§ (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons who are employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be, and any persons who are not so employed but who possess the qualifications hereinafter mentioned may be, insured in manner provided in this Part of this Act, and all persons so insured (in this Act called "insured persons") shall be entitled in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in this Act to the benefits in respect of health insurance and prevention of sickness conferred by this Part of this Act.
§ (2) The persons employed within the meaning of this part of this Act (in this Act referred to as "employed contributors") shall include all persons of either sex, whether British subjects or not, who are engaged in any of the employments specified in Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act, not being employments specified in Part II. of that Schedule:
§ Provided that the Insurance Commissioners herein-after constituted may, with the approval of the Treasury, by regulations, provide for including amongst the persons employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the said schedule.
§ (3) The persons not employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act who are entitled to become insured persons include all persons who either—
§ (a) are engaged in some regular occupation, and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation; or
§ (b) have been employed contributors for a period of five years or upwards;
§ and the persons possessing such qualifications who become insured persons are in this Act referred to as voluntary contributors:
1194§ Provided that where a person who has been a voluntary contributor for five years or upwards ceases to possess such qualifications as aforesaid he shall not by reason thereof be disentitled to continue to be insured under this Part of this Act.
§ (4) Nothing in this section shall require or authorise a person over the age of sixty five years not previously insured under this Part of this Act to become so insured.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) to postpone Part I. is out of order. You cannot move to postpone part of a Bill. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow), in Sub-section (1)— after the word "Act" ["Subject to the provisions of this Act"], to insert the words "and save as provided in Part II. of the First Schedule of this Act"—is, I think—
§ Mr. WEDGWOODOn a point of Order. May I ask on what ground you rule that you cannot postpone part of a Bill? I do not see any reason. May I inquire, Mr. Emmott, on what grounds your ruling is based?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot move to postpone part of a Bill. He can move to postpone a Clause if he gives a proper reason for making the Motion; but he cannot move to postpone part of a Bill.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it will be convenient for you to give some guidance to hon. Members who have put down Amendments? The Speaker was good enough to suggest that I should raise this question when you first took the Chair. We would like to know what is the view of the Chair in. regard to all that series of Amendments which will increase the benefits to be distributed. Will you hold that they increase the charge upon the Exchequer, and are, therefore, out of order?
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot possibly answer a general question of that kind, because we have not yet passed the necessary financial Resolutions for this Bill. When those are passed I shall be in a better position to say what is in order and what is not in order.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWill it not then be too late to deal with all these Amendments which increase benefits? Directly 1195 the financial Resolutions have passed the House it may be quite impossible to alter any of the benefits proposed, because it will lead to actuarial unsoundness in the scheme. If these Amendments are to be ruled out of order as soon as the financial Resolutions are passed it is as well for the House to know before they sanction these Resolutions what they are committing themselves to.
§ The CHAIRMANI would suggest to hon. Members that if they have any questions upon this point I should deal with them when we come to discuss the financial Resolutions. We cannot enter into a discussion on Clause 3 until these financial Resolutions are passed. When these financial Resolutions are before the Committee, if I can give any guidance with regard to these matters I shall be very glad to do so. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford, I gather from conversation that I had with him, really refers to exemptions that he desires to make. In that case it will not be in order here. The next Amendment is in order.
§ Mr. HILLSMy Amendment is, in Subsection (1), after the word "all" ["all persons who are employed"], to insert the word "male." This Amendment raises the whole position of women in this Bill, but I see that all the specific points that I meant to raise are included in other Amendments. As I do not want to waste the time of the House with a Second Reading discussion, I propose not to move my Amendment subject to this: that I have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by so doing I shall not be precluded from dealing with these specific points as they arise.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEBy the leave of the House I will answer that question. This belongs to a class of Amendments of which I am cognizant, and raises all the difficulties presented to me in respect to the case of women. It can be raised subsequently.
§ Amendment was not moved.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that he will let us have the actuarial calculations which we were promised on the Second Reading, and which it was said we should have at the same time as the Amendments? It is really impossible for us to consider what Amendments we 1196 should put on the Paper whilst the actuarial information which the right hon. Gentleman promised so long ago is not before us; which I believe myself he had in his possession then, and is withholding from us.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy own recollection is that I did promise certain actuarial calculations with reference to the men of the Army and the Navy—
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAnd women.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the right hon. Gentleman tells me that I did, of course I accept his statement, but I have no recollection of it. At any rate, it is the intention of the Government to publish information in respect of the actuarial position of women and of the soldiers and sailors, and that certainly will be done long before we reach the specific Amendments.
Sir F. BAN BURYCan the right hon. Gentleman give us the actuarial information upon which the whole Bill has been founded?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the hon. Baronet will find that all that is in the Paper which is to be published.
§ The CHAIRMANThe proposed Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) contains an exemption which I think can come up on Clause 2.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn a point of Order. This Amendment hangs on another one in which are certain enacting words. If I were to wait for the Schedule I should be out of order, because I understand you cannot move enacting words in the Schedule.
§ The CHAIRMANBy taking the hon. Gentleman's two Amendments together I see that they make exemptions, and exemptions can be moved in the form of a new Sub-section to Clause 2. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley, in Sub-section (1), after the word "persons" ["All persons who"], to insert "including for the purposes of the benefit conferred by this Act, or such of them as are hereinafter specified, the children under sixteen years of age of such persons," can come under Clause 8.
§ Mr. HARDIEI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act," to insert the words ["Part of this Act shall 1197 be"] "and their wives." The Amendment will make the Clause read as follows: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons who are employed within the meaning of this Part of the Act 'and their wives' shall be" and so on. This raises the whole question of the position of women under the Bill in a very concrete form.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order, Mr. Emmott. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going to move to include the wives in all the benefits. Surely that will cause an increased charge upon the Exchequer, as I presume the hon. Gentleman will require that the Exchequer should contribute in respect of the wives in the same way as the men. Does not that increase the charge upon the Exchequer, and therefore is it not out of order?
§ The CHAIRMANWe are dealing with a Clause now which states who is to be insured and who is not to be insured. The financial arrangements in regard to persons follow, and therefore the point raised by the hon. Baronet does not arise now.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESDoes not the word "persons" include women already?
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps it will be better if the hon. Gentleman who is moving this Amendment should make it "and the wives, 'if any,' of such persons."
§ Mr. HARDIEI am not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, how your suggested words might be construed "and the wives, 'if any'"—
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, can you include women at this point, and not children? My Amendment was to include children for the benefits, and I understand that you have ruled me out of order, seeing that they must come into the Schedule benefits. As I understand the proposal now it is to bring in the wives. Then why not the children?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as I understand it, would include the children within the scope of the benefits provided under this Bill. That should wait for Clause 8. I take it that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil proposes that the wives of any of those men whom he desires to include within the category of compulsory insurance shall pay a contribution and come under the compul- 1198 sory insurance part of the scheme. If that is the case I do not see any other place where it can be raised except here.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEYour interpretation, Mr. Emmott, of my intention is quite accurate. My object of moving this Amendment on behalf of the Labour party is to bring the women within the scope of this Clause as insured persons. Under the Bill as it stands, the married woman occupies a very anomalous position. If the married woman had been an industrial worker before marrying, what becomes of her when she marries? She loses for the time being all the benefits and remains in a state of suspended animation until she may chance to become a widow. But the woman who has never been industrially employed and is married is left out altogether from the provisions of this Bill. I heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say, and I read his reasons for excluding married women from the scope of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated the difficulties in the way; he is himself quite sympathetic with the proposal if it could be done, but first of all he points out the enormous cost, because he says it is admitted that sickness amongst women is much more frequent than sickness amongst men. His second point was the difficulty of checking sickness amongst women who are not industrially employed, and his third point was the difficulty of getting the doctors to agree. I do not know whether the Chancellor meant to say, when speaking about the difficulty of checking sickness amongst women, that the working women in this country are given to malingering. Those who live like myself among the working classes, and know the conditions of working-class life and character and of the wives and mothers of the working classes know that the fault is not that they are given to malingering and pretending sickness, but, on the contrary, that they frequently over-work themselves when their physical condition is not equal to it.
With regard to the financial objection, it is purely a matter of justice. There are several ways as to how the married woman's contribution might be made, either of which could be brought into operation if the married woman was brought within the scope of the Bill. The married woman's contribution, for example, could be deducted along with the husband's in the office of the employer. The contribution of the worker is to be deducted from his wages week by week, and there could 1199 be no insuperable difficulty in the way of making a deduction for the wife's contribution as well as for the husband's. If that is not desirable a second course would be open, namely, that the married woman could pay her contribution through an approved society, and therefore there need not be any technical difficulties raised as to the matter of contribution. As for the medical men, I presume their hesitation about seeing women brought into the scheme is purely financial. They know as well and better than any section of the community the great need there is for married women receiving more and better medical attention than they possibly can under existing circumstances. The 30s. alternative benefit is good so far as it goes, but it goes a very little way, and what we desire to see is that the medical benefit, and especially the medical benefit, shall be extended to women, with a certain sickness allowance the same as in the case of industrial women.
The House of Commons, I am sure, will approach this subject in a sympathetic frame of mind. The relief that is proposed to be given to the breadwinnner under this Bill will, to a certain extent, relieve the pressure which inevitably follows a period of sickness. But that pressure is not felt alone in the time when the breadwinner himself is disabled. When the wife is sick, it is nearly always necessary to pay for outside help which has to be brought in. The married woman requires nursing, the housework requires to be done, young children require to be looked after, and it entails extra expenditure, which the wages of the husband makes it impossible for him to adequately meet. As a result the poor woman suffers, the children suffer, and a great deal of discomfort is added to the life of the husband which might easily be obviated, and therefore by the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill, and by setting the experts to work, to find out what cost it would entail, and having the necessary amendments provided to have married women brought in, you would carry a measure of hope and comfort into the homes of tens of thousands of people all over the land, and in the belief that the House is prepared to approach the subject in a sympathetic frame of mind, I beg leave to move my Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis is a proposal of a very sweeping and far-reaching character. I am sure the Committee has 1200 already gathered its full import. It means not that women should be included, but that women should be compulsorily included; that the wives of all the employed people of the country which comes to something like ten or twelve millions should be compulsorily included in the purview of this Bill. What does that mean? The hon. Member with his usual courage ha3 faced it, and is prepared to carry it through. Somebody has got to pay that contribution. His proposal is that the workman should pay, not 4d. as proposed under the Bill, but that he should pay 8d., that the employer instead of paying 3d. should pay 6d.; that is what it means, unless the State comes to the rescue and finds a few more millions. Every penny of contribution produces £3,000,000; that is the first figure I want to get into the minds of hon. Members of the Committee. This Amendment means you have got to find 6d. for the married woman in addition to the 2d. from the State; that means 8d. altogether, which represents another £24,000,000 of money. If the hon. Gentleman says 6d. is to be divided between the employer and the workman and the other 2d. is to be paid by the State, that means an additional liability to the State of about £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of money.
Let us take the workman. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that 11,000,000 of workmen in this country—I do not know what proportion are married, if you like make it 9,000,000—is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that that 9,000,000 of working men would be prepared to find 3d. in addition to the 4d. levied upon them? I agree that even then they would be finding less than the workmen in Germany. Then you come to the employer; he would have to find 6d. if married women were included instead of 3d. as the Bill now stands. I also believe that even then the vast number of employers would be only paying about the same amount as in Germany, but I could not accept the responsibility on the part of the State for finding another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 and imposing an additional charge upon the employer of £9,000,000 and upon the workman of another £9,000,000. I think that is much too serious and sweeping a proposition. Some time later on, it may be desired to include the whole of the married women within the purview of the scheme, but there is not the same urgency, for the simple reason that we are making provision now for the workman when ill, and for a time when no money at all is coming into his house. That is not the case when 1201 the married woman is ill; I do not say there is not a greater burden upon the household when she is ill. She may have to find a substitute. I am not challenging these propositions, but there is not the same hardship as when the breadwinner is ill, and it is far better that we should see how the provisions which we contemplate under this Bill would work before we embark upon a gigantic scheme such as that outlined by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINEvery Member of the Committee who has heard this discussion will feel that the objections to this particular Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised are insuperable. You cannot ask the State at this moment to find an additional £6,000,000, and you cannot ask the employers of married men to double his contribution because the workman has a wife. Just consider the proposition. I do not know whether hon. Members have themselves looked into individual cases to see what the charge upon the employer is going to be under this part of the Bill. I confess I think it is a very serious burden in many cases. The highest figure which has been brought to my notice by a gentleman whom I can absolutely trust, shows that it is going to cost 6s. in the £ on the average profits of the last three years in the case of the particular manufacture in which he is concerned. You cannot ask an employer, in addition to the burdens placed upon him, to take an additional burden, not on behalf of the person he is employing, but on behalf of his dependent. If you did it would have a result which I am sure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil would be among the first to regret. It would cause every employer when taking on a man to ask whether ho was married or single, and he would reject married men in favour of single men. I am sure that would not achieve the object in view. For these reasons it will be quite impossible for me to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment or to alter his decision in regard to it. I think a very uneasy feeling exists largely in this House and very widely outside as to the general treatment of women under the Bill. The scheme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted deals very harshly in my opinion with women. Of course, I accept from the Chancellor of the Exchequer his statement that women, as women, get more in proportion to their contributions than men as men under this Act. That is a state- 1202 ment which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Second Reading of this Bill, and it is for the purpose of going into this point that I have asked for the actuarial calculations upon which that statement is based. Accepting it for the moment as being the case, it does not prove that what is taken from women is fairly distributed amongst the women from whom it is taken. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has framed his Bill so that a very large number of women will pay a contribution quite in excess of anything they can receive either as individuals or as a class.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the right hon. Gentleman is now going into the general question. I could not possibly reply to him, and I do not think it is quite fair to introduce it at this stage. I submit that it is out of order and that it should be raised upon another part of the Bill. The point the right hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise can be raised when we arrive at the part of the Bill dealing with that question, and I think it is obviously out of order to raise the general question on an Amendment of this kind.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not want to involve the Committee in a discussion which can be more conveniently taken later on, and that is not my intention. I do not, however, wish to give the go-by to this Amendment without indicating to what extent I am in agreement with the hon. Member who moved it, as to the class whom he seeks to protect, because I think they ought to have larger benefits than they get under this Bill. I think, however, it is impossible to treat them as the hon. Gentleman proposes to treat them, and I will not elaborate that point. I will merely say that probably the bulk of the wives of insured persons have themselves at one time been employed, and will be at one time insured persons under this Act. They will be insured before marriage; and a few of them may become insured persons in their widowhood; but the great bulk of them would cease to derive any benefit at the time when they are wives because they will be wives of insured persons under this Act. I do not want to say "No" to this Amendment without indicating that more consideration should be given to the class of case which is raised with the intention of making their position rather more favourable than it is at the present time. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that I have not trespassed unduly. I have avoided details, but I do not 1203 wish to exclude the possibility of doing something for these women by the rejection of this Amendment.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI do not support this Amendment because I think it raised too large a question and fixes too heavy a burden on those concerned.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI have not discussed the financial position because I understood that would not be in order. The object of this Amendment was to bring married women within the scope of insured persons. The financial provisions to be made is a matter for subsequent discussion, and I purposely did not raise it at this stage because I understood it would not be in order.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI cannot see that it is out of order in view of the points raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment for East Worcestershire. This Amendment would raise too heavy a tax and increase the burden of this Bill too greatly. I want to put to my right hon. Friend that this Amendment does raise the position of married women, and if you do not bring them under the compulsory Clauses provision ought to be made that they will come under the voluntary Clauses. The position of married women should not be lost sight of, although we cannot bring them under the compulsory Clauses at this moment.
