedfordshire; but the West Riding of Yorkshire are faced with a continuous increase in the number of county boroughs which will try to be created within their area. Therefore the position of the County Council of the West Riding would be more serious than that of the other two county councils which have been referred to in this Debate. I believe that the only safe line to go upon is to recognise that Parliament has treated the problem of urban government and rural government as two separate problems. It has laid down by the Act of 1888, or had meant to lay down, that while the county council was the proper authority for rural government, the borough council was the proper authority for urban government. That Act meant to provide that where an urban area reached a population of 50,000, there should be power for that area to become self-governing, possessing county borough powers.You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could not decide the point which I raised earlier in the Debate in Mr. Speaker's absence. I have consulted Mr. Speaker upon the point, and he is of opinion that the course I suggested would be in order—that is to say, if the House decided to reject this Bill it would be competent for the Local Government Board to introduce another Bill dealing with Wakefield alone, and that Bill, in his opinion, would not be the same Bill as that which the House had already rejected. I have to say, that if the House were to reject the Bill the Local Government Board would introduce a Bill for Wakefield.
I would ask whether, if the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman were followed, it would not be necessary for the Bill to be committed to a Committee upstairs, with the result that Wakefield would be put to heavy expense in conducting proceedings before the Committee?
That would depend upon the decision of the House.
If the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is carried, is it not a fact that he would have to introduce the Bill in the ordinary way, and that all those opposing would be in exactly the same position as they would be in if the House carried the Motion against the Third Reading of this Bill?
That is a point which I would prefer not to decide at the moment.
On a point of Order. Supposing this Bill be rejected on the Third Reading, by what process is the House to ascertain that it was rejected in respect of Luton and Cambridge and not Wakefield?
That is not a point of Order.
I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two on behalf of a contention on which the counties of England and Wales are unanimous in respect of this Bill. I ask the House to note that, if these Bills are rejected, the case of Wakefield could still be considered. Therefore, Members of this House who agree that the Cambridge and Luton proposals are most unjust are free to vote for their rejection without the consequences adumbrated by hon. Members. May I point this out: That in 1888 county councils were established, not as my hon. Friend here imagines, as a form of rural government, but as a form of government in English counties for both rural and urban districts, on the ground that you get the best kind of local government if you have men of experience in urban work and rural work working together for an area which is constantly changing; and if the Cambridge Order becomes law, you will create in Cambridgeshire the only area in England which is wholly and exclusively rural, and you will be put in a position in which you can have no guarantee that any man of experience in urban local government would have any opportunity of helping in the administra-
Division No. 56.]
| AYES.
| [11.0 p.m.
|
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Bentham, George Jackson |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barnes, George N. | Bigland, Alfred |
| Alden, Percy | Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Boyton, James |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Brace, William |
tion of that county; and if you pass the Luton Bill, you will deprive the government of Bedfordshire of a very large proportion of its most useful members. On the faith of the Act of Parliament of 1888 there has, been built up in the English counties an elaborate form of local government which develops every year. It is in the interests of those poor people who live in remote villages in areas where there is neither wealth nor accessibility to give them the advantages open to people in large towns, that you should have an area large enough with rateable value big enough, and variety of experience adequate enough, to enable them to have the same assistance in life as the more fortunate dwellers in cities and large towns. I appeal to hon. Members in whatever part of the House they sit to take no sides, because it is a new condition of things. These are the first cases in which the creation of county boroughs would leave counties injured and wrecked in different parts of England. You may vote against this Bill without in the least saying that no county boroughs are to be created. By all means create them if their creation is desirable, but do not destroy a county to make a borough, for in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, Cambridge and Luton, as they grow, will rightly dominate the counties with which they are situated.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
Representing a county constituency which is composed in the main of industrial workers, I may point out that those workers are divorced from every part of local administration work on the county councils, because they are unable to meet the expense of the councils, and our county councils are a pure body of Tory administrators.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 237.
