§
(1) In Section fifty-six of the principal Act (which relates to married women) for Sub-sections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted the following Sub-sections:
(1) Where a woman, being an insured person and a member of an approved society, marries she shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Subsection—
§
(2) A woman to whom Sub-section (1) of this section applies and who at any time in the period commencing at the end of the contribution week in which she marries and expiring on the expiration of two years from the date of her marriage is employed within the meaning of this Act, or becomes a voluntary contributor, shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be treated as if she had becomes insured for the first time on the date on which in the said period she is first so employed, or becomes a voluntary contributor:
Provided that—
§ (2) In Sub-section (6) of the said Section fifty-six, for the words "after her marriage continues to be or becomes an employed contributor," there shall be substituted the words "after the end of the contribution week in which she marries is employed within the meaning of this Act, or becomes a voluntary contributor," and Sub-sections (7) and (8) of the said Section shall cease to have effect.
§ (3) A woman who, having married within two years before the pasting of this Act, became at any time before the passing thereof subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the said Section fifty-six shall, as from the passing of this Act be treated as if this Section had been in operation at the date when she became subject to those provisions, and if the said date was subsequent to her marriage as if she had married on that date.
§ (4) A woman who, having married after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, but before the passing of this Act, did not before the passing thereof become subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the said Section fifty-six shall for the purposes of this Section be treated as if her marriage had taken place on the date of the passing of this Act or, if she was at that date incapable of work by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of which notice is or was given within the prescribed time, on the date on which that incapacity ceases:
§ Provided that, in reckoning the twenty-six weeks of employment and twenty-six contributions referred to in proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of the said Section fifty-six (as amended by this Section) account shall be taken of any employment occurring and any contributions paid after the end of the contribution week in which she was married.
931§ (5) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."—[Mr. H. Williams.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. Before this new Clause is moved, I want to say that it is not uncommon for new Clauses to be put down on Report, but I think it has been the common practice in the past that new Clauses put down on Report have not done what this Clause seeks to do. As far as I can see, this new Clause is practically an Amendment of the whole Bill, and I submit that a new Clause of this kind ought to be put down and debated in Committee first. While no one seeks to deny the right of hon. Members to put down a new Clause on Report, such a new Clause has usually dealt with some minor point, and I should like to ask whether it is in order to put down on Report a new Clause which seeks practically to widen the scope of the Bill to such an extent that it is not so much a new Clause as a new Measure in itself. I should like to know if it is in order on the Report stage so to extend the scope of the Bill as to make it a dissimilar Measure from that which was first introduced.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSOn that point of Order. I brought this matter up in Committee at 10 minutes to three in the morning, and it was intimated privately to me that possibly that was not a very suitable time to discuss a Clause of such importance. Therefore, I moved it in very brief terms, and the Minister made the suggestion that probably, in view of its importance, it was desirable that it should be discussed on the Report stage when it could come before the House at a more convenient time. In view of that suggestion, I withdrew the Clause forthwith and put it down for the Report stage.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young)I should like entirely to confirm the record of fact which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), that this new Clause was put down in Committee and that, as it came on at an early hour in the morning and dealt with a new and rather separate matter, the Committee came to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it was to leave the matter for a full discussion on Report. I do not think that 932 it would be fair for the Clause to receive any detriment, as it were, owing to the fact that it was postponed from that occasion to this. The merits of the Clause are a different matter, which remain for discussion at a later period, but the question was asked at an earlier stage to-day whether it was the intention of the Government to accept the Clause. I do not think that I ought to leave the House under any misapprehension: it is not the intention of the Government to accept it.
§ Mr. MAXTONThe point which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised is a point of Order. We are not disputing the facts as stated by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the Minister. The Clause was only formally discussed in Committee and the Minister promised that he was willing to have it discussed on the Report stage. We are now asking whether, in keeping with the practice of the House, you, Sir, regard as being in order a new Clause of this scope and magnitude which raises so-many new factors that were not involved in the original structure of the Bill, and whether it is in order on the Report stage to have such a new Clause discussed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is rather a difficult question to decide. Had this proposed Clause appeared for the first time on the Report stage, I should have had my doubts whether I should call it or not. The House will realise that it is a very large extension of the operation of the Bill, but the fact is that it did appear on the Committee stage, which was obviously the proper time for its discussion. The fact that it was put down then and that the House dealt with it as it thought fit on the Committee stage, influenced me in my mind as to whether it was in order on the Report stage, and I came to the conclusion that that being the case, it was in order to bring it up again on the Report stage.
§ Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLEIs it not a fact that the postponement of this proposed Clause at 3 o'clock in the morning was entirely due to the action of the Clydeside group in prolonging the discussion?
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
933 I speak under some disability, having regard to the fact that the judge has pronounced sentence of death before the trial, but I will do my best in the circumstances, because even if it is not accepted now, Parliament will, I think, later on find that it is necessary to deal in some way or other with the subject matter of the new and rather complicated Clause which I am moving. In law and in fact the responsibility for a wife still lies with her husband, and the whole of our discussion ought to take account of that. We are not dealing with people for whom somebody else has not a responsibility, and we have to realise that on marriage most women give up employment. They do not give up occupation. For census purposes, a married woman is not regarded as an occupied woman, because she does not work for gain but only for love. Somebody has said that that is all she gets. In fact, after marriage most women cease to be employed persons. Obviously, from an insurance point of view, they are in a peculiar position, and that they are in such a position has been recognised ever since we have had health insurance.
In the Bill, which occupied the time of this House for so long a period in 1911, and which came into operation on 1st July, 1912, there was a definite recognition of the fact that women on marriage occupied a rather unusual position. That Act had not been in operation for more than five and a-half years when an amending Bill was introduced, which came into operation in 1918. As the result of the experience gained under the operation of the Act of 1911, it was decided to make a change which involved placing' women on marriage into a special category, provided certain things happened. That category is commonly known as Class K. In 1924, under the auspices of the party opposite, a further amending and consolidating Act was passed, and that substantially continued the provisions of Class K in the same form as they were in the Act of 1918. In 1928 a Bill was introduced and became an Act which had as its principal purpose the preservation in health insurance of those people who had not been able to pay contributions because they were unemployed for long periods. That Act dealt with all classes of insured people who had suffered unemployment, and among them were women who had re- 934 cently become married. The concessions which were given to the whole insured population, who were then, or who might afterwards become, out of work, were by the Act of 1928 extended to women who were married within 12 months. That is the class of women we are considering to-day.
The existing Jaw with regard to women who have recently married is contained in Section 56 of the Act of 1924 which I am seeking to amend. The Act of 1924 must be read in conjunction with certain Sections of the Act of 1928. Section 12 of the Act of 1928 introduced certain amending Sub-sections into the Act of 1924. Anyone therefore who wants to appreciate the exact law on the subject must read Section 12 of the Act of 1928 as well as Section 56 of the Act of 1924. What is the present law in brief? Though the words are many, the purpose is rather easy to understand when you have discovered what the words mean. A woman on becoming married, if she ceases to be a fully employed person, falls into Class K, where she enjoys a reduced level of benefits for a period of two years. The test as to whether she ceases to be an employed person was originally the test of whether she was continuously out of work for eight weeks at any time during 12 months after marriage. In other words, if she were out of work seven weeks, and then did a couple of days' charing, she qualified to be regarded as an employed person.
The Act of 1929, which allowed people who were registered at an Employment Exchange as available for work and unable to get it, entitled them to have their cards franked so that, provided a woman could establish availability for work and inability to get work during the period when she was out of work during the first 12 months after marriage, she never lost her qualification as an insured person. It is obvious that that is a purely farcical test. Any woman who was dishonest enough could always dodge a job in those circumstances. The original test of 1924 was weakened. To put in one week's work in every eight continued qualification as an employed person. That was a farcical test. When it became possible under the Act of 1928 to have the periods of unemployment where she was available for work and not succeeding in getting it treated as if, in fact, she had been at work, it reduced the 935 position to a farce, and the extent of the farce is well illustrated, in my opinion, by what appears on page 6 of the Actuary's Report issued in connection with this Bill. Paragraph 13 says:
In the calculations leading to these conclusions I have given effect to a change which recent experience requires in respect of another factor in the financial basis of women's insurance. A considerably greater provision has now to be made for the heavy liabilities which result from the continuance in full insurance of those women who remain in employment alter marriage. On the best estimate which can be framed it is found necessary to assume that the proportion continuing will be about 40 per cent. greater than that originally expected.That "originally expected" was based upon an examination of past experience. Why does it happen that 40 per cent. more remain in employment or rather in insurance, because they are not actually remaining in employment., but are keeping in insurance by exploiting the present inadequate test? If anybody wishes further confirmation, I would refer to page 414 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette of last November. Every November the Ministry of Labour publish an exceedingly interesting article relating to the count of the persons insured against unemployment. New cards are issued on 1st July, and the November number of the Gazette always contains this interesting analysis. They discovered that the number of people of both sexes in insurance had shown a very rapid increase during a period of very bad trade. It is not the case that there were really more people in work, but more people were pretending to be in work, because they were exploiting the weak provisions of two Acts of Parliament, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the National Health Insurance Act. We find this extraordinary thing. In the year 1925–26, 11.6 of all the insured women left insurance for one cause or another, marriage, no doubt,, being the main cause. In the following year there were 10.3, and the next year 10.1. That gives an average of 10.7 per cent. for those three years, the three years before the Act of 1928. Then we passed the Act of 1928, which relaxed the already weak conditions, and we had in 1928–29—down to the end of June—9 per cent., and in the following year 7.2 per cent.; and in 1930–31, the year of worst trade we have ever known, the exits of women from in- 936 surance, so far from being over 10 per cent., were down to 6.6 per cent.Why should there be this retention in insurance at a time when everybody knows that it is very difficult to get a job or keep a job? If we examine those figures they show that some 110,000 to 120,000 women remained in insurance in the year which ended last June who would in fact, have passed out of insurance had normal conditions prevailed. I think the conclusion is perfectly obvious. Those women fulfilled this extraordinarily light test and remained in insurance, and as a result they extracted from the fund very large sums which properly ought to have remained in the fund, and it is in consequence of that that we are now passing a Bill which will reduce benefits which otherwise might have been preserved. It is possible, of course, that the much abused Anomalies Act passed by the late Government—I say "much abused" because I see present the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and he has often abused it—will have a favourable reaction upon the finance of Health Insurance, because a very large number of people are insured under both Acts, and it is primarily the people insured under both Acts with whom we are dealing. I do not think domestic servants have abused the system, I have always thought the Insurance Act has made great profit at the expense of domestic servants, but it is those women who are insured against both ill-health and unemployment with whom we are mainly concerned. I imagine the effect of the Anomalies Act will be to strengthen indirectly the operative effect of the weak form of the test under the 1928 Act, though at the moment we do not know, because we have no official information to guide us.
I have endeavoured to describe the position as it is at the moment. Under the 1912 Act the people who fall out of full insurance and are transferred to Class K get a benefit, if necessary, of 12s. a week for six weeks and a single maternity benefit of 40s. Under my proposed new Clause those who come into this special class will get 10s. a week for six weeks, and the maternity benefit will be left unaffected. But what is the main purpose of my Clause? It is to propose a new test, a test not of imaginary work but of real work. The test is that 937 any person who puts in 26 weeks of actual work in one year after marriage is then regarded as a person who is really in employment and intending to go on working, and therefore entitled to full insurance rates. Under the existing law the woman who after marriage is really intending to go on working is in peril for 12 months so far as her insurance rights are concerned, because the eight weeks of continuous unemployment may come at any time—they may come in the last eight weeks, and she would then be transferred to Class K.
Under my Clause, if she has put in her 26 weeks—by the end of the first 28 weeks, say, allowing a fortnight for the honeymoon—she is restored to full insurance rights, and therefore under my Clause the position is better for a woman really working. Those people who are only pretending to work are definitely removed from full insurance and placed in Class K. When we consider the benefits in Class K, which will run for two years after marriage, let us see what Parliament thought they ought to be in 1918. It was then decided that they should be 5s. a week for six weeks. Under my Clause the benefit is 10s. a week for six weeks, though in the meantime the cost-of-living has fallen 25 per cent., so no one can say that my proposal is a mean proposal. In 1924 hon. Gentlemen opposite passed an Act in which they gave the lady 7s. 6d. for six weeks. Since then the cost-of-living has dropped 14 per cent., but the lady under my very generous provisions will get 10s., so we are treating her 33⅓ per cent. better in the matter of cash at a time when the cost-of-living has dropped 14 per cent. Therefore, no one can contend, and least of all the late Minister of Health who, I presume, was largely responsible for the 1924 Act, that this Clause is mean.
4.0 p.m.