§ Mr. HILLSI do not think this Amendment ought to be accepted, because it will throw upon the married man employed and the employer a greater burden. You will either have to take more from the man's wages and the employers or else use the premiums paid by them to insure the married women. I do not think that is a feasible or a fair plan. It is clearly impossible to charge the employer with a premium required to insure the workman's wife. It raises the obvious difficulty that no married man will get employment easily; besides that, it imposes too heavy a burden upon industry. I think the burden on the man's wages is too great. There is another point to which I want to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the present time married women who have been insured before marriage on marriage lose all benefit, and until they come back into industry or lose their husbands they cannot get on the insurance fund again.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI agree that it is a very important point, but it comes on later. As far as possible I think it will be more convenient that we should confine the Debate to the immediate Amendment before the House. I shall really press for that, otherwise there will be much repetition. I can assure the hon. Member that I have got that point in mind, and I think he will find when we come to it that I shall be able to satisfy him. I submit that we should confine ourselves to the particular question raised by the Amendment.
§ Mr. HILLSI think I can show that I am quite in order. Besides the point that you must get premiums from the employer and the employed there is the point that the State may be asked to pay the 2d. for women. Supposing that it was held by the House that married women insured before marriage could not pay premiums after marriage, and that the husbands could not pay the premiums, it is arguable that the State ought still to grant 2d. a week for all married women. That point is included in the Amendment of the hon. Member, and it does not deal with finance at all. The Amendment simply says that the wives of employed persons are to be included in the compulsory insured Clause. It does not say what the amount of the premium is to be, but it simply includes those women in the class that is to be employed. I submit it is perfectly competent to argue that it might be a fair and proper thing for the State to pay the twopence a week for these women. First of all, I want some information about the figures, because I am told that these married women who would be included in this part of the Bill number 6,000,000, and not 9,000,000 or 11,000,000 as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Anyhow, I think the figure will be found to be much smaller than that stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
7.0 P.M.
As this may be the last occasion upon which we can raise this point, I feel bound to raise it, because it is one that goes to the very basis of the system of the Bill, and also to the very root of the economic position of a man compared to a woman. It is all very well in the case of a man to say you will not insure him unless he earns a wage from which you can take his contribution. The same rule as to work does not apply to women. The work she does is not wage paid, and yet it is work just as valuable to the State as man's work. Why on this account should a man be placed in 1205 a preferable position to his wife? A man goes forth to his work and labour, and woman stays at home to mind the home. Each does just as valuable a work for the State, but by this Bill all the advantage is given to the man, and you put the woman into a very inferior position. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a moment of unexpected generosity, was to consider the possibility of granting the twopence a week to all married women who were insured before marriage. He would then find that these women were some 6,000,000 in number, and that the total charge upon the Exchequer would be something like £2,250,000 a year. I agree that that is a very large sum. Assuming that for a moment, how much could you do for this 2d. In the first place you could give a married woman medical benefit for the whole of her life, and you could give her maternity benefit for the whole of her life. You could not give sick pay, but that, perhaps, is not so important in the case of a married woman as in the case of a married man. You could do all the curative and preventive work this Bill is intended to do for 2d. per week, and beyond that you could give institutional and sanatorium treatment, all for your 2d. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to accept a suggestion of that sort, because I suppose he will say it will upset the finance of his Bill, but it is important the Committee should realise how unfair the whole scheme is to women and how unfair all contributory schemes are bound to be to women. It is not the fault of the way the Bill is drawn, and it is not the fault of the Bill itself. All contributory schemes, whether of pensions or of anything else, cannot be fair to women, because their work is not paid by wages, although it is just as valuable to the State. A woman's health is a more important asset to the State than the health of a man. A recent writer has said that a man's life is the income of the State, but a woman's life is the capital of the State. You cannot risk her health without risking a grave national calamity, and for those reasons I do urge this Amendment in some form or other upon the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI think some hon. Members who have spoken, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have come to rather hasty conclusions about this Amendment. The assumption 1206 is this Amendment means that 3d. must be paid for the woman from her husband's wages, 3d. by the employer of the husband, and 2d. by the State, but hon. Members have surely not forgotten the first words of the Clause, "Subject to the provisions of this Act." Subject to the provisions of this Act, these women shall be insured. All we want to do by this Amendment and all we actually do is to say that women shall be insured. If a married woman is to be insured upon a threepenny basis, we will say so later on. If part of her insurance is to come from the employer of the husband, we can say so later on, and, if part of her insurance is not to come from the employer of her husband, we can say that. As a matter of fact, there are Amendments which will complete the scheme. All we want the Committee to say now is that it is in favour of the compulsory insurance of married women on precisely the same footing as men. That is all. I want to emphasise that, because there is no use in making absurd replies to very reasonable Amendments. The absurd reply was that the married woman, if this Amendment is carried, must be subject to the same provisions as to the contributions of the employer, the husband, and the State as the husband. That is not involved in the Amendment at all. The right hon. Gentleman is compelling a very considerable number of people to insure who are already insured in friendly societies and trades unions; and if he is going to claim one-tenth of the benefits for his scheme he has claimed he has got to make it a little more liberal than it is. It is simply absurd to go away and say a scheme is at all satisfactory which deals with married men only and not with their wives.
My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. W. Hills) stated that a contributory scheme must be unjust to women. I think it is unnecessary for a contributory scheme to be unjust to women. A woman's value to the State can be appraised, and the benefits under a compulsory scheme can be made as definite and as fair to women as to men. I want the Committee to remember what the Amendment is. It simply says the wives of people who must be insured under this Bill ought also to Be insured. If the Committee is not prepared to do that, let it understand right away from the beginning that it is going to cut out great benefits from the family point of view, apart from the individual point of view, which this Bill can easily secure. We will deal with the payments and with 1207 the benefits when the time comes, and we will also deal with the responsibility of the State when the time comes. Those questions can be solved, and can be met by Amendments on the Paper. All we want the Committee now to say is that in its mind and intention married women must be included as well as married men.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI must reply to what has fallen from my hon. Friend. He attacks me because I put an interpretation upon this Amendment which was put upon it by the mover himself. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) suggested increasing the workman's contribution and the employer's contribution, and I inferred that the rest was to come from the State. All I said was that if that was the interpretation placed upon the Amendment it would cost £24,000,000 or £25,000,000. The hon. Gentleman says it will not cost quite as much, but if you bring it down to £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 somebody has got to find the money, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said he would find it by increasing the contribution of the workman, the contribution of the employer of the workman, and the contribution of the State. I say that is a responsibility the Committee ought not to undertake at this stage. That is all I have said. There is one other statement made by my hon. Friend for which he has no warrant, and I think it is rather important it should be pointed out. He says there is no provision in the Bill, unless the Amendment is carried at this stage, for the family. That is not correct, and he cannot have read the Bill if he says so. There is a provision that the surplus may be applied by the societies for the purpose of providing medical attendance for the family. That will be a sum of £2,000,000 within the first three years, and within 15i years it will be a sum of £8,000.000 or £9,000,000. If will be quite possible for the societies with that £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 at their disposal to use it for the purpose of medical treatment and sanatorium treatment of married women. There is, therefore, some provision in the Bill. My hon. Friend may say it is not adequate and does not come up to his ideal of what ought to be done, but it is not correct to say there is not provision. After all, £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 is a very considerable provision for anything in any Bill.
There is only one other word I want to Bay, and it is in reply to the hon. Member 1208 for Durham (Mr. Hills). I hope he does not think I imagine he wants to waste the time of the Committee. He is a genuine social reformer, and always speaks with knowledge on these subjects. He says there are only 6,000,000 married women to come under this Clause. I am not prepared at the moment to challenge his figure and I will accept it for the moment. That would involve £2,600,000 a year from the State, and that is equivalent to an additional penny on the Income Tax. I think it would be a great responsibility to ask the Committee to undertake that, and for my part I shall be called upon at this stage to resist it. There is not really the same urgent demand or reason, as I have pointed out, for insuring a married woman as long as she has a husband employed. The point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) is a point by itself. You must have some benefit, and the cheapest you can get is sanatoria, which would come to one-third of a penny. Nobody proposes to confine it to that, and it would cost 2d. at the very least.
§ Mr. DICKINSONMay I ask your ruling on a point of Order? The proposal is to insert the words "and the wives of such persons," so that if those words were inserted it would read "all persons who are employed and the wives of such persons shall be insured." If we reject those words and decline to insert them, will it be competent for us to put in other Amendments which will give benefits to married women under any circumstances?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member, of course, means in the Benefit Clause, Clause 8. The rejection of these words would not, I think, interfere with the Committee in reference to the Amendment of Clause 8. This is a wider question. This is to bring women in. as compulsorily insured, and I should not, therefore, treat the decision on this question as excluding them from further benefits under Clause 8.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERClause 8, I think, relates exclusively to benefits, and I submit it would be out of order, under Clause 8, to indicate, in any form, either the amount or the nature of the contribution that will have to be paid. Surely, if we are to raise the question in some subsequent place in the Bill, we should do it where we could arrange for the contribution as well as the benefit.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn the point of Order. May I submit that if the contribu- 1209 tion is to be compulsory then it has to be disposed of at this point. But that does not preclude any one at a later stage suggesting that married women should come in as voluntary contributors. That comes in Sub-section (3), and even if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is defeated at this stage, it will be quite competent for any one on Sub-section (3) to move that married women shall be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors.
§ The CHAIRMANIn answer to the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division of Kent, I would point out that in Clause 8 there is a paragraph which, as the hon. Member very well knows, gives the maternity benefit to the wife of an insured person, and, therefore, although it may be impossible for me to tie myself on a point like this, I do not say, having regard to what is already in Clause 8, it will be impossible to propose other benefits for the wife of an insured person. In reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who asked me about the voluntary contributors in Sub-section (3), I was proposing in regard to Amendments to the Sub-section to deal with them in Clause 34. If I find any reason to alter that opinion, I shall allow some Amendment of Sub-section (3) to be proposed in order to raise a case in regard to women, if there is any case to be raised.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEThe point I want to raise is, whether, in the event of the Amendment being defeated, it would preclude proposals for bringing married women within the scope of the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANAs there is already a benefit to the wife of an insured person, I do not think that would follow.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONHowever great the measure of our sympathy with the workman's wife, whose lot is generally hard and bitter, I submit that this is a very crude Amendment, which can hardly have been fully considered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. If it means anything it implies a fresh contribution from the employer. What claim has the workman's wife upon her husband's employer? She is not employed by him, and you will be putting an impossible burden on British trade. It is all very well to talk in percentages, but when it is worked out in £ s. d. it seems a very great change to take 8s., as will be done under the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr 1210 Tydvil, out of every pound of profit made in certain trades. You are not only dealing with the case of great companies that have large resources, but there are many cases in the East End of London where the employer, employing thirty, forty, or fifty men, himself does not make more than £2 or £3 per week profit, and you are proposing to impose on that man an added burden of a contribution, because this Amendment must mean a contribution by the employer for the man's wife as well as for himself. When you have figured that out, it amounts to 25 per cent. of the profit he is making, and I say that it is an unfair and impossible burden to put on British industry. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite can have worked out these figures. They cannot have realised what the added burden would mean to the smaller employer. I quite admit it is very difficult in this great question to argue closely, because so much of the land is so wholely unknown. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave airily the figure of 10,000,000 as the number of married workmen in this country, though he has since modified that. I do not think he had any statistics in his possession, and it was more or less a guess, but it shows the difficulty, the very great difficulty, we are in in arguing many of the points that will arise.