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Hinds, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hodge, John | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hogge, James Myles | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hudson, Walter | Rowlands, James |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Clynes, John R. | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | John, Edward Thomas | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Sandys, G. J. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Jowett, Frederick William | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Larmor, Sir J. | Snowden, Philip |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| De Forest, Baron | Lewisham, Viscount | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Sutton, John E. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury) | Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Dixon, C. H. | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Swift, Rigby |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | McGhee, Richard | Thomas, James Henry |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Fell, Arthur | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Morrell, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Morison, Hector | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wadsworth, J. |
| Gill, A. H. | Needham, Christopher Thomas | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Glanville, H. J. | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Wardle, George J. |
| Goldman, C. S. | Norton-Griffiths, J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Goldstone, Frank | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | O'Donnell, Thomas | Wiles, Thomas |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Grant, J. A. | Outhwaite, R. L. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gulland, John William | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Parry, Thomas H. | Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton) |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Hancock, John George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Hardie, J. Keir | Pointer, Joseph | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Pratt, J. W. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Worthington Evans, L. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Radford, G. H. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | |
| Hewart, Gordon | Rees, Sir J. D. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Richards, Thomas | Paget and Mr. Marshall, |
| Higham, John Sharp | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
NOES.
| ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Cotton, William Francis |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Courthope, George Loyd |
| Adamson, William | Boland, John Plus | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Booth, Frederick Handel | Crooks, William |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Crumley, Patrick |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Brady, P. J. | Cullinan, John |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dairymple, Viscount |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Brunner, John F. L. | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) |
| Astor, Waldorf | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Delany, William |
| Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, N.) | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Devlin, Joseph |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cator, John | Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cautley, H. S. | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Doris, William |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Duffy, William J. |
| Barnston, Harry | Clancy, John Joseph | Du Pre, W. Baring |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs) | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) |
| Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Clough, William | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke |
| Field, William | Lundon, T. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Lyell, Charles Henry | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Lynch, A. A. | Salter, Arthur Clevell |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, S.) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Gardner, Ernest | Macpherson, James Ian | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Gilmour, Captain John | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sheehy, David |
| Goldsmith, Frank | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Gretton, John | Manfield, Harry | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Stanier, Beville |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Molloy, Michael | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Hackett, J. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Mooney, John J. | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Mount, William Arthur | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Murphy, Martin J. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Newdegate, F. A. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Hayward, Evan | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hazleton, Richard | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nolan, Joseph | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Waring, Walter |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Nuttall, Harry | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Hills, John Waller | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hohler, G. F. | O'Doherty, Philip | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Webb, H. |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | O'Malley, William | Weigall, Captain A. G. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Hunt, Rowland | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Shee, James John | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Joyce, Michael | Pearson, Hon. Weetman, H. M. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Kelly, Edward | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Perkins, Walter F. | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.W.) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Lardner, James C. R. | Pringle, William M. R. | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) | Rawson, Col. Richard H. | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Leach, Charles | Reddy, M. | |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Denison-Pender and Mr. Black. |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Rendall, Atheistan |
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for six months.
Consolidated Fund (No1) Bill
Considered in Committee; Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next (30th March).
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Island Of Lewis (Uig Cottars)
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
On a point of Order. It was announced this afternoon that the Prime Minister would make a statement on the Adjournment of the House, and I would ask if it is his intention to do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
That is not a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "A point of honour."] I call upon Mr. Macpherson.
This afternoon I put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the imprisonment of eleven cottars, and, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I stated I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, he informed us of the fact, which I have no doubt he told tile House in order to show that he had in some way in any case mitigated the severity of the sentence which the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh passed upon these men, that these men might wear their own clothes whenever they wished. As a matter of fact, these men, when they were taken to prison, were compelled to divest themselves of their clothes and to wear prison garb. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend may think that he is justified in saying that this is a mitigation of the severity of the sentence, and that I and my colleagues from Scotland, who have raised this question, and who made a special point of the fact, are rather befooled, when these men have resisted the temptation to divest themselves of prison garb in order to don their Sunday clothes. Coming from the Highlands, as I do, and knowing the sanctity with which the Sunday clothes of the poor crofter and cottar are regarded, I can well imagine that these poor people who are too poor to have more than one Sunday suit, would regard with horror the fact that they should worship on Sunday in clothes which they were compelled, or allowed, to wear in a house of shame like Calton gaol.