When we alter the law, we have to consider the position of those whose conditions ave transitional, because one can never make a change in the law without finding a certain number of people in a transitional state. The transitional period in the case of the people we are considering extends back two years, because any woman who has married in the last two years and has already fallen into Class K is entitled to certain limited benefits for two years after her marriage. Obviously, we have to do something for those people, and my proposal is that 938 they shall be transferred from their old Class K to the new Class K. Next we have to consider those people who were married in the last 12 months. Those people have either fallen into Class K or have not. Those who have fallen into Class K will be dealt with in the way I have already mentioned, but those married in the last 12 months who have not fallen into Class K are still on probation, and those who were married just 12 months ago are passing out of probation. Those married in the last six months may have already qualified for the new benefits if they have been continually at work. Strictly speaking, one ought to apply the now test to all women who have married in the last 12 months, but I am told that for administrative reasons it would be difficult to apply it to those who married between July and December of last year. Therefore, I leave them unaffected, enjoying the rights and the disabilities of the existing law. But in respect of those married on 1st January and since I apply the new test. If they have already worked or if they can fulfil the 26 weeks, at once they will enjoy the full rights of insured persons. Any weeks that they may have worked since 1st January will count towards the 26 weeks in order that they can claim the right of full insurance. I hope I have adequately explained to the House the nature of the existing law and of the proposed new Clause. I am contending that on broad moral grounds there is a very strong case for the Clause. We do not want to breed up a whole lot of people who, by taking a mean advantage of the law, may deprive others of their rights. This is a contributory scheme. There may be arguments against such a scheme. I can imagine the hon. Member for Bridgeton making an excellent speech against the contributory system. But we are here discussing a contributory system, and if a penny piece under that system goes to any person improperly, in the long run if means a deprivation of the rights of others who have not abused the law.
My closest connection with friendly society work has been in the Midlands, whereat one time I was an honorary member of a good many lodges. I have been present at a great many of their gatherings, and I have always been impressed with the spirit of real sacrifice shown, 939 the immense pride of the man who could say, "Well, I have been a member of the society for 30 years, and I have never drawn a penny." By that he meant he had never drawn a penny of benefit. That was his pride, not how much he had got out of the society but how much he had left in. It is because we do not want to breed a great mass of young married women encouraged to exploit the system of health insurance, or any other system, that I ask the House, despite the Minister's statement, to give the most serious consideration to this proposed new Clause, which will protect the rights of every woman who has tried to treat insurance properly, while depriving those women who have taken advantage of the system.
§ Sir F. FREMANTLEI beg to second the Motion.
I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at great length. I hope the issue is fairly clear, and that we will have a clear reply to it. I shall not attempt to confuse the House by giving any duplicate set of figures, after those that have already been given. When it comes down to the real issue we have definitely to recognise that we are dealing with a clear distinction between a proposal which may involve a certain number of hard cases, and the Bill as it stands, which in the opinion of those qualified to judge will still leave the insurance system as a contributory system not yet safe and sound. With regard to the hard cases, the proposal is definitely that every woman on marriage has to go into Class K, and within 26 weeks she will again, with proper contributions if she is employed, be entitled to full benefits. During those 26 weeks what is her hardship? She is limited to six weeks of benefit. We recognise that if she suddenly becomes sick and wants to claim more than six weeks' benefit there is a hard case. But what is the extent of the hardship? Presumably on marriage she is fit; it is extremely unlikely that she would marry if she was immediately going to claim sickness benefit. Presumably she is exceptionally sick. The average claim of women would be only one week's benefit, even at the present rate of benefit. Yet this new Clause provides for six weeks' benefit.
940 It would seem, therefore, that the six weeks will really cover practically all cases within the first six months after marriage. I do not see any prospect of real hardship to married women, therefore. If there is, what is the alternative? It is to leave the Bill as it is, and the figures clearly put before the House by those who have to carry out the Act—the figures are innumerable and can be seen in the Actuary's Report—clearly and definitely show that there is an increase in the married women's claims. I want to disabuse the House and the country of the idea that these are cases of malingering. That is a wrong view to take of them. The fact is that when people are hard up in any kind of way they will naturally take advantage of benefits provided by the State under law. There is no question of wishing to cheat about it. If it is clearly recognised that they are entitled under any law to a benefit, they will claim it. I maintain that that is not limited to married women in approved societies. It would be the same with nearly every Member of this House. Always when there is a benefit to be had from a club or society the ordinary claimant does not look to see whether there has been a proper interpretation of the original spirit of the rules and regulations of that club or society, but he asks whether according to the rules and regulations he is entitled to the benefit. So the married women naturally do the same thing. She says, "Here am I on marriage, as things are, going to fall out of benefit after so many weeks unemployment." Naturally enough she says, ''How can I keep in insurance?" She is advised that if in eight weeks she can take one half day's charing she will be all right, and she takes it. That is the position, and that is what we want to get at.