Everybody will admit, of course, that if we can benefit women who are not at present insured in any way, and who do not come into friendly societies, except in so few instances as to make no matter, it would be a great advantage. But I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it does seem very hard, and I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, it is hard that a woman who has been working and paying contributions and then marries should get no return in money in many cases for what she has given by way of contributions. She may be happy in her married life and may —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—I am not sure whether this is in order, but it is only so far relevant because it has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) as arising out of Clause 8. When we come to consider that further, if the maternity benefits can be increased in the case of those who have made contributions, it would meet much of the hardship that has been pointed out and which has given ground for the Amendment. The Amendment, as it stands, would set up a principle absolutely unjust in itself, that is the demand from 1211 the employer of a contribution for the wife of the man he employs, who has no real claim on him, and, if it were granted, it would mean an added burden, which it would be not only unjust to impose, but which would be found in practice most harmful to the whole conditions under which men work in this country.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI should not have intervened again but for a fear that the vote on this Amendment may be taken on a false issue. Everyone has assumed, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if this Amendment be carried the financial conditions applying to married women must necessarily be the same as those applying to men. But that is not necessarily so. No one on these benches has said it is so. The hon. Member for Stepney has spoken of the great harm that might accrue, and has told us that the small employer earning only £3 a week for himself would suffer seriously. But suppose a certain employer of, say, thirty workmen has to pay 2d. per week in respect of each one, it only amounts to 5s. out of the £3, and that surely is not a very embarrassing sum in view of the benefits which are secured. The point of the Amendment is this, if this Amendment is not carried women are thereby excluded from the class of persons who are to be compulsorily insured under this Bill. I am, of course, referring to married women. The Committee is asked by the Bill to again treat married women as inferior creatures. If the women had a vote the same as the men have the Government would not dare to treat them in this way. No such Bill as this would be brought in. The object of the Amendment is to bring married women within the class of those who are to be compulsorily insured under the Bill. The terms of that insurance and the benefits to be provided under it are all points for subsequent discussion, but, by passing this Amendment now, you bring married women fully and completely within the scope of the Bill, and then you proceed to make what provisions you think fit, both in the matter of contributions and of benefits. If this Amendment is rejected, it means that at no subsequent stage of the Bill can married women be brought in under the compulsory Clauses. I shall, therefore, press this Motion to a Division, and I hope hon. Members will not vote against the Amendment on a side issue. Let them bear in mind that the real issue is: Are married women to be 1212 brought inside this scheme so as to secure all the benefits which the Bill is supposed to confer?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI certainly understood, as also apparently did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman proposed, as his method for carrying out his Amendment and making it effective, that the employer should pay a contribution on account of the wife as well as on account of the workman himself.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIENo, I simply used that as an illustration of how it might be done.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOf course I accept the statement of the hon. Member that he intended it nothing more than as an illustration of one way in which the employer of a married man might be made to pay a double contribution because the man was married. The man himself is also to be called upon to pay a double contribution because he is married, and I put it that that is the only way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested the Amendment could be given effect to. To that I think the objections taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members are well founded. The hon. Member says if you do not like that plan, which was only put forward as an illustration, other plans are open, and I believe the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said he and his Friends had prepared a series of Amendments which indicates other plans. If hon. Members want us to vote in favour of their Amendment, I think they must take the Committee a little more into their confidence. The only plan which has yet been suggested is one which puts an enormous additional burden on the State, and on the employer of a married man, as well as a double tax on the married man himself. That is far too serious a proposition for me to assent to now, and, unless hon. Gentlemen can show that they have a practicable scheme by which their plan can be carried out, it is quite impossible for me to vote blindly for a proposal of this kind; the only interpretation which I can place upon it being the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman states he threw out as an illustration. The case of married women is one of great difficulty. They are hardly dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. But I draw the distinction drawn also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think accepted by the hon. 1213 Member for Durham, between the position of the wife and of the husband, in regard to this matter. It is the business of the husband to provide for the needs of the household. We force him to insure because he may be struck down, and in that case the whole means of the household may be suspended. But as long as he is strong and hearty it is his duty to provide for the needs of his wife as well as for his own needs. If the wife is struck down the revenues of the house do not cease; if the man is struck down the income of the house comes to an end. That, and not any desire to place women in an inferior position, is the reason for the distinction which is embodied in the Bill. I cannot vote for an Amendment of this kind so long as the only illustration of how it would work is the one given us by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie).
§ Mr. AMERYMay I ask if the Amendment is defeated will it still be possible at a later stage to move an Amendment compelling married women to contribute say a penny, together with a State contribution for limited benefits?
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the hon Member to hand in an Amendment and let me see it. I cannot answer a question of that kind.
§ Mr. DICKINSONI am only too anxious to obtain the full benefits of the Bill for married women, but I cannot support a
§ proposal at the last moment to put it forward in this form. It will be possible, I believe, in the later stages of the Bill to obtain, if not full benefits, at any rate partial benefits for married women, and even if you do not put them in the compulsory class we may nevertheless at a later stage be able to get what we want for them in the shape of medical attendance and other things. But I feel that this Amendment is one that even I cannot vote for and a large number of Members who are anxious to obtain benefits for married women will not be able to vote for. I should like the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment and co-operate with us to try and get these advantages at a later stage, in which case we shall have the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI also appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. His position is quite untenable. The women can insure themselves if they want to, but the Amendment would force them to insure even if they did not want to. That is most undemocratic. My complaint about the Bill is that it is forcing a great many people to injure who do not wish to. There will be trouble if men's wages are docked, and we surely do not want to have all the women of the country as well in revolt.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 244.
1215| Division No. 256.] | AYES. | [7.35 P.m. |
| Adamson, William | Hills, John Waller | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hodge, John | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Barnes, George N. | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Johnson, W. | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Jones, Left Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred | Jowett, Frederick William | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmok | Kellaway, Frederick George | Wadsworth, John |
| Crooks, William | Lansbury, George | Walker, Colonel William Halt |
| Doughty, Sir George | Logan, John William | Walsh, Stephen (Lanct., Ince) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Wardie, George J. |
| Gill, A. H. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | |
| Goldstone, Frank | Pointer, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan. |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanten) | Pringle, William M. R. | |
| Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Black, Arthur W. |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Boland, John Plus |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Booth, Frederick Handel |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barton, W. | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Alden, Percy | Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Beale, William Phipson | Brady, Patrick Joseph |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Beck, Arthur | Brocklehurst, William B. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Beckett, Hon. William Gervase | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Bentham, G. J. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Helme, Norval Watson | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cameron, Robert | Helmsley, Viscount | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Higham, John Sharp | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cave, George | Hill-Wood, Samuel | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hinds, John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Dowd, John |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hope, Harry (Bute) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Clough, William | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hughes, Spence- Leigh | O'Shee, James John |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, W. S. Glyn-(T. H'mts., Stepney) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Joyce, Michael | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Keating, Matthew | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Kelly, Edward | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Reddy, Michael |
| Delany, William | Lambert, George (Devon, Molton) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Larmor, Sir J. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Doris, William | Leach, Charles | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Duffy, William J. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robinson, Sidney |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Lewis, John Herbert | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lundon, Thomas | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Lyell, Charles Henry | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Falconer, James | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A, (S. Geo. Han. S) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| French, Peter | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Sheehy, David |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Maclean, Donald | Smyth, Thomas-F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Gardner, Ernest | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | M'Callum, John M. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sutherland, John E. |
| Gibson, Sir James Puckering | Manfield, Harry | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Glanville, H. J. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Tennant, Harold John |
| Cordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Meagher, Michael | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Grant, J. A. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Millar, James Duncan | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Molteno, Percy Alport | Webb, H. |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Mooney, John J. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Hackett, John | Moore, William | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Morgan George Hay | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Morrell, Philip | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L (Rossendale) | Mount, William Arthur | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Harmsworth, R. L. | Munro, Robert | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Harvy, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Harwood, George | Needham, Christopher T. | Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Newton, Harry Kottingham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | |
| Hayward, Evan |
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "shall" ["this part of the Act shall be"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
On the Second Reading of the Bill we had a great number of speeches from Members on the Front Bench. I listened to no fewer than five, but in not one of them 1216 did I hear a word of justification for what, after all, is the fundamental principle of the Bill, that is, the compulsory nature of it, the fact that you are not merely saying, "We will give you an incentive to thrift," but "We will make you thrifty whether you like it or not." However much the Conservative party may justify and slur over this question of compulsion, I think 1217 on these benches we should have some justification for this great departure from Liberal traditions. What is the predominant feature about the Bill? It is that you say to every working man fourpence a week shall be deducted from his wages. It is a compulsory poll tax, and before it is carried into law we ought to know what are the very strong grounds which move a Liberal Government to make this change. The Bill as it stands is compulsory thrift — the compulsory thrift of the lower classes decreed by the upper classes. I want to know as a Liberal by what right you can say to the healthy man "you must pay for the sick and debilitated man." I perfectly agree that it might be right that he should do so, but I want to know by what right you make him do it whether he is willing or not. This is a matter which affects not only myself, but a large number of Liberals on these benches. We on this side of the House are opposed to compulsory service in the Army. It is quite true that it is a very desirable thing that working men should be prepared to defend themselves against their enemies, though possibly we might have different views as to who their real enemies were and as to the direction in which their muskets should go off. It is desirable that the working classes should be temperate, but we have not yet said that it is a crime for the lower classes to drink. We are practically agreed that it is not right for the lower classes to be immoral, but we have not yet taken steps to prevent them from being immoral. We all know perfectly well that it is good for people to be thrifty, moral and sober, but that is a very different thing from passing an Act of Parliament to compel them to be any of these things. As an old Liberal I think we should have from the Government some justification of this change in Liberal policy.
The advantages of compulsory thrift we have been told about by hon. Members on the other side. Thrift among the working classes is always the ideal of the well-intentioned employer. If a workman becomes sick he often becomes a burden on the rates, and his desolate home affords a very afflicting spectacle for those who are engaged in building up in factory and counting-house this civilisation of which we are so proud. The success of this measure will make it infinitely more convenient to manage the working classes. It should make them more tract-Able and contented.
1218 It is not only the compulsory contribution we object to. It is the compulsory inspection, medical attendance, espionage, inspection by your doctors, friendly society visitors and the collecting societies' inspectors. I am not so opposed to the second part of the Bill as to the first. We shall find the second part the finest part of the Bill if it becomes law. It deals with the assistance to trade unions who provide an out-of-work fund or benefits. It is the Ghent system that is provided for in the second part of the Bill, so that the second part, as to insurance against unemployment, does not sin against the old Liberal tradition so much as the first part. I want the House to consider whether it is necessary to make this thrift compulsory or not. Up to now we have got along with friendly societies alone. Men who wanted to be thrifty could be thrifty through our friendly societies. Now you jump a stage and say: "We will make them thrifty, whether they want it or not." You pass over the intermediate stage of encouraging a man who is thrifty to come for a State subsidy without compulsion. In spite of the almost universal acclaim with which this measure was first greeted in the Press I am inclined to think, from the point of view of the working classes of this country that some system of assisted thrift would have been a great deal better than a system of making people have deductions from their wages when they do not want to.
One thing strikes me about the Bill, namely, that as certainly as free education followed compulsory education, so certainly will free thrift follow this compulsory thrift, and you will, sooner or later, get all your contributions from the State instead of from this oppressive poll tax from the individual. This is only a halting and half-way house on the road to the logical conclusion. You are dealing, as far as you can in this Bill, on benevolent and, more or less, harmless lines with the worst suffering of the working classes. It is a nice, kindly measure. When it passes no one will be able to say that the masters of England are not very kind to their workers. Nor, after the way it has been received by the Labour party, can-it be said that the workers are not very responsive to this kind treatment. The Bill has all this to be said for it. But at the same time I do not think there is the same enthusiasm for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as when he introduced the Budget of 1909–10 1219 "Punch" the other day gave us a cartoon —a lamentably true cartoon—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It portrayed him called before the curtain at the end of the play—I think it must have been the end of the first act—and he is receiving bouquets not only from his old friends of the gallery but from the occupants of the stalls as well. I do not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much when he is receiving bouquets from the stalls as when he is receiving them from the gallery. It may be due to my imagination, but I cannot help thinking that the applause and bouquets from the gallery are not quite so profuse as they were two years ago.
The fact of the matter is that compulsory insurance for the working classes and the lower classes is a very nice comfortable thing for the upper classes. The working classes are, of course, to them a great deal of a nuisance and trouble when they become sick. It will be much better when they are all properly groomed, stalled, and looked after under this scheme. But I want to know whether they will be as free then as they are now. Probably the bulk of the working classes do prefer a little bit of comfort. I am certain that the moving spirits of the working people do not merely want the people to be comfortable and better groomed and looked after. The leaders in the working class movement who are making the future do not desire merely the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but they want above all justice and freedom. And they know perfectly well that the contributions made by the State, the employers, and the workers themselves come from the labour of the workers through the wealth they produce, and that at present they do not get what they rightly consider their fair share. Among the working classes of this country there is a feeling of unrest at the present day. They know that they are being robbed at present, and that they are getting a little bit back by some of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxes. But this 4d. a week which working men are going to pay under this Bill does not mean getting a little bit back. It is taking a little bit from them. At present they have not to pay. When they do have to pay I think the pressure on this Parliament, or a succeeding Parliament, will be so great that though you refuse now you will be compelled in future to couple compulsory thrift with a revenue derived from general taxation and not from a poll tax.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI should have thought that if the Second Reading of the Bill settled any principle in the Bill it was the principle of compulsion.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI was not allowed to speak.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think anybody would be allowed to speak against the principle of compulsion.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONMay I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a point of the statement that compulsion is absolutely necessary.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI agree. I think compulsion was accepted in all quarters of the House except by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and his coadjutor (Mr. Bridgeman) sitting opposite, and who is now in a position of less freedom and greater responsibility than he was in at that time. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I congratulate him on the position to which he has been appointed. It may be due to superior intelligence or superior independence, but at any rate very few members in this House took the view that a compulsory system should not be introduced. I think all parties in the State are in favour of compulsion. I do not say they are in favour of the particulars of this Bill. That is not my contention. If my hon. Friend was opposed to the principle of compulsion, he certainly ought to have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI said "No" when the Motion was put.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman had the courage to say "No," but without sufficient emphasis to enable anybody in the House to hear him except one or two hon. Friends who sat near him. I challenge this proposition altogether with regard to compulsion. The hon. Member says we are imposing compulsion for the benefit of the working classes for the first time. I would remind him that we are compelling them to educate their children whether they like it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is free."] That is a totally different question. It is not a question whether education is free. The point I am putting to the Committee is that it is compulsory. The question of compulsion is a totally different matter, and we are now dealing with the question of compulsion. My hon. Friend says that the cost of the 1221 scheme should be put on the State. That is an observation which would be perfectly relevant to an Amendment of that kind. We have had compulsion for twenty or thirty years. Before free education came in the working classes contributed compulsorily to a scheme of education, and that was accepted by both parties in the State. It was initialed by the Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I think it was in 1887 that we first introduced the principle of compulsory education. Very well; I am not departing, as the hon. Member seems to imagine, from the principles of the Liberal party. Let me deal with another point. You have got compulsory health provisions for the working classes. You are compelling them to conform to the rules of health. They cannot even keep their pigs within a certain number of feet of their habitations. My Friend has referred to some remarks which were made four or five years ago. Well, with reference to the Public Health, that Bill I think was introduced by the party opposite, and became the Public Health Act of 1875. The Liberal party introduced compulsory education for the working classes, and the party opposite, with the consent and support of the Liberal party, enacted the first of the public health provisions which are now part of our legislation. Therefore I think it is rather late in the day to urge now that we ought not to compel workmen to do anything they do not like to do, whether it benefits them 1o do it or not. These educational pro-visions, at any rate, my hon. Friends have never challenged, nor have they challenged the many extensions of the Public Health Acts, which in many respects are compulsory. These critics are really not consistent. I know that to impute inconsistency to my hon. Friend is to go to his heart, and I am sorry to say that nothing but compulsion would really ever have induced me to do it. But he has imposed that compulsion upon me by his speech. He said he did not mind the second part of the Bill, but surely the second part is just as compulsory as the first part? It is a scheme to provide against unemployment, and the bulk of it is compulsory. It compels 2,500,000 workmen compulsorily to insure against unemployment and to make contributions for that purpose. He says I do not mind that, because, after all, it is only a small sin. That is the old story. Surely he is a man of principle, and if he really says he does not mind the (second part, which is just as much an out- 1222 rage upon the purity of his principles as the first part is, what does it amount to? I compel 2,500,000 to sin and he thinks it is a good thing, but I compel 15,000,000 in the same way and that is really a monstrous thing to do. That is the notion ho has of principle.