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the indignation which now exists in Scotland in regard to the imprisonment of these men is an indignation which is felt from John o' Groats to the Mull of Galloway. In Scotland not to touch land is not to touch life, and these men have been imprisoned, as pointed out before, in theory because they have not obeyed an Order of the Court. But that is not why they think themselves punished. They think themselves punished because they have attempted, some of them for the last twenty-eight years, to acquire land which was held out to them and promised, and which they thought they were entitled to get, especially under the Small Landholders Act, 1911. There is no doubt at all of the poverty of these people. They are at the present time in Calton Gaol. They have about eighty people dependent upon them. Any person who has visited the Island of Lewis knows the poverty of the people, and knows perfectly well that if the wage-earner and breadwinner is taken away it leaves a family destitute. These men have been kept from their work and from their families for the last six weeks, not because they have committed any crime, but because, out of ignorance of the law of the land, they have been considered to disobey an interdict served upon them from the High Court of Justice. I make bold to say that these men did not understand, and do not understand now, what it is they are punished for. My right hon. Friend, in his reply to me this afternoon, told me that as a lawyer I ought to know all about contempt of Court. My practice is in England. I have no special knowledge of the law concerning contempt of Court in Scotland, but nothing that my right hon. Friend has said in his reply to me has convinced men that it is not within his power, as head of the Scottish Department in London and the medium which conveys the prerogative of mercy to any person sentenced in a Court of Justice, to release these men. It may be that I am wrong, and that my right hon. Friend has had the advantage of the assistance of the Lord-Advocate and the Law Officers of the Crown. If that be so, I cannot argue the point any further. But there is one point that I should like to press upon my right hon. Friend's notice, and that is that you cannot get men of the type of the men in Calton Gaol, who have not had the advantage of education, and who were sentenced in surroundings to which they were alien, and who do not understand the law of the land, to understand that if they gave an undertaking they will be immediately released. If they are willing to endure their sentence it is for a purpose. They are fighting for a cause they believe to be just, and you cannot expect men of that kind, without the assistance of the Board of Agriculture, to give an undertaking such as is demanded by the High Court of Justice. My right hon. Friend can assist these men to purge this contempt of Court, and without his assistance I do not think it will be possible for them to purge themselves. They have suffered much, they have waited long, and if my right hon. Friend had enjoined the Board of Agriculture three years ago, or even before the trial, or even at the trial, to do everything in their power to guarantee to these men that they could attach themselves to the soil of the Isle of Lewis, I am perfectly certain not a single hour would elapse before my right hon. Friend or the High Court of Judiciary would get an undertaking that these men would not again trespass upon the land. But my right hon. Friend has been adamant. I have no doubt that he may have reasons for being adamant, but I would impress upon him that this is a problem which he has got to face. I ask him to consider whether he cannot now give me a promise that he will do all in his power to see that the administration over which he has complete control, namely, the Board of Agriculture, can make this machinery effective and give this people a right to live upon the land they have wished to live upon for so long?I am afraid I cannot give an adequate answer to my hon. Friend in five minutes. I am rather sorry, because there are some important points raised by my hon. and learned Friend which, I think, should be more adequately dealt with. This question of the unhappy conditions of the Island of Lewis is one which he and I have discussed together on several occasions during the past two years, and I received letters and communications from him on the subject to which he will do me the justice of saying I have always lent a sympathetic ear. Two years ago I visited the Island of Lewis, and I drove along the road from Stornoway, a distance of eighteen miles, and I know the condition of things there. We all know that there is not land enough in the Island of Lewis to give the most miserable portion to all the crofters who want land on that island. One of our greatest difficulties is that we cannot get these men to move from their own precise districts. We have made attempts recently to obtain land in other places in order to remove some of the Lewis squatters. We had one scheme to which we devoted a great deal of time, but at the last moment the landlord gave the land to local men, or, at any rate, it was not available for the Lewis men. I was much disappointed at that course being taken. With regard to this business I am afraid that I shall not be able to say all I want to-night. I am extremely anxious to do all we can to settle the Lewis men upon the land as far as the land will go, and from the very beginning the Board of Agriculture has done its best to grapple with that problem. I am sorry to say that we have had very great difficulty—I do not want to blame the landlord, because he himself is in a very unfortunate position for various reasons—in getting progress made with any kind of expedition, and we shall have difficulties until we amend the Small Landholders Act. There is one thing I must speak about, and that is the point of my right to release these men. I have no such right. I have satisfied myself on this subject clearly. No one can point to anything where the judgment of the Court for contempt of Court—the sentence given because men had refused to obey the order of the Court—has been set aside by the Crown on the advice of the Scottish Secretary, or, for the matter of that, the Home Secretary. I have seen opinions by most distinguished men, men like Lord Herschell, Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, and Sir Henry James, and they all agree that it would be a very improper thing for the Executive Government to interfere with the judgment of the Court in a case of this kind. I think it will be perfectly obvious why that should be so. The only power the Court has of enforcing its decrees is this power, and, if the Executive Government interfered with the Court in protecting itself against disobedience and enforcing its decrees, it would be making the Court a mere nullity, and it would be a case of unwarranted interference with the Court. The Minister of the Crown would be taking upon himself duties which would render the Court ridiculous. I am sure the Court would be perfectly willing to take a very lenient view if these men would only make the necessary submission. [An HON. MEMBER: "I hope they never will."] My hon. Friend says he hopes not. That confirms my suspicion—
It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.