We are not attacking the morals of the people, but are recognising human nature. I maintain that no Amendment to the Bill other than a Clause like this will really meet the case. Are we going to have the pluck to do what is required? It is the case of a battle between the few hard cases and the large lacuna which exists, unless we put the system on a sound footing. I ask those who oppose the Amendment to recognise that whatever arrangement is come to there will always be hard cases. Do not let them think that because someone may be able 941 to get up and say that there may be a few married women who will be ill for more than six weeks in the first six months after marriage, and will not therefore get the full benefit, therefore we are going to have more hard cases than we would have had if this proposed new Clause had not been passed. I maintain that the Clause would not result in any more hard cases than we have at the moment. The House having at last made up its mind that it is going to make this Insurance Fund self-supporting is bound to take the view of the great mass of officials and societies who are in favour of this new Clause. If hon. Members run away from this proposal they run away from a test of the economy which they so strongly profess to support.
§ Miss HORSBRUGHIn rising to oppose the proposed new Clause, I wish to say at once how much I resent many of the statements made on the subject of women's employment by the Mover of the Motion. He pointed to the increase in the number of women who, he said, are pretending to work. I would like to take those words and translate them otherwise, and say that there is an increase of women trying to work. I do that because I am well aware that in many cases women are trying to continue employment and are going back into employment because of the difficulties they are up against just now while their husbands are unemployed. I know that I have neither the Parliamentary experience, not the experience of economics that is possessed by the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause, but I do think that I can speak, to some extent at any rate, for the married women workers of Great Britain. I represent a constituency which has the highest percentage in Scotland of women working in insured industries. Over 55 per cent. of the women of Dundee are working in insured industries. I know the difficulties of these women, and I ask the House to consider what would happen to them if the Clause were accepted.
We have been told by the Seconder of the Motion that we must not think of the few hard cases, that we must think of the broad principle. I ask the House to think of the broad principle. Is it right that a woman who has been in insurance, perhaps since the age of 16, in one of our mills, who has been forced week by week to contribute to the in- 942 surance fund, should automatically on marriage be deprived of the benefit for which she has paid? Is that a right principle? It is certainly a new principle that automatically on marriage, although a woman may have worked from the first day when she could work, she must be deprived of the benefit for which she has paid. I am told that after all she has been put into Class K, and that she can work her way up, that she can get employment and reinstate herself. But the broad principle seems to me to be this, why should she have to reinstate herself? Why should you take away her status simply because of marriage? For the moment I hon. dealing with the case of the woman who continues in employment on marriage. She is deprived of her status.
Then I am told that she can work her way back in 26 weeks. The Seconder of the Motion said that there will be few hard cases arising in the first 20 weeks. But a woman will only get the benefits of K class instead of what she is entitled to expect, merely because she is married. I wonder whether the cases would be so very few as have been suggested. Imagine a woman in full insurance being married and having it hanging over her head that if during the first 26 weeks of her marriage she gets ill she is to be deprived of the benefit for which she has paid and to which I think she has a right. We have been told that during the 26 weeks she can work her way back. I listened carefully to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and I have no doubt that they know all about the finances of approved societies, but while they have been examining the funds of approved societies has their vision been limited, have they any idea of what is going on in the distressed industrial areas?
A mill woman is married and is insured and is put into Class K. Are we sure that much as she wants to work she will get 26 weeks' work in the next year? Mills are closing down and many have closed down. The woman may have worked since she was a girl, and may be a skilled spinner or weaver. Can we be sure that after marriage she will be able to obtain the 26 weeks work in one insurance year? Suppose at the end of the first year she had 24 weeks' work. In some places she will do well if she gets that. Then comes the second year. Those women 943 cannot, in that year, get the whole 26 weeks' work and because of that, you turn out of insurance the woman who is insured and who is wanting work, and who, because the mill is shut down, does not get her work; you turn her out of insurance simply because you are told that there are people who are getting insurance benefit to-day to which they have no right. I think it is a disgrace to take away benefit from the genuine women workers simply because you are finding a deficit in a particular class of insured persons. Already we have cut down their benefit; already the married woman will suffer severely through this Bill.