Let me take up another point. My hon. Friend asks will there be more freedom under this Bill? This Bill places at the disposal of the working classes fifteen millions of money which is raised outside the working classes and which they will administer themselves. That is a principle of self-government. The whole of these funds are to be administered by the workmen themselves. All we say is that we shall see that the money is spent upon the purposes for which it was raised. But they have a complete system of self-government, and I say that even from the point of view of freedom it is one of the greatest boons to the working classes. For the first time in the history of this country we shall organise as a whole the working classes for the purpose of administering their own affairs. I think those who specially represent the working classes have not yet quite appreciated the full magnitude of that from their point of view. They administer these funds in their own societies, and so far from that being detrimental to freedom, we have organised them for the first time, and I think it is a very significant fact when you come to consider the effect upon liberty in future among the working classes. Take another point. How will they look at it in the future. Will they like it any better? I think they will like it much better in future than they do now. I do not think that for the moment they have quite appreciated the full benefits of what is being conferred upon them. They are doing so gradually, and will continue to do so. That is the experience of Germany. At first in Germany both workmen and employers were suspicious. But what has happened now? In a few years we find that not even the wildest Socialists, who were its opponents at first, are now opposed to it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. He will find men exactly of his own type even in Germany. He is not quite so eccentric as he thinks. There are in other countries men of the same type, and of the same upright principles, so long as they are not departed from, beyond two and a-half millions. 1223 What is there to be seen in Germany? You have, of course, got the Socialists, who said that this was an interference with the liberty of the working classes. They said exactly the same sort of thing as my hon. Friend does, and used the same sort of argument.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThey are coming round.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy right hon. Friend has used that argument about both political parties here. He said I was going to compel the working men. The Socialists said exactly the same thing in Germany, but to-day there is not a Socialist leader in Germany who proposes to repeal the insurance law. There are many Socialists there who would be very glad to get the same measure of freedom for the working classes as we are conferring in this Bill. There are many who would like to see five or six millions contributed by the State and the same comparatively small amount of contributions by the working classes. They would like to see a scheme with all these advantages to the working classes, instead of doing so much, as they are in Germany, on small wages with the assistance of the employers' contributions. They are perfectly unanimous there in their determination to maintain the existing scheme on something the same lines.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy hon. Friend says "No," but did he ever hear of a responsible Socialist leader in Germany who proposed to abolish the insurance law. I met many Socialists there, and met some of the great employers of labour there. I asked them what was their suggestion, and they replied that their suggestion was to increase the benefits. The Socialists are no exception.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIt must have been Mr. Bernstein that said that.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEHe said the same thing.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENow that he discovers he never said so, we must get somebody else. I did meet the very gentleman he mentions. He was almost the first man I saw in Berlin, and he was a strong supporter of the insurance scheme, 1224 although he would like more self-government for the workmen. I say there is no responsible leader in the whole of Germany who would propose to abolish the insurance scheme, and the same thing applies to unemployment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf he could name any responsible employer of labour —I do not say he might not get one employer here and there—but if he could name any great employers or combination of employers who has demanded the repeal of the insurance law he might justify that. All I can say is that it is very remarkable that the attention of those whom I employed to go into this matter very carefully did not discover them. I never heard of them and I ask him to name to me now any combination of employers who demanded the repeal of this law. They have asked for larger representation on the body that holds the money, and are prepared if they can get that to increase their subscription in order to do it. But no responsible body of employers have ever asked for repeal of the law. So far from a scheme of this kind being more unpopular as experience develops, I think he will find it will have a growing popularity. The moment the working classes begin to see that gigantic improvement in their condition effected by it, and by the distribution of twenty-two, twenty-three, or twenty-four millions of money for the purpose of relieving distress, sickness, and unemployment; when they see the incalculable difference it will make in millions of the households of this country, that sort of experience will begin to tell as they begin to realise what it means. When that takes place there will be many people who will be very much concerned to point out that they did not oppose the Rill, although they adopt a somewhat hostile attitude at the present moment. They will be far more concerned then to quote passages from what they said in favour of it than their passages of criticisms or opposition.
One other word upon a final point. My hon. Friend said, "why do not you encourage existing institutions by giving them more money?" The only result will be to give money to those members of the working classes who least need it. If you give that money to voluntary institutions it will help the people who can now afford to go into these voluntary institutions. These are the people you would give the money to. They are not the people who 1225 stand most in need of it, and we want to help those who do stand in need of it. And the experience of Germany shows that nothing short of a compulsory scheme will effect that purpose. That is the reason why I am in favour of compulsion.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANAs the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to refer to me, I feel bound to say that I adhere entirely to the position I took up when I put down this Amendment. I have not yet been converted to compulsion, and I am afraid that nothing I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman has made me more inclined to be. He says his Bill will grow in popularity. If so, what is the necessity for compulsion at all. If every one sees it is the right thing to do—as I have no doubt it is—there is no need for this compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman accused Members opposite of inconsistency and quoted from the experience of Germany. Is it quite fair to charge hon. Gentlemen opposite with inconsistency? I remember a speech made in this House only three years ago discussing the Old Age Pensions question and the German system. That speech said:—
The German system … could not be transplanted here for one simple and sufficient reason, that it is founded on the two pillars of inquisition and compulsion. Whatever the hon. Member for Preston may think, you cannot brigade the industry of this country, you cannot, if you would, set up and work here the complicated and irritating machinery by which in Germany the necessary funds for a provision against sickness and old age are extracted from the profits both of employers and employed.Who is inconsistent? That is the speech of the Prime Minister, and I should like to know whether it is quite fair that a charge of inconsistency upon this point should be brought from those Benches against those who still adhere to the principles of liberty in the matter.
§ Mr. BOOTHIt was not my intention to raise this point again, because I think I was the one hon. Member who on the Second Reading made plain to the House what his views were. I was delighted to hear that hon. Members on my own side below the Gangway, if they had not been closured out, would have supported me in my plea. I did make some of these points on the Second Reading. What I said then I say now, that a voluntary scheme would be better even if we wished for a compulsory scheme to come later. I think it would be better to have a voluntary scheme in operation for some years, and then if we were satisfied we could extend it, and we should have had data 1226 accumulating for two or three years under the voluntary scheme which would have been most valuable in framing a compulsory scheme. I am entirely in sympathy with those who consider that the introduction of compulsion into the Bill is a departure from historic Liberal principles. I have no doubt that my friend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) is perfectly prepared to admit that in a passage-at-arms the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to come out well in debate, but that does not at all remove the contention which is made that we are departing from the old line. I was brought up in the Liberal school, as was my predecessor in Pontefract, Hugh Childers; and as were Gladstone, Bright, and Charles Bradlaugh. These were the great men who led the Liberal party in my youth, and I say quite frankly that we are departing from that position, and that the House did so when reading the Bill a second time. I made my protest then, and found that I was out of touch with the House and with my own party, as I freely admit. Therefore I am not going to persist as an obstructionist. That is why if this goes to a Vote I cannot vote for it.
I would like to say a word in regard to the compulsory principle in Germany. I am one of those who are disposed to turn away with scorn and disgust when they hear of anything being brought from Germany in the way of ideas. Their higher criticism and their power of analysis in many things do them credit; but the House should recognise once for all that we cannot allow it to be laid down that Germany is a pioneer on this subject. We are the pioneers on the subject of insurance, and Germany follows a long way behind. They would be delighted in Germany if they could show the huge insurance and thrift organisations which we can show. I am not, therefore, prepared to adopt a thing simply because it is in existence in Germany. In Germany the important thing for the employer and the employed is the tariff. The employers are prepared to give to the German scheme a benediction and to give their money freely if they are only allowed to have taxes imposed upon what they produce. The cost of insurance is a trifling matter to them in comparison with the tariff being raised to suit their purposes. Insurance there is founded upon conscription and protection. I do not say a word with regard to conscription, but I cannot see how you can carry out this compulsory 1227 power as it is now in this Clause without some provisioan for identification. We have had no explanation how there is to be any identification of people covered by the Bill or people who are paid the benefits. It is all very well, presuming that these people are compulsorily brought into the scheme. They are not. They are compulsorily sent to the Post Office. The only thing you are sure about with regard to men being compulsorily brought into the scheme is that they are sent to the Post Office. There has been no undertaking given by the friendly societies to receive them, and the old men, the lame, the halt, and the blind, will not be able to get into the friendly societies.
Therefore those for whom this appeal is made will be compulsorily brought into the Post Office scheme. That is not an insurance scheme at all. A great deal probably will be said on that when that Clause comes on later. Now I wish to ask what are the means of identification? I put a question on the Notice Paper with regard to this point. I cannot see how you can work a compulsory scheme without this system of identification. In Germany they manage it under the conscription law. In the police dossier they have got everybody particularised, and they can trace them. Here you introduce an element of compulsion, and you do not provide any machinery to carry it out. I ask what would happen in a Chelsea flat if the good lady locks the door with her servant girl, and says, "Nobody will know you are here?" The Bill says that this servant girl shall be insured. What is your machinery for bringing it about? In Germany they manage it all right, because of the system which enables them, not merely to identify a claimant for benefit, but also enables them to collect all the contributions. A policeman knocks at the door, and says, "You have got Mary Jones there. She is of such an age and was born at such a place. Show mo her insurance card." That is done by the police. In that way your compulsion becomes effective. But it has never been explained to me how this is to be done here, and it is a point which seems to me to be a great difficulty in the Bill. Most of the other things I think we can make workable, but I have great difficulty on this point of compulsion and identification. I do not see any machinery for entering the flat and being quite sure that the premium is paid. 1228 Again, if the premium is paid I am certain that the servant girl would be in the Post Office section.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)I have allowed the hon. Member to make a reference to the machinery. I must not allow him to go too far as other hon. Members will want to follow him. This Clause only deals with the persons who are to be insured. We will come to the methods later on.
§ Mr. BOOTHI must bow to the ruling of the Chair, but at the same time I know that it is quite within the ability of the Chair to prevent me getting this point later. We have not always the same occupant in the Chair and another gentleman who is just as strict may come again. I cannot give my reasons why I dislike this Clause and why I think that the element of compulsion is imperfect. Without introducing that, I am in a difficulty, but I hope with the little latitude which you gave me that I have made clear to the House that the principle of compulsion, which I am afraid we must accept, is foreign to all Liberal traditions. Gladstone, Cobden, and Bright would not have adopted it, but we must accept it. Some may say that we must progress with the times; others may say that we must join in reaction with the times. However, we have passed the Second Reading and I cannot be a party to re-opening eternally what we then decided. But in beginning our consideration of the Bill, if we put this element of compulsion in I want to point out the things that must follow. I do not want the House to decide on this principle of compulsion without warning them of the other things that must come in later in carrying out the work. That is why I mention the point of identification and police visitation of the people's houses. To my mind that will invariably follow, and that is one reason why I warn the House of the great importance of the effects of compulsion coming into the scheme at this particular point.
§ Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMWe have listened to a very remarkable speech from an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway. But what is the common-sense view of this question? To understand it the hon. Member would want to be in touch with the working people of the country. What is in fact the unanimous wish of the working classes with respect to this Bill? Practically the unanimous feeling of the working classes is in favour of compul- 1229 sion. That is, after all, the main point upon which the Committee has to direct its attention. That has been the wish of the working class in years past, those who made great sacrifices, who contributed to friendly societies, who may have devoted all their spare time in many cases to helping the poorer men, the poorer men who gave no time themselves to carrying out this work of friendly societies which the better-off members have carried out free of cost, in many cases, for them. There may be exceptions. There are always a certain number of scallywags who will contribute nothing. Their great object is to get something for nothing, and the object of compulsion is to prevent their spending at the week-end in the public house money which should go to their wives and families. There are men who draw their money on Friday night and spend half of it before they get home, and that is that class of men to whom you ask the Government to give exemption. You are not going to compel these men to take home to their wives and children at the week-end the money which is necessary for them to carry on their home.
The hon. Member talked about Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden. May I ask whether they would have been in favour of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does the hon. Member above the Gangway (Mr. Booth) say that the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been approved by Mr. Gladstone? Why it was entirely contrary to the doctrine preached by him—entirely different from his methods of finance. We have to march with the times, so far as this matter is concerned. No one knows that better than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who supported the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at all events in connection with the land Clauses. We have to accept the position as it arises from year to year, and the methods of Mr. Gladstone are now wholly out of touch with what the people of the country desire. So far as compulsion goes—and I am speaking for a large industrial constituency—the overwhelming majority of all thinking men welcome this measure as a step to help them forward. So far from rejecting compulsion they accept it, and I ask the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to pay the slightest attention to a class of men who do not fulfil their obligations to their families, but in many ways fall short of their duty.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWe have heard a conflicting exposition of Liberal doctrine on this side of the House, and I do not propose to introduce a fresh variety. I merely wish to refer to one or two statements which have been made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who takes upon himself to speak for the vast mass of the working people of this country, and says they are unanimously in favour of the principle of compulsion. I think he would be quite right in saying that the vast majority are in favour of the principle of insurance, but it is altogether an unsafe conclusion to assume that they are in favour of the compulsory principle. I am merely judging from what little experience I have been able to obtain since the introduction of this Bill. Undoubtedly in the two General Elections when this insurance question was discussed, there was very little said about the principle of compulsion. What was said was about insurance alone, and that undoubtedly appealed to the vast mass of the workpeople of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as usual, has scored off my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Of course, it is easy to convict my hon. Friend of inconsistency, particularly in the present case; I do not think you can convict the hon. Gentleman of inconsistency as to the main point in his argument. We may assume that it is a part of the Liberal principle that compulsion should not be adopted except in case of strong and overwhelming necessity. We believe that education is such a case. It is true that when compulsory education was introduced, it was on a contributory basis. Cobden sixty years ago preached free universal education.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThere was what is known as the unauthorised Liberal programme.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI would be the last to deny all the right hon. Gentleman did for free education. At the same time I think that all those who claim to be Liberals in the strict sense, apart from the old-fashioned Whigs — for after all it was largely a Whig Government that introduced the Education Act of 1870—
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMr. Gladstone's Government.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt was Mr. Gladstone's Government, but it was largely a Whig Government in which the territorial element predominated. It was only since 1231 1886 that the Liberal party has been emancipated. The principle that I was laying down was that unless in cases of overwhelming necessity you have no right to introduce compulsion. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made out a special case in reference to this Bill? We say he has not. We think the voluntary system would meet the situation. We put it in the form of a dilemma: If you are going to have a compulsory scheme you cannot have it contributory, and if you are going to have a contributory scheme it ought to be voluntary. I say the voluntary principle meets the situation. At the present time many men are being forced into this Bill who do not need it. There are many men with whom it is a term of their employment that they obtain sick pay. These men are being forced into the Bill. We hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make sonic exceptions, and there is a statement in "The Times" of to-day that there are to be certain exemptions made. If that is so, then get rid of compulsion. In reference to the scallywags, to whom my hon. Friend referred, you can have compulsion put upon them, because the State is to enable men to get benefit, and, if they do not take it, they must fall back upon the Poor Law. That is indirect compulsion.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member suggests that whenever a man elects to come under the scheme, we also compel his employer to pay 3d.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThat is an assumption that the right hon. Gentleman has no warrant to make for anything I have said. I am dealing with the general principle, and I am not dealing with the proposal before us. I think there are a great many objections to contributions by the employers. The system is very hard upon a man in whose industry the cost of production is large in proportion to profit. That is a question which has got to be met. The smaller employers of the country are not well organised, and have not been able to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his room like the large employers, who can either reduce the wages or put the contribution on the cost of the article, and they do not mind it at all. The small employers are very much concerned about this matter, which I would not have mentioned had not the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. This compulsory system is based upon the assumption that 1232 all the working classes are in a condition to receive it, but the status of the many is such that they have no means of organising, and no means of emerging from it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am opposed to the Amendment, and will vote against it.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am not going to divide.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThen why propose your Amendment; which is, as I understand it, to enable a man to say that he will or will not contribute. I stand for a State system of insurance, but when it comes to the question of payment I think I shall take an altogether different line from that of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). I think when you are compelling the people of the country to buy a public health service that there is no more to be said for levying a poll tax upon those whom you think are going to benefit than for the levying of a tax on children who are being educated in the elementary schools. Public health is of much greater importance than education, and without healthy bodies you cannot expect to have reasonable education at all. The Amendment seems to me to lay down that the State has no right to set up a system of this kind and bring within it the people who are outside, and for whom, as I understand, the hon. Members have been pleading and whom an hon. Member here denounced. Those are the people I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give us the opportunity of thoroughly discussing, that is to say, the people who, in our opinion, are much too poor to pay any contribution at all. It is not true to say that the people who are not insured to-day are, as hon. Members called them, scallywags and persons of that kind. I know, as he probably knows, large industrial centres where there are multitudes of men working, from years end to years end, for wages of from 15s. to 17s. per week. I was in a large industrial centre on Sunday last where the working men were working for 17s. 5d. per week. To talk about them not having insured—
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThat is not quite what I said. I said there was always a percentage of scallywags who never contributed to trade unions or anything else.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThere is a percentage of people who are no good in any assembly in the world, whether working people or any other kind of people. I have no desire 1233 to drive the argument of the hon. Member too far, but I do wish to put in a word for a multitude of people for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in a word himself the day he introduced his Bill, when he told us that the bulk of the people are not insured because they are too poor. My main object is to see that if this part of the Bill goes through that it is not to be taken for granted that the money part is to be taken before the third Clause, and that afterwards we are not going to be allowed to discuss the lowering of the rate of contribution. To me that is one of the essential matters in the Bill. If I thought we were not to have the opportunity in the House to discuss that part, I should, on a division, be inclined to vote for the Amendment, because as the Bill stands I am thoroughly opposed to the rate of contribution. But if we are to have the opportunity of discussing those portions of the Bill then I am against the Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASI think many arguments that have been used in this Debate are entirely foreign to the Amendment that we are considering. It is perfectly true that Cobden or Bright might not have voted for this particular scheme. It is equally true to say that both those gentlemen were opposed to factory legislation. Bright most bitterly opposed it, but it does not necessarily follow that if they were in the House to-day that they would oppose even that legislation. It is equally true that certain Governments on both sides have failed to do certain things, but that, I submit, is entirely foreign to the point we are discussing. I am entirely in support of the compulsory system. In the first place, as a trade unionist, I would compel any man to contribute to the union for the benefits that he enjoys. That is compulsion in the same sense that there are men we have to save in spite of themselves. The voluntary system absolutely has failed, and it is because it has failed that it is the duty of the State to do something in this matter. It is not true to say, as an hon. Gentleman said, that you are compelling some men to pay more for a benefit than they have paid for years past.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI never said anything of the sort.
§ Mr. J. THOMASI did not say you did. But another hon. Member said that a large number of men had already made provision, and that you are compelling them again to make further contributions. 1234 There is not only considerable misapprehension on that point in this House, but there is amongst workers generally. I speak as the secretary of one of the largest organisations, and I say that it will not be difficult for my union to so alter its rules that every member of my society can enjoy the benefits of this scheme without paying an additional copper to the contribution that he pays to-day. The position with my union is equally true with every other union. Men that have made provisions and men that are paying to-day for certain benefits will not only be able to enjoy those benefits, but able to enjoy more benefits, for the simple reason that the contribution they pay to-day will be simply the contribution that they will be compelled to pay under the State scheme.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWhy not voluntarily?
§ Mr. J. THOMASFor this reason, that whilst they are paying voluntarily by various methods they are being compelled to help those who will not help themselves, and you are now penalising the men who have made provision. That is the difference, and that is the basis of the whole case.
§ Mr. BOOTHI do not think the hon. Member wants to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle). He was not referring to the men in unions, but to men who by contract of service got sick benefits from their employer.
§ Mr. J. THOMASI will deal with that because I think I know a good deal of the position of men under contracts. When I joined the railway service I was compelled as a condition of my employment to pay 1s. 4d. per week, deducted out of my money. It is not true to say that the employer is paying my sick pay. Nothing of the kind. I am paying more contribution than I would have to pay under a voluntary system. My employer is paying me nothing for my sick pay. As a matter of fact, I object to him making it a condition of my employment that I should have to contribute this amount. Although I paid 1s. 4d. per week for some fourteen years, when I resigned my position as engine-driver and was promoted to the House of Commons, I was only allowed to draw one-third of the contributions that I had paid. In other words, the railway company kept two-thirds of the contributions that they had compelled me to pay. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point, and I understand that 1235 under the provisions of this Bill a man who is in the service to-day in a similar position will be able, by making it an approved society, to carry from that organisation, if he so desires, what he has paid for a number of years. Therefore I say it is for us to consider fully the real bearing of this proposal. There are many Clauses to which I object and I have put down, Amendments to them, but it is not right for us to bring forward our objections on other points on the particular Amendment before the House. It is because I believe the voluntary system has failed, and that you must save some men in spite of themselves, that I oppose the Amendment. If there are men who ought to make provision, but will not, surely there is no injustice in compelling them to insure against sickness. If, on the other hand, there are large numbers of men, as there are, whose wages and general conditions do not allow them to make provision for themselves, it is the duty of the State, as is proposed by this Bill, to help them to make the provision which hitherto they have been prevented from making. For these reasons I oppose the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worth-ington-Evans)—in Sub-section (1) after the word "insured" ["insured in manner provided in this part"], to insert the words "either as members of an approved society, or as members of a health society, or as members of the Army and Navy Society"—seems to me to deal rather with the method of insurance and not with the persons who are to be insured.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSOn a point of Order. If I do not raise at this point the question referred to in my first Amendment I do not see that it can be raised in any other place. It does affect the persons who are compulsorily insured, and for exactly the same reason as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) was permitted this Amendment seems to me to be in order. In the financial Resolution to be taken on Friday next a definite fixed proportion is laid down, and that will have the effect, if carried, of guillotining a whole series of Amendments standing in my name. There are some thirty or forty Amendments consequential on this particular Amendment, and it seems to me that it would be much 1236 more convenient to raise the question now and settle it. If the proposal is not acceptable to the Committee the decision will dispose of the whole of those thirty or forty Amendments, whereas if the financial Resolution is adopted it will deliberately guillotine the whole series. Therefore I submit that this is the proper time to raise the point.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot deal with the financial Resolution, except to say that any points dealt with by that Resolution are obviously debateable on the Resolution itself. In regard to the particular Amendment in question, I have given careful consideration to it, and done my best to convince myself that the hon. Member is right, and that it should come in here. But I am clearly of opinion that if I allowed this Amendment I should have to allow the projection of a whole series of Amendments from other Clauses into Clause 1. I am sure it is my duty to keep the discussion on Clause 1 to the persons who are to be insured under the Bill. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester—to insert at end of Sub-section (1) the words "And no benefits or additional benefits under this Act or under any scheme confirmed in accordance with Section 55 hereof shall be taken into account in calculating the yearly means of a person for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or any Act amending the same"—ought to come as a new Clause.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWill it not come in on Clause 3? Unless you rule that it will be out of order, I will move it then.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI will not prejudge that question. At first sight it seems to be a proper subject for a new Clause, but the hon. Member may at any rate make an attempt to raise it on Clause 3.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERDo I understand you to rule that the alternative system which my hon. Friend desires to bring before the House by his series of Amendments can properly be raised on the consideration of the financial resolution if it cannot be raised now?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo, I think that is a different point. No doubt the hon. Member can find a place for raising the question of the exemption of existing friendly societies, but Clause 1 is not the place to do it.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am afraid my proposal has not been understood if you say it is the exemption of existing friendly societies. It is nothing of the sort; it is to bring them all within the compulsory insurance. The only exemption about it is whether or not there should be the 4d. deducted from the weekly wage. I am not seeking to exempt the members of friendly societies from compulsory insurance. If I were, it would be in order on the exemption Clause, and I should not have put it down on Clause 1, where it would not be in order because it is not an exemption.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELWe have already decided to include all persons employed within the meaning of this Part of the Bill. If this Amendment were inserted would it not prevent any man becoming insured under the Bill unless he was a member of an approved society?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think that is so. What the hon. Member for Colchester last said fully confirms my previous opinion that what he wishes to deal with is the machinery and method of deduction and not the question of general compulsory insurance. Therefore it is quite clear that this is not the place to raise the question. The next Amendment in order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood).
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words: "Provided that the Insurance Commissioners hereinafter constituted may, with the approval of the Treasury, by regulations, provide for including amongst the persons employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the said schedule."
These words mean that the people who at present are not compelled to be insured may by the act of the Insurance Commission, without any consultation with this House, suddenly find themselves compelled to insure like the rest of the world. I submit that the compelling of British subjects to pay 4d. a week is a question that ought to come before this House, and should not be left to the obiter dicta of a Government Department. The scheme as it stands at present deliberately leaves the doors open to the Treasury and the Insurance Commissioners to push into the scheme any class of workers who are at present exempt, like 1238 municipal workers or public workers of any sort; to push them in without consulting them; for the Commissioners simply to say, "We decree without any reference to Parliament that you are to have 4d. taken from your wages to get the problematical benefits of this Bill." It is true that the House, and particularly the Labour Party, are intensely anxious to have all the working classes compelled to insure. I do think that the question as to whether the net shall be thrown wider than at present should come before this House, and not be left to a Government Department without any control from us. I beg to move.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAfter the skirmish that the hon. Member and I had a little earlier, I am very pleased to be able to afford him a little consolation at this stage. I think he has made some case at any rate for the amendment of this provision. What he said, and said very properly, is that in enlarging the area the House of Commons ought to be able to express an opinion upon it. I agree with him. The principle of compulsion is accepted; we must proceed upon that basis.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODHear, hear.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI came across classes of the kind referred to by the hon. Member the other day. You cannot quite locate or describe by any words all those whom it may be desirable later on to give the benefit of the Bill to. At the same time I quite agree with the hon. Member that Parliament should have the opportunity of saying who shall and shall not be included. The proposal that I make is that we should leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead "a special order made in manner hereinafter provided." That will make it necessary in order to extend the provisions of any special Clause that we should work under Clause 78 and the Ninth Schedule. That means that before you can make an Order which will be published there will be an opportunity given to any person to send in objections—which carries out, I think, the hon. Member's intention — and in the second place if the objections are not withdrawn, a public inquiry shall be held at which persons affected by the Order shall be entitled to be heard. Even then, before the Special Order comes into force it must be laid before both Houses of Parliament thirty days. I think that will meet the case of my hon. Friend. It gives every objector in the country opportunity to demand a 1239 public inquiry, and then the Order must be laid on the table of the House, and any Member of the House can object. I think that meets the whole case of my hon. Friend, and if he will withdraw his Amendment, either he or I can move to substitute the words I have suggested.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am extremely obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I say what I forgot to mention before, that, of course, my chief difficulty in fighting this Bill at all is the personality of the Chancellor. If it had been any other Minister on that Front Bench the Bill would not have had a chance. He disarms us every time. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. BOOTHI will not press my Amendment in connection with this matter, for it seems to me that ray point is quite covered. But I should like to have an assurance to that effect.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is so; it is really more than covered.