The Minister, in bringing forward this Bill, asked us to support it because, in his opinion it is sufficient to make the scheme solvent, or at any rate he says he is willing to take the risk. I put it to the House that the solvency of the fund does not depend upon a few hard cases and that if, because of the solvency of the fund, we are supporting the Bill as it is, we are not, for the solvency of the fund, going to go further and turn out of insurance the women who have every right to benefit. It is said there are women who are pretending to work and who are getting insurance benefit when they are not working. That applies not merely to married women but to every class, to married and single men, and to married and single women. The difficulty is not to be decided by reference to the date of marriage, as it arises when there is part-time work. We are all aware that when there is part-time work, by a man or a woman, there is far less urge to get a job and stick to it than where the man or woman is supporting a household. I have been told that when discussing this it is no good putting forward the case that married women have to be the breadwinners of the family. I am told over and over again that married women are in a different class, because their money is not going to support a family as is the money of the man. I wish it were so, and I am certain that many of the married women wish it were so. We have to look at the facts in the case. In many industrial districts, as in those where the principal industry is the textile industry, the majority of the people in the mill are women, and not men. Unfortunately, it is very often 944 upon the woman that the whole burden of supporting the household falls.
I suggest to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion that the time is not ripe for the change. If, in our industrial areas we can get more men at work and if we can open new factories and mills where more men can get steady work and good wages, the time may come, and I for one will be very thankful to see it, when the women of this country will be able to go out of insurance when they marry, and will not have to keep on, not pretending to be at work, but struggling to get work as they have to do to-day. I hope the Clause will receive no support from the House.
§ Mrs. TATEI also rise to oppose the Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has told us that the Minister has said that although he will not accept the Clause, he is certain that it will conic up at some future time for the consideration of this House. I hope and believe that the House will never support a Clause drawn up on the totally unjust and very misleading lines upon which this Clause is drawn up. We know that the National Health Insurance Fund has been threatened with insolvency, and that because of that the Government have had to take action, and that, because the claims of the women were in excess of their contributions, the married women and, to a lesser extent unmarried women, have been singled out for reduction of benefit. The Government consider the reduction absolutely vital to the solvency of the fund. We have a right to believe that they have also considered the reductions adequate to the solvency of the fund.
I am against this Clause, because it introduces a new and extraordinary system of administration. The whole system of English law has been built up on the assumption that a person is innocent of any crime whatsoever until proved guilty; but if this Clause were ever to be accepted it means that in future all married women are to be considered malingerers and cheats until they have definitely proved that they are not. There is no reason why a genuinely employed married woman should be put into a position where she has to prove, herself neither a liar nor a cheat. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), in seconding this Motion, 945 said that there was no question of anyone being a malingerer, but that was not the case put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSOn a point of Order. I never made a reference to malingering. My argument referred only to whether people were in fact insured or not. The hon. Lady has no right, as she has done twice, to put into my mouth words which I have not used.
§ Mrs. TATEI am sorry if the hon. Member for South Croydon feels so deeply at my having accused him of saying that women are malingerers. On 14th June when he first introduced this new Clause, he said:
I believe, as a result of the Act of 1928—of which I was one of the supporters—there have grown up certain abuses which I think it is right to correct. It is obviously wrong that people who are no longer in the field of employment should be treated as if they were in the field of employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th June, 1932; col. 371, Vol. 267.]
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThere is nothing about malingering in that.
§ Mrs. TATEYou may call it abuse, or you may call it malingering. I am not quarrelling about words. Whether you call a married woman a malingerer or an abuser of the fund it will be very much the same thing to her. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) pointed out that in this Clause no account whatever is to be taken of the woman who, for the whole of her working life prior to marriage, has paid contributions into the fund. They are to be taken away from her as if they had never been paid. I call that highway robbery. This Clause is also extremely deceptive. You say, in effect, that a married woman is going to gain tremendously because, when she has qualified by 26 weeks' work, she will get out of Class K, but why, merely because she married should she ever be put into Class K?
At the present moment there are two classes of women who go into Class K. There is the married woman who, upon marriage, ears she no longer intends to work and who, therefore, in the course of time, goes naturally into Class K. It is of no advantage to her to be told that she can get out of Class K in 26 weeks, because she never intended to work, and therefore she never intends to try to get 946 out of Class K. There is another woman who tries to get work and to remain in insurance, but who has failed. Those women go to the Employment Exchange and register for work which is not forthcoming. They get their cards franked. If they refuse work which is offered them, after eight weeks they automatically go into Class K. Those are the people who abuse the fund, since they will not work when it is offered to them. Of what benefit is it to them to get back into Class K after 26 weeks' employment which they do not intend to get?
In the very lucid, kindly and sympathetic speech in which the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill, he said, first of all, that he must secure the solvency of the scheme. That was his main argument. Secondly, he said that he must maintain the other foundation stone of the scheme, which is that it is a contributory scheme based upon the principle that people get what they pay for. It was that contributory clement which we had to ensure was absolutely preserved in anything that we did. I respectfully submit that if this Clause were ever to be given consideration by this House, the contributory system which has to be "absolutely preserved" would be forever taken away.
§ Sir H. YOUNGI believe that the House will consider that some statement ought to be made as to the reason why, as I have already stated to the House, I am not in a position to recommend the House to accept this proposed new Clause, after we have heard the very clear and able arguments which we have had, on the one side from my hon. Friends the Members for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), and on the other side from the hon. Members for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) and West Willesden (Mrs. Tate). I believe that a very useful purpose, indeed, has been served by raising this matter on the Floor of the House. The position dealt with by the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for St. Albans is undoubtedly one that is not satisfactory. Attention has certainly been called to a matter which must give disquiet both to the approved societies and to those who are ultimately responsible for our National Health Insurance system.
947 4.30 p.m.
I am well aware of the very powerful support which there is for some such action as that which is recommended in this Clause. May I quote one little series of figures which will show the House the nature of the situation? Some 225,000 insured women marry in the course of the year, and, of those, 150,000 go genuinely and directly out of insurance because they do not intend to remain in the employment market, and some 50,000 women remain genuinely and directly in insurance because they are genuinely still remaining in the employment market. There is a balance, the exact size of which may be controversial, but which is round about 20,000 persons, about whom there is—how shall I put it?—a well-founded suspicion that they are not genuinely entering into the employment market; yet they are continuing to draw benefit and continue in insurance as if employed. It is that category, numbering about 20,000 persons, as to whom there is subject-matter for inquiry and consideration, as well as for disquiet by the approved societies and those responsible for the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has pointed out that the test as to whether these persons, when unemployed, are actually available for employment or not, is a derisory test which does not amount to any real test at all. That is a very real situation, and it would be wrong on the part of any of us to blink its existence. Of course we know that humanly speaking the real gravity of the matter lies in the fact that the knowledge that there are such cases causes discontent among the genuine cases, and with that position one ought not to be permanently satisfied. Coming to the proposed new Clause and the remedy which it suggests, I have to say that some of the arguments which have been advanced by those who have spoken against the Clause are arguments which are entitled to prevail, and which should convince us that in this proposed new Clause we have not found the proper remedy for the admitted difficulties which I have described.
Perhaps I can best summarise the position in an old phrase. I think that in this Clause you are going too far—you are emptying the baby with the bath. In order to remedy the abuses to which 948 I have referred, you are undoubtedly subjecting to a certain disadvantage all women in insurance who marry, and that is not the hall-mark of the perfect remedy. The disadvantage, I agree, is a slight one, but, nevertheless the status in insurance of the woman who has married is doubtful, until she has completed 26 weeks employment and may give rise to some apprehension and uncertainty in her mind. I do not think that that can be justified by the mere fact of marriage, and the remedy, if a remedy is to be found, ought to be one which will not subject to any disadvantage married women as a whole. I do not think that their actual insurance rights would be really any worse under this Clause than without it, because I think they would be adequately protected during the intervening period by the Class K benefits. Nevertheless, there would be a period of uncertainty and doubt, and that, as I have said, is something that one cannot justify.
In the second place—and here I come to the more definite objection to the remedy suggested by the Clause, and the most positive difficulty that would stand in its way—the Clause would create a wholly new class of unemployed persons, who would be subjected to particular disadvantages in relation to insurance in comparison with other unemployed persons; and the only reason for their being subjected to that disadvantage in comparison with other unemployed persons would be their status as recently married women. I do not think that that can be justified. The disadvantage would be that the unemployed newly married women would have to fulfil a positive test as to employment before they obtained the benefits given to other unemployed persons. That is a sharp discrimination between them and other unemployed persons, and it cannot be justified. Another positive disadvantage attaching to the Clause is that it would not only subject this particular class of unemployed persons to a disadvantage to which other unemployed persons are not subjected but it would also subject them to a test which is actually a very severe one, and the severity of the test proposed is another matter which should be given consideration before the Clause is accepted.