§ Mr. FORSTERMay I congratulate the Committee on the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the Second Reading Debate I pointed out this power of the Insurance Commissioners under the Bill to vary an Act of Parliament without the matter being officially brought before Parliament itself. I understand that in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer such opportunity will be given to the Houses of Parliament in future. That being so, I think our objection is well met.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead thereof the words "a special Order made in manner hereinafter provided."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation."
This means that the Clause will be altered so that it will read: "Persons not employed within the meaning of this part of this Act who are entitled to become injured persons include all persons who are engaged in some regular occupation." It 1240 does away with the qualification, "and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood—." My Amendment here is not to exclude certain classes from compulsion, but to allow a larger number to voluntarily insure. I do not see why those people who are not wholly or mainly dependent should not have the same right to insure as the rest of the country have. After all, they, too, pay taxes just like anybody else, and they will contribute their 4d. a week like anybody else. Their employers will probably pay their contribution by deducting it from the wages just like anybody else who have a legitimate claim to be included within the Act. This is not a question of compulsion, it is simply giving an opportunity to these people to come in.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis Amendment is the exact opposite to that of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). This is to extend the voluntary part of the Act and to extend it very considerably to persons who are really not in need of it and who have no claim. The very idea of their coming into the scheme would excite the indignation of the medical profession. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, this class of persons would come in wholesale. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I have done rather well by him this afternoon. This would not only get us into worse trouble, and the hon. Member has already scored heavily. He is the first to draw blood, and he has drawn a very considerable quantity of blood, and I hope he will be satisfied with that, at least for one half hour.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI do not see what course is open for me after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman but to withdraw my Amendment. I quite agree, having seen the doctors this morning, that, if anything, this Amendment would make matters worse and put them at a serious disadvantage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) to add after paragraph (b) the following paragraph (c), "being married women fulfil the special conditions hereafter established," would come better, I think, on Clause 34. I doubt whether it could come in here, and there is another Amendment on the Paper that raises the question in a better form. 1241 The next Amendment in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock).
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI should like to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith), and if this would be the place to move it I am prepared to move it in the form in which it is later down on the Paper. I only wish to move it as a precautionary measure, and if you rule it is in order I will move it now.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. Member can claim precedence on behalf of another hon. Member. I call on the hon. Member for Warwick to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI beg to move, after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph:—
"(c) having contributed for a period of not less than five years previous to the passing of this Act to a society which becomes an approved society."
It will be plain that this is not an Amendment which interferes at all with the general scheme of the Bill, but that its purpose is to make quite plain that certain persons who might otherwise be excluded should have an opportunity of coming in and having the advantage of this Clause. There are certain persons in friendly societies who are members of those societies for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits given by the friendly societies. A great number of the friendly societies think that unless provision is made, such as is indicated in this sub-Clause, a certain number of their members might fall between two stools. That is to say that, although they are members of the friendly societies for the purpose of obtaining medical benefit, which they do obtain and, so to speak, are under contract to their societies to obtain, yet inasmuch as they are not members for the purpose of obtaining the whole benefit, that they would, as members of the approved societies, be able to obtain, under the system laid down in the Insurance Bill, and so get the full advantage of members of approved societies under the Act. They may be faced with this difficulty that they may be too few to form an independent branch of an approved society of their own, while they might be able no longer to obtain the advantage of medical benefits offered by the friendly societies as they stand at present. The object of this Clause is to enable such persons as are insured for medical benefits for which they 1242 have contributed for a great many years to obtain the advantages of this Clause to enable them to come in and become contributors under Clause 3. Their exclusion from the National Insurance scheme might still deprive them of obtaining the advantages under the friendly societies scheme, and at the same time, if they desire, I think, without in any way interfering with the present limits of the scheme, they might be given the opportunity of coming in under this Clause. It seems quite clear that unless a special sub-clause is put in they will not be able to come in. As the matter stands at present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to maintain the system of friendly societies and to prevent them in any way being interfered with. This Amendment is moved on behalf of the members of friendly societies who at present enjoy a somewhat limited benefit to give them an opportunity of coming in and taking the advantages which are given them under Clause 3.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI was explaining that point. The reason why they should have special treatment is that they are persons who for a number of years have taken advantage of the system of friendly societies and have made use of that excellent system of thrift; and the anticipation and fear expressed on their behalf and by them is. that they might no longer be able to receive the same benefits which their thrift has so far given to them. It is on the ground that their position might be imperilled that I am asking that they should have special benefits, inasmuch as they are a class belonging to friendly societies who have taken the opportunity of taking advantage of the limited insurance offered by friendly societies. For that reason I submit that they are entitled to special treatment, and unless they get it they would lose under the Act, because they would no longer be able to get precisely the same benefit, and probably they would be too small a number to form a branch themselves. It is in the interests of the class who are members of friendly societies that I move this Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI can hardly imagine the hon. and learned Member would press this Amendment if he fully realised what the meaning of Sub-section (3) is. What is he proposing? He says that he wants to safeguard the interests of existing members of friendly societies and 1243 to see that they will enjoy precisely the same benefits after the Act. May I inform the hon. Member that they will enjoy exactly the same benefits after this Bill is passed as they are enjoying now. The hon. and learned Member does not seem to appreciate the point. He wants them to enjoy greater benefits than they enjoy at present. Who are the people he wants to enjoy these benefits'! They are not members who are engaged in any regular occupation and wholly dependent for a livelihood from that occupation. Who are the members of friendly societies who can come in? Those who have been contributors for five years. Who are the persons the hon. and learned Member wants to come in? The members of friendly societies who have no occupation and need not hare an occupation to earn a livelihood, but who would probably join, not in their own interests, but to encourage the local friendly societies. Can the hon. and learned Member mention a single person who will be excluded by the proposals in the Bill?
§ Mr. POLLOCKThe persons I allude to would join to receive the medical benefits, and they are not necessarily rich people.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. and learned Member is not answering my question. I asked him, can he give the kind of member who will be excluded? What is the kind of member who will be excluded under Sub-section (3) unless his Amendment is carried? He does not appear to realise that all those persons who are members of friendly societies now can join.
§ Mr. CAVEThere are members of friendly societies who have contributed for many years who are no longer either engaged in a regular occupation or dependent upon an occupation, and of course have not been employed contributors for five years. They are people who have retired or got past the age for business and who are now insured under friendly societies schemes, and they will be prevented from coming into the Government voluntary scheme.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is exactly what I have said. No person engaged in any occupation will be excluded, but only the sort of retired person who has already made his money and retired, there-fore the whole of this Amendment is to 1244 enable these retired gentlemen to get the benefit of the 2d. offered by the State and what benefits would they derive? The benefits of coming in, although they might be forty years of age, just as if they were sixteen years of age.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThey are not well off.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have been through the list of members of friendly societies, and the type of member he is referring to I will not call the local "swell," but he is the man who is well off and generally joins to encourage the others. I ask the hon. and learned Member to give me the members of any friendly society and show me a person who has not got means who will not come under this scheme. He says these gentlemen have got private means and need not have any employment. The result will be that they will get full medical benefits at the expense of a State scheme. Has the hon. and learned Member followed the controversy with the doctors? The very class he is proposing should come under the scheme is the class objected to by the doctors.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThis is one of the Amendments pressed for by the Manchester Unity.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI thought the hon. and learned Member was going to answer my question. The doctors objected even to this limited class getting the benefits, and now the hon. and learned Member is proposing a further extension to include the private patients of doctors who pay them well, and suggesting that they shall come within the benefits of the Act. This Amendment really proposes to include the local "swell," the local squire, and the man who has retired.
§ Mr. POLLOCKIt docs not mean that.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman really knows what his Amendment means. It must mean all those who have been in a friendly society five years before the passing of the Act come in.
§ Mr. POLLOCKMay come in.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWell, they may come in although they are men who have retired and who may be very well off. The hon. Member says they are not all well off, but he cannot deny that some of them are. They may be well off, but under his Amendment they may come in and claim medical benefits at the rates 1245 at which they are extended to the poorest of the working classes. If it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? It means they are to come in on the same terms as anybody else, and therefore they must be entitled to claim medical benefits as well as anybody else. Let the hon. Member try that on his medical constituents, If they come in at all you increase the deficiency, which means that you postpone additional benefits for members of the industrial classes for men who have retired on their income. I do not think he can possibly have contemplated the full meaning of the Amendment; otherwise he would not have moved it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI think the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite fair to my hon. and learned Friend with regard to this Amendment. He has tried to run off on the medical question. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, the whole of his speech was directed to the fact that these people are going to get medical benefits, and he challenged my hon. and learned Friend to go down and face his medical constituents if he voted for this Amendment. I am going to vote for this Amendment and for all the Amendments desired by the doctors. I do not think this Amendment is in the slightest degree inconsistent with the subsequent Amendments regarding the doctors' position. Subsequent Amendments will be moved affecting the medical position with regard to all the voluntary contributors coming under the provisions of the whole of this Sub-section, and they will apply more or less to those members of friendly societies included in my hon. Friend's Amendment as well as to those Members of the Government who may be voluntary contributors. I do not think these men are solely the local squire and swell. That was all said to impart prejudice with regard to them They may be working men who for years past have belonged to their friendly society and who, through ill-health and through their work going wrong, are no longer in the position of being employed but are living with relations or with friends eking out a scanty existence. Those men, merely because they are not Cabinet Ministers with £5,000 a year, are not to be allowed to come in as voluntary contributors, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who objects to those unfortunate men coming in under the Bill as it is drawn, can himself become a voluntary contributor and can claim all the medical benefits.
1246 There are two sides to every question, and I ask the House to see there is another side to this question. There are members of friendly societies who are no longer employed, and who, if this Amendment is not passed, would not be allowed to come in either as compulsorily insured members or under the Voluntary Clauses. They are men who have done their best for the State by belonging for upwards of five years to friendly societies, and they are men whom the State would wish to see in their great scheme of National Insurance. I am friendly to the scheme in its main lines, and I want to see everybody who can reasonably become members come into it. This Amendment is supported by one of the greatest friendly societies the Manchester Unity. They desire to see it passed in the interests of their members, and I appeal to hon. Members who have the interests of friendly societies at heart and who desire to recognise the work friendly societies have done to vote for this Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASI do not think anybody on these benches can be accused of not having the interests of friendly societies at heart, but I think, in considering this Amendment, it is as well for us to accurately know who are the people for whom a special plea is being made. I do not think either Gentleman is right. I venture to say two-thirds of the Members of this House are the very men for whom this plea is made. I do not suggest that Members of this House became Members of friendly societies for any such benefit. On the contrary, they became members for other benefits, but the fact remains that they are members of friendly societies. The only people outside Members of this House are people rich in the sense that they need not necessarily work. If they do not belong to either of those two classes, they are persons who are in low circumstances, and who, through ill-health, have been unable to follow their work for five years. There is nothing to prevent a friendly society giving all the benefits he has hitherto enjoyed to such a member after this Bill passes, and surely that is not an injustice to the individual. The friendly society will be able to give him and continue to give him all the benefits, medical and other, for which he has paid and which he expects, or, in other words, they will be able to meet all the obligations and liabilities that attach to such a member. Surely, we are not justified in asking for anything 1247 more than that. If you ask for more than that you ask for something for one class of member at the expense of another class of member, and therefore, instead of helping the friendly societies you are really doing them an injustice. I quite recognise this Amendment has been suggested by the Manchester Unity, but I say they were under a misapprehension on this point. The same position applies to other societies. They have hundreds of members who did not join for the medical benefit, and did not expect it. Very often they join for ulterior motives— political, or otherwise. Those who do not join for ulterior motives will not suffer under this Bill, and providing this Clause is carried, which guaranteed to them the existing number of benefits paid for. I say, therefore, we are not justified in giving any special preference to any special class of member.
§ Mr. FORSTERI do not think there is any real difference between the two sides of the House as to the dangers that are allied to this Amendment. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford had been moved when it should have been, according to its place on the Paper, and if it had been carried, there would have been no real objection raised in any quarter of the House to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock). As far as I can see the only objection taken to this Amendment by hon. Members who object to it is that those who are too well off will obtain medical benefits which are really designed for those who are poor. The question of limiting it to the class whose incomes are less than £160 a year will, I hope, be raised on the next line of the Bill, and, if that is done, I think the objections which have been advanced against this Amendment will fall to the ground.
§ Mr. BOOTHI regret very much I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I do not consider there has been any answer to the argument of the hon. Member below the Gangway. I know that hon. Members opposite have brought this suggestion forward with a view to serving friendly societies, but they may take my assurance, for what it is worth, that they are doing a dis-service not only to those societies, but to the scheme of the Bill itself, because the Amendment will bring in more than a number of old 1248 men. For instance, I am one of those who voluntarily subscribe to many friendly societies. I daresay many other hon. Members do so, and it will bring in those who do that because the words are "any member who contributes for five years." If the hon. and learned Member had taken note of a recent Return I think he would have found there were 57,000 honorary members of friendly societies in this country, and this proposal would apply more particularly to them. I have no doubt that some of the officials of friendly societies put the Amendment down with a very good motive. They may have some friends or relatives who will be affected, but to say it can possibly be in the interests of the vast body of members cannot be right; it would be distinctly to their detriment; it would further be contrary to the whole design of the principle of the Bill, and it would be necessary to consult the actuaries, as the financial fabric is pulled to pieces. It is, therefore, more important than hon. Members think. I have no doubt many hon. Members have been requested to put this forward. I am not antagonistic to friendly societies, and I do not want it to be thought that the champions of friendly societies are only to be found on one side of the House. But in order to let in one or two friends we ought not to vitiate the whole scheme.
I would like to point out another difficulty, and that is that this is the first attack on the position of the medical profession. It is the first Amendment proposed which will be resented in a keen degree by that profession. It is difficult enough to get them to work the schema as it stands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of considerable brain power and has a great deal of tact. In his absence I may pay him that compliment. When he is present I am not so apt to be complimentary. But his abilities are being taxed to the utmost in order to gain the co-operation of the medical profession in making the scheme a beneficial one, while at the same time upholding the dignity of that profession. If you admit an Amendment of this character there will be many of a like nature introduced later on, and they will all be regarded as hostile to the profession. I think it is indispensable that the profession should be upheld. It should be a body of dignified, well-paid and independent men who will give an independent judgment and will not be overridden by local committees or local managers. If you introduce to the benefits of this Bill 1249 some of their best clients, if you remove those clients from private practice to club practice, and that is exactly what this Amendment will do, you will create hostility to the Bill. I repeat if we pass this Amendment we shall have to pass many others of a similar nature.
We shall go on admitting the middle classes to the benefit of the Bill. The hon. Member for Brentford spoke as if this only applied to poverty stricken people. But could people of that description keep up their contributions to the societies for five years'? Do people who are helpless and without money keep on subscribing to a society for five years merely because of the memories of the past and in order to enjoy the privileges of attending the lodge meetings and wearing the regalia? Such a thing docs not obtain in every-day life. The people who will be admitted by this Amendment will be middle-class people who do not work because they have no need to, and if we are to ask the doctors to treat them as club patients we are raising difficulties to the Bill itself and this will be but the beginning of the trouble in dealing with the doctors.
§ Mr. CAVEI hope hon. Members will consider this Amendment with rather more care. The hon. Member has laid much stress on the suggestion that this Amendment is intended to favour hon. members of friendly societies, or local swells, or people who are well off. My hon. Friend the Member for the Sevenoaks Division pointed out that, in that, they are entirely wrong, as in fact it is desired to limit thi3 Clause or rather this Sub-section to men whose income is below a certain limit. Fix the limit where you please, but make it such a limit, as will prevent rich men, Members of this House or others, from coming in as voluntary contributors. None of us want to come in and we do not want people who are well off, better off than we are perhaps, to come in either. So we may rule that particular matter out and assume that the Amendment is not meant to assist men who are well off but men who are badly off. Let me take the second matter of prejudice. The hon. Member suggests that this Clause is unacceptable to the medical profession. That is not so, at all events in our intention or in our view, because when the proper time comes, when we come to the benefit Clause, we shall, I think, support proper Amendments which will prevent men who can afford to pay a doctor a proper fee from coming in under the con- 1250 tract system, and I am quite sure, now that we know a little about the doctors' views, that on that footing they will not dream of objecting to an Amendment of that kind. Therefore I hope that matter of prejudice, too, may be ruled out.
Let us now get to the merits of the Amendment. The hon. Member said that there are very few people who will come in under it. If that is so it is a very small matter, but in fact, I have it on the best authority for this purpose, the Amendment would bring in about 10,000 members of the Manchester Unity alone, who could not otherwise come in as contributors. The men I refer to according to this authority, and no one recognises it more freely than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are people whose incomes range from £100 to £150 a year. They are small tradesmen or small workmen, gardeners and so on, who have given up their occupation, who have for years been in a friendly society as working men, who have made perhaps a little money or may have small interests in business, but who are not within the class contemplated by the Clause as it stands. Look at the position of these men. Surely there is nothing to be said against them. They have been thrifty. They have belonged to friendly societies for years past and have been looking forward to their benefit. I think it is a little cheap of the hon. Member opposite to talk of them as he has done. They are perfectly honest, thrifty men, who have done their duty and have subscribed to these societies, putting by towards bad times to come. Ought they to be shut out from the Government scheme? I think they ought not. It is said "but you will remain members of your society. You will get from your society all the benefits you have expected and you will be no worse off." Will hon. Members look at that question and see whether it is so, because it bears upon a good many Clauses of the Bill. What is the effect of the Bill on the friendly societies, and what will bo the effect on members of friendly societies who cannot come in under the Government scheme?
I think we have all read Clause 55 of the Bill. That Clause amounts—I say it without any intention to disparage the Bill, but by way of caution—to partial liquidation of the existing friendly societies. A scheme is put forward under which the interests of these existing members of the society who come in as insured contributors shall be divided among them, or 1251 rather shall be applied for their benefit in manner provided by that Clause. So that they will be practically out of the society so far as any accumulation of interest goes. They will get an equivalent, I agree, in the funds invested in the State, but so far as the society itself is concerned as a voluntary society they will be out of it. That will leave behind, as a separate class, the residue of members, exactly the members who would come under this Amendment. To provide for them there will be a reduced fund in the hands of the treasurers of the society. They will no longer have a right to look to the very great funds which are now accumulated by the societies in their own name. They will not have the security of those large funds. They will only have the smaller funds. I am the last to prophesy evil, but it may be that that fund will not be sufficient to provide for the benefit to which these older members are now entitled by virtue of their subscriptions. That would be a very deplorable result indeed. I hope it may not be the result. If it were it would be a condemnation of the Government scheme. If I am right there it may be that these very members who come within the Amendment which we desire to pass would by the Bill lose the security for the benefits which they have subscribed for so many years. Will hon. Members look at it from that point of view and see whether there is not a good deal to he said for the Amendment. The remedy proposed here is to tell them "you have done your duty. You have subscribed for some time, and you may come in as voluntary subscribers." I do not see who is hurt by it. The voluntary subscriber really pays for himself. He pays for the benefits he is going to get. He gets the benefit, speaking broadly, of his own subscription. Why should you desire to keep him out? I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment, and the Unity are, I think, well advised—their advisers may know as much, or even more, than the hon. Member opposite; I do not want to put it too high—in putting forward this Amendment. I would not support it and my hon. and learned Friend would not propose it unless we thought it was a right one. I do not want to pose as the champion of this or that body, but we all want to see that every one who has a right to consideration should be considered.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI quite understand the position taken up by the hon. and 1252 learned Gentleman, but I think he is pleading for a privilege for a special class of men which might legitimately be asked for by a far wider class than those for whom he puts in a claim. We are now dealing with those people who may insure themselves voluntarily under this scheme, and, naturally, I am anxious that as large a class as possible should be able to come in. I am sorry I did not receive any assistance from the hon. and learned Gentleman when I moved my Amendment to let everyone come in, but now he is asking that members of friendly societies who are five years' members should have the special privilege of coming in under this Act. They did not ask for it apparently at the National Conference of Friendly Societies. It is only the Manchester Unity who asked for it. I think in spite of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) that they were probably well advised in asking for the privilege, but I do not think we should be well advised in giving such a special privilege to one particular class. Members who subscribe for five years to a co-operative society have, I think, a better claim than those who subscribe to a friendly society.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am afraid that under the Bill trade unions will have difficulty in coming in as friendly societies. It would be possible for the hon. Member to press for a wider interpretation. I object altogether to the attempt made to introduce a distinction between those who get £160 a year and those who do not. I think the less we have of these income limits introduced or insisted upon in this or any other Clause the better. I am in favour of the proposal to bring in the whole population, and I shall object to any proposal to bring in one privileged class.
§ 10.0 P.M.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am going to support the Amendment. There is a large class of members of friendly societies who when they joined the societies were in good health, and who may or may not now be in good health. Unless they are in good health, they will not be in a position to join a new and approved society under the Bill. That appears tome to be a very poor reward for their thrift. It would be quite unreasonable if this Amendment were not limited to a certain period of years. Some reasonable period of qualification ought to be insisted on, but it is very absurd to say that only after five years they should be qualified 1253 for the Government subsidy. This will also affect another class who at present are probably cut off from the benefits of the Bill. I mean soldiers and sailors. They have joined their friendly societies in order to get benefits, but they will not be permitted, or at any rate they will not be encouraged, to continue as members of the friendly societies. If they do, at any rate they will get no benefit from the Government subsidy. This Amendment would remove a portion of their grievance, although not the whole of it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) said he would not mind if this was extended to members who have exercised other forms of thrift. Trade unions, which become approved societies, are included in this Amendment. I believe co-operative societies are not included. Savings banks also are not included. A man must have joined a friendly society in. the belief that he will be able to continue to receive benefit once in the society, but as this Bill intervenes he will not be able to receive the same benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] This is what will happen. Friendly societies may endeavour to continue the voluntary section, but they will not get voluntary recruits, because every person at. sixteen will be obliged to come into the State scheme. In my opinion the voluntary section of the friendly society will be killed. There may be additional benefits under the State scheme, but the purely voluntary section will be killed, and unless you allow members to come in as volunteers you are practically killing the provision they have made for insurance. That is why you should differentiate between them and those who have been saving and thrifty in other directions. From the State point of view the State would get a good bargain by allowing them to come in. The State is going to got 7d. for something that costs less, and if people are willing to join in order to save that which they have already paid it seems to me a stupid policy from the financial point of view, and bad policy from the point of view of the encouragement of thrift not to allow them to come in.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)I agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member that we have to discuss this without in any way importing matters of prejudice, but I do not think that the arguments used on this side of the House ought to be subject to that 1254 criticism. There is no question of importing prejudice in the sense of saying something which has no relevancy to the subject under discussion and which is really for the purpose of arousing feeling against those the Amendment aims at benefiting. The argument put against the Amendment is perfectly sound. I wish to point out that what has been advanced by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) docs not seem to me to refer to the argument which we are using against this Amendment. He says that there will be difficulty unless the members of a society become members of an approved society. Rut why should that be? The Amendment provides that they must have been members of an approved society for five years, so that it presupposes that a man has been a member of a society for at least that period right up to the passing of this Act. I am unable to understand the argument which the hon. Member put forward that that man will have difficulty in becoming a member of an approved society when the real assumption is that he has been a member of a society for at least five years. One argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was that those who have been members of societies for five years and upwards would suffer because of the provisions of Clause 55. That does not seem to me to follow. Under Clause 55 all that a society can deal with is a scheme "for abolishing, reducing, or altering such benefits as respects members who become insured persons under this part of this Act." The objection has been taken that if these Members are not insured persons they are not affected by Clause 55. But if they have accumulated funds to meet their benefits for the future, they will be dealt with under Clause 55.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat was the point. These men may have accumulated funds, and, if so, they will have the benefits, and they are in exactly the same position. They will be in exactly the same position with regard to the accumulated funds as they were before. If that argument is right, what is the object of introducing this question now? It does seem really difficult to follow, because no one has been able to give a good instance. The Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) said you might take persons who were in receipt of an income of £150, and no more. But the object of the Bill is to meet the case of persons who were at work and earning that 1255 amount. That is what the State benefit is intended to meet. In the compulsory part of the scheme you are seeking to meet the case of the breadwinner who is earning from£100or£l50 a year, but not more than £160, but whose income stops from the moment he becomes sick. You are trying to give this man the advantage of the State rates. It is not intended to enlarge the voluntary benefit so as to give the State money to people who are already in receipt of a sufficient sum to meet sickness whatever happens. I do submit there is no ground for introducing the special class, and that the Amendment ought to be rejected.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General leaves me rather puzzled. He says the real object of the Bill is to deal with the people who are breadwinners. But these are the people you deal with in the compulsory part. This is to help other people who do not come under the compulsory parts. They would be dealt with if this Sub-section stopped at the end of (a). But then you come to (b), which is much more parallel to the new Sub-section which the hon. Member seeks to introduce than it is to anything in the Government Bill. It does not show how they are going to be affected. It says they must have been "employed contributors" for five years; but it does not show that whilst they have been contributors they have been dependent on their daily labour. He says there is a reason for that, but his argument as it stood was inconsistent with the Bill. This Sub-section (b) deals with people who have been in employment and who made good their insurance as bread winners, but they may have ceased to be bread winners. The people whom it is proposed to include in the new Sub-section are exactly similar in character and come into the same category. They are those who have insured themselves, presumably in ninety-nine cases out of 100, when they were dependent upon their daily exertions to make provision for sickness, and they may or may not have ceased to be so dependent. And in that respect are in no ways different from those who are already included in Sub-section (b) of the Clause.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that they must have been "employed contributors" for five years or upwards; but 1256 whilst they were contributors they must have built up a reserve, whilst they have been employed contributors, as defined in Sub-section (2) of the Clause. They will have contributed for five years, and that does not cease when they cease to be employed. Let me take the case of a man who has been forced to contribute. Let him have the benefit of the State contribution. If that man ceases to pay after a period of years he should not lose his advantages. We should let him come under the voluntary part as a contributor, so as to get the benefit of the State contribution.
§ Mr. LYNCHThis is the first Amendment by which the position of the medical profession has been touched, and I desire to say a few words in defence of that profession. I have listened carefully to what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I think it will certainly include a number of men whom this Bill was never intended to benefit. The case for the Amendment has been extremely well put by the Member who moved it, and by the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), but the very fact that it has been so well put indicates that the Amendment has not been so well drafted. If it were possible to introduce the class of person for whom they plead there would be no objection to the Amendment on either side of the House. But the objection is that whilst it introduces them it introduces a number of others to whom there would be serious objection, particularly by the medical faculty, and therefore I hope the House will not have such an Amendment introduced into the Bill unless it carries only its good intentions.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI have been considerably interested in the various speeches, but I am not at all convinced that the Amendment is one which I can fully support. As I understand the Bill, men will come into the voluntary class, although a large proportion of their income is derived from investments. Such persons are indicated in the words of the Bill as being engaged in some trade or profession or wholly or mainly dependent upon it, but they may be mainly dependent upon the profession and at the same time may derive some of their income from investments. Will a man come under the contributory scheme who has been compelled, possibly by force of circumstances, 1257 to retire on a small pension and desired to secure some provision against ill-health and has joined friendly societies. He may have been a member for a number of years, but as the Bill stands I think he will be excluded from all benefits, while a professional man or a tradesman, notwithstanding that he has a private income, will be within the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has referred to the position of the doctors. I confess I feel a good deal of sympathy with the objection of the doctors to the inclusion in the Bill of men whose incomes exceed £160 a year. That objection may apply to this Amendment. But I understand the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) proposes to move a further Amendment excluding those whose income exceed £160, and on that ground I can support the Amendment.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSBefore the Division takes place may I say exactly what my proposed Amendment would be. It would be to insert this proviso after the conclusion of this Sub-section: "Provided always that no person shall be entitled to become a contributor within the provisions of this Section whose total income from all sources exceeds £160 a year." That I shall move.
§ Mr. PAGE CROFTI must protest against the attempt that has been made by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to make out that this Amendment is in favour of the well-to-do. There are belonging to friendly societies very many thousands of people who are of very small means indeed. It is these poor men whom we desire to see included, because it would be an injustice if they were kept out. For instance, a man has been all his life a gardener, and it happens that his health does not permit him to continue pursuing that occupation. He has managed to save a certain amount of money, and he finds that he has £l a week from his investments. There must be many thousands of people of that description in this country, and I think that when they have shown their thrift in times past they should obtain the advantage of the new scheme. I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment. I must protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer describing it as one for local "swells." I do not think that it touches that class of people at all.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 234.
1259| Division No. 257.] | AYES. | [10.20 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich) |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Forster, Henry William | Martin, Joseph |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gardner, Ernest | Mount, William Arthur |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gibbs, George Abraham | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gilmour, Captain John | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goldman, C. S. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Paget, Aimeric Hugh |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Barnston, Harry | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Grant. J. A. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harris, Henry Percy | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Beckett, Hon. William Gervase | Helmsley, Viscount | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Boyton, James | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Cave, George | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Swift, Rigby |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Chamberlain, Rt.- Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunt, Rowland | Touche, George Alexander |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Jowett, Frederick William | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Clyde, James Avon | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Knight, Capt. E. A. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Croft, Henry Page | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lansbury, George | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Larmor, Sir J. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lewisham, Viscount | Younger, Sir George |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | |
| Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Hackett, J. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Adamson, William | Hancock, John George | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Dowd, John |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Harmsworth, R. L. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Shee, James John |
| Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.) | Harwood, George | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Hasiam, James (Derbyshire) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Barnes, George N. | Hayden, John Patrick | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Hayward, Evan | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Barton, William | Helme, Norval Watson | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Beale, William Phlpson | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Higham, John Sharp | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Hinds, John | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Boland, John Pius | Hodge, John | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Holt, Richard Durning | Reddy, Michael |
| Bowerman, Charles W | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Rendall, Atheistan |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Johnson, William | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N) | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Robinson, Sydney |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Joyce, Michael | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Keating, Matthew | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Clough, William | Kelly, Edward | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Collins. Stephen (Lambeth) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A, | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Crooks, William | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th) | Sheehy, David |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Leach, Charles | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) |
| Davies Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lewis, John Herbert | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Dawes,' James Arthur | Logan, John William | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lundon, Thomas | Summers, James Woolley |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Sutton, John E. |
| Doris, W. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Duffy, William J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Taylor, Theodore c. (Radcliffe) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Maclean, Donald | Tennant, Harold John |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Callum, John M. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Manfield, Harry | Ure, Rt. Ron Alexander |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Wadsworth, J. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Wardle, George J. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Meagher, Michael | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Falconer, James | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Millar, James Duncan | Webb, H. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Molteno, Percy Alport | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| French, Peter | Mond, Sir Alfred M, | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mooney, John J. | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Morgan, George Hay | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Morrell, Philip | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Gibson, Sir James Puckering | Munro, Robert | Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton) |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Needham, Christopher T. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Glanville, H. J. | Neilson, Francis | Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | |
| Goldstone, Frank | Nolan, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Norman, Sir Henry | |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI beg to move in Sub-section (3) at the end of paragraph (6) to insert the words: "or
1260 (c) being married women, fulfil the special conditions hereafter established."
1261 The reason I move this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) is that we decided earlier in the day that married women will not come in. under the compulsory powers, and we are now dealing with the voluntary powers and have decided that voluntary contributors shall be persons who are engaged in some regular occupation or who have been paying contributions for a period of five years or upwards. I rather gathered from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that he might be prepared favourably to consider the position of married women in the Bill although he could not have a compulsory scheme. We fear that unless we put in a provision here qualifying them for a voluntary scheme that we may not be able in the later stages to bring them in. I do not think I need argue the case further. The Amendment is simply to make it possible to put in married women and enable them to come into a scheme subsequently, and does not decide as to the conditions or the benefits they will receive.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI should have preferred, if my hon. Friend and those who sympathise with him—amongst whom I count myself—had been satisfied to raise this question on Clause 34. By that time I think we would be in a position to formulate a scheme to satisfy all the reasonable wishes of those who want to see married women get the benefit of certain advantages of this Bill. The difficulty of bringing it in here is that if you admit married women at this point it means that you permit the wives of the better class of artisan to come in up to the age of 45 as a charge upon the women's fund. I want the Committee fully to realise that. It is not the charge on the Exchequer that I am afraid of, because I do not think that a very considerable number would come in; they would have to pay not merely their own 3d. but also the 3d. of the employer, and I do not think that a very large proportion of the wives of the industrial classes would be able to pay 6d. in addition to the 4d. already provided by the husband. Let us see what that means. If they come in at this stage, it means that they could come in at the age of 39, 42, or 43, and to that extent increase the deficiency which the women's section will have to wipe out before the younger women can receive the fuller benefits. That would be a much more serious thing for the women's section than for the men's 1262 section. The voluntary contributors coming in in the men's section would be a comparatively small percentage of the whole, as there will be some 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 men altogether. But you might have a considerable number of women of that class coming in and thereby increasing the deficiency by ten per cent. or twenty per cent. What does that mean? It means that women who are earning 9s. or 10s. a week and are contributing to the fund will have to bear the whole burden of wiping out the deficit for women who are in a position to find 6d. a week for themselves. That is really not fair.
If the hon. Member had put to me the case—he did not, as he would not have been in order in so doing at this point— of the young unmarried woman engaged in some employment who maintains her contributions for seven or eight years and then marries and had said that it was fair that she should go on paying her voluntary contribution and remain in the society—that is a different case. That is a case with which I have very strong sympathy, but it arises on Clause 34. It is really a question for the women themselves. The whole of the burden comes on the women's fund; it means that if there is malingering it is the women's fund that suffers. If the women are perfectly prepared to allow those who have already been in the fund to go on as voluntary contributors, it seems to me that is entirely a question for the women themselves. There will be nothing in the resolution to exclude our finding an additional sum of money for that purpose. It is framed in such a way that it will be quite possible to move Amendments on Clause 34. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that. I ask him and those who are really in sympathy with his object whether the women themselves are prepared to place upon those who are earning 9s. or 10s. a week the burden of wiping out the deficiency for women who are well enough off to pay 6d. a week. It is a very serious burden to put on the women's fund. But in regard to the case to which I have referred, I am prepared to consider favourably—I should like to see the scheme first—a proposal made on Clause 34.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe Chancellor of the Exchequer meets me quite fairly; really meets the view that I desired to put before the House, though I thought I was precluded from raising it now. I wanted to be perfectly sure that married women would not be left out of the scheme. If it 1263 is perfectly clear that on Clause 34 we can determine whether or not married women can come into the scheme voluntarily; that the conditions under which they may come in can then be determined; that they may be such as the Chancellor has just stated—as, for instance, that they have already been contributing—that really meets my view. I only wanted to be perfectly certain that we should not find our hands tied when we got to a later stage of the Bill, and when we desired to consider the scheme as a whole. Provided it is quite clear that we may later discuss the question of the admittance of married women into this scheme, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. COOPERI feel it would be a great advantage to the Committee if the Mover of this Amendment stated how he intends to deal with the inclusion of married women in the Bill. Because we all feel, especially on these benches, that it is our duty not to support suggestions of this nature, which practically amount, if carried, to swamping the proposal that the Government have placed before us. On the other hand, there are many of us here—and I am one— I voted in the last Division for the hon. Member for Merthyr's Amendment—who desire to see if something cannot be done for married women without loading the Bill to any great extent; if loading it at all In that connection I want to mention that the purport of the Bill itself, above all things, is to deal with the prevention and cure of sickness; above all, to benefit those who most stand in need of that benefit. I would be glad if we could have some idea of the proposals of hon. Members opposite in regard to married women. If we know that we may be able and ready to support you. If not, we shall feel bound in carrying out that understanding to which we have allied ourselves, in reply to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to support Amendments which are going to impose a considerable burden on the Bill to the extent of crushing it.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member who moved this Amendment has asked leave to withdraw it.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI said subject to what you might say on the point that I raised, that such action will not keep us from doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his willingness to do.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer make quite clear to the House the one statement on which he has based his opposition to the Amendment. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer chiefly objected to the Amendment because of the danger to the women's funds of the additional expense involved. Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is irrevocably committed to the separation of the men's funds and the women's fund? That is a very grave matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. I think upon Second Reading I made it quite clear that upon the face of the Bill it is absolutely plain that the women's fund must be kept quite separate from the men's fund.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked me whether it would be possible to do this on Clause 34.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESOr on any part of the Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANClause 34 is the place. It is very difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. It seems to me that the women who are eligible under Sub-section (3), which we are now discussing, should be dealt with under Clause 34. It is quite clear that the restrictions under Clause 34 could be struck out and other conditions established. I think that is the only answer I can give the Committee at this stage.
§ Mr. HILLSWould it be enough to strike out the special exclusion of women under Clause 34? Do not we want some special inclusion here or some words that would not exclude married women independently of Clause 34?
§ The CHAIRMANI am prepared to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the question, but as I understand it the women who are dealt with under Clause 34 must satisfy the conditions under Subsection (3) of Clause 2. I think that must be so, and that is why, contrary to my first intention, I allowed this Amendment at this stage.
§ Mr. CAVEAs I understand the Bill the married woman who is a worker is upon the same footing as a man. If she is an employed contributor, she must be insured; if not she will come within this particular Subsection (3). Up to this point she is in. exactly the same position as a man. It is 1265 only upon Clause 34 that an attempt is made to cut down the rights of women. There is this further observation. If it is desired that the subscription paid by the man shall bring the benefit to his wife, that does not arise at all under Clause 34 or under this Clause, but under Clause 8.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIn the compulsorily employed insurance it is expressly stated, but in the voluntary part nothing of the kind is stated. I call attention to that because it is the volunteers we are dealing with under Clause 34.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDWould it be possible under Clause 34 to make a provision that a woman who was an employed contributor before marriage might continue as an employed contributor after marriage provided she desired to do so?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf any doubt arose in connection with this Clause later on I certainly should not object to any part of the Bill being re-committed to clear it up. I can assure the hon. Member that I am at one with him in that respect.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI am perfectly satisfied with that.
§ Mr. HILLSSub-section (3) of Clause 1 will not suit the case of a married woman living at home. She cannot come in unless she is in regular occupation and wholly or mainly dependent upon her earnings, or has been a contributor for five years. Assume that a girl who has been a contributor for three years marries and lives at home, she cannot come in as a volunteer, and whatever we do with Clause 34 we cannot bring her in. If we pass this Clause all the married women who do not come within the narrow lines of Sub-clause (a) and (b) are ruled out of this Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEClause 34 provides for the case of a woman who is already in the scheme. If there is any doubt on this point when we come to Clause 34, as I do not want anybody to be ruled out, I shall consent to the Bill being re-committed in order to introduce words to meet this point if it is found to be necessary.
§ Mr. HILLSStill I do not understand the point. Supposing when the Bill passes a woman is married and lives at home, how can she come in as a volunteer? If we get a pledge that the right hon. Gentleman will re-commit the Bill if necessary I will accept it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have given that pledge twice.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "persons" ["include all persons who either"] to insert the words, "whose total income from all sources does not exceed one hundred and sixty pounds and." Under the Bill as it stands the voluntary contributor can have any income whatever as long as it comes from his own exertions. A lawyer earning a big income, or a Cabinet Minister, can become a voluntary contributor. Members of this House, when they are paid, could become voluntary contributors and be insured under the provisions of this Bill. I have no objection to any man becoming a voluntary insurer, but I have a strong objection to a rich man accepting these benefits so far as the State is concerned. I do not think poor men—who in the ultimate resort pay the bulk of the taxes—should be called upon to provide 2d. for the voluntary insuring of the rich man. If the Government or the Committee feel that £160 is not enough and that any other sum, such as £200, £250, or £300 should be substituted, I have no objection, but I do object to allowing a rich man to join in this scheme. There is something more than the mere desire not to have a man who does not need the benefits in this scheme. The voluntary insurer is undoubtedly somewhat of a drag on the scheme. The voluntary insurer, according to the actuaries' figures will probably be considerably older than sixteen, and he will be coming in under this scheme at the same price as a man of sixteen. He will therefore swell the deficit. There are no really good figures to enable us to ascertain how many voluntary insurers there will be. The actuaries, under Section 68 of their report, estimate that some 829 people will be voluntary contributors, but they tell us there are over 2,120,000 who may become voluntary contributors. They cannot tell us they will not; they only estimate that some 800,000 will become voluntary contributors, but there is certainly the possibility that a considerably larger number will become voluntary contributors. Every man who becomes a voluntary contributor adds to the deficit and to the cost to the State. I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment, either in its present form or in some modified form. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1267 in that celebrated meeting he had with the members of the British Medical Association, gave an assurance to the doctors that he will accept an income limit with regard to medical benefits for voluntary contributors. That is perfectly clear. I am a great student of the Chancellor's speeches with great benefit, because I find sentences in his speech to the British Medical Association which I think will preclude him from opposing this Amendment. He said:—
I am quite prepared to consider an income limit dealing with the volunteers, so that a man earning £200, £300, or £400 should not be entitled to claim medical benefits at 6s., 7.s., or 8a. per year. When you come to voluntary contributors. I agree with you it is desirable there should be an income limit. I will support an income limit with regard to those.The Chancellor of the Exchequer is therefore