Lastly, on the general aspect of the matter, it is true, as has been said by 949 the hon. Member for Dundee and by the hon. Member for West Willesden, that the Bill has been prepared carefully and anxiously in order to do the least which is necessary to serve the two fundamental purposes of protecting the future solvency of National Health Insurance and of re-establishing the contributory principle. The other provisions of the Bill, without the addition of this Clause, are undoubtedly adequate for that purpose, with the reservations which I have made in previous discussions on the subject. The financial aspect of the proposed new Clause is not by any means a considerable one, if we consider the working of the new provisions in regard to arrears. Whatever financial advantage would be gained from the Clause is not necessary for the special purposes of the Bill. Under these conditions it is not necessary, and since, for the other reasons to which I have referred, it does not, in my opinion, furnish an appropriate remedy for the undoubted difficulties at which it is directed, it ought not, in our opinion, to be incorporated in the Bill. I can summarise the matter by saying that it is really a Clause which deals with a matter which, although important, is not essentially relevant to the purposes of the Bill, and,, since the method by which it proposes to deal with that matter does not wholly commend itself, it would not be advisable that the House on this occasion should incorporate it in the Bill.
§ Mr. MELLERThe concluding words of the Minister were a little disappointing to me. He said that the proposed new Clause was not wholly relevant to the Bill. I should have thought that the views which have been expressed by those who have been working the National Health Insurance scheme for some years, and have put forward their proposals, not with any desire to benefit their particular organisations, but with a desire to benefit the scheme as a whole, would have been sufficient to impress my right hon. Friend with the view that at least this proposed new Clause was not irrelevant to the Bill itself. I think that, in the early days of the discussions on the Bill, the Minister himself had not made up his mind, but promised to give this matter very careful consideration. I am not suggesting for a moment that he has not given it careful consideration, but I do say that the opinion which he has ex- 950 pressed to-day, and the decision at which he has arrived, and which, of course, is final, will be very disappointing to workers in National Health Insurance.
Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word or two about the arguments which have been used against the proposed new Clause. I am bound to say that, if I had come freshly into the House, with no knowledge at all of Health Insurance or of the question of the married women coming within. Health Insurance, I should have been much impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by the two Lady Members who have spoken. They have touched upon that chord which, of course, impresses every man who has any feeling at all—that the married woman is going out to support the home owing to the unemployment of the breadwinner. But in this are we not getting away from the facts of the case and what the proposed new Clause is intended to do?
In the first place, Health Insurance postulates a contract of insurance, largely dependent upon employment of a normal and regular character. The people with whom we are endeavouring to deal under this Clause are people who are not in regular and normal employment, but people who come in quite haphazardly. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) shakes her head—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to develop my argument. I am endeavouring to point out that the argument has been that these women were keeping their homes together. Let it be remembered, however, that the women whom we are considering have just thought it wise to enter into marriage, and that they have not been employed in keeping husbands for some time prior to the present; they have been employed as ordinary single women. They have taken up marriage as their new occupation, and then the question has arisen whether or not they should go back to the old order of things, perhaps owing to their being compelled by circumstances to take up work again as part and parcel of their ordinary life—
§ Miss HORSBRUGHThe mill workers to whom I was referring are people who never cease work when they marry. Unfortunately, in the mill industry, for 50 or 60 years past the women have worked both before and after marriage, and they get no further benefit as married women 951 which they did not get when they were single. I agree that they have taken on the responsibility of a husband, but they do not get any extra benefit.
§ Mr. MELLERI think I know something about mill life, both in Scotland and in Lancashire, to which reference has been made. I have endeavoured to point out that the hardship, if it be a hardship, upon these women who are continuing their work is not a new one in Health Insurance. These people who have taken on marriage as a new occupation, and have left off work for a period of eight weeks, had to go into Class K under the old order. We say that there are so many women now taking on marriage, not as their ordinary occupation in life, but as a side-line—[Interruption.]—I could give many instances where it is nothing more or less than a side-line—[Interruption.] I only want to say that I am disappointed that the Minister has not thought fit to accept the Clause, even with some amendment. If he could have suggested some way in which it might have been amended, I think it would have been very helpful to the Bill. The position of married women with regard to insurance is a serious one. I do not believe that the new Bill is going to meet the difficulties which the Actuary has placed before us, and, if the House accepts the Minister's suggestion and rejects this Clause, it will, before very long, have to consider this question and to accept either the proposal which is put before it to-day or something very similar, in order that the Health Insurance of women may be placed upon a proper basis.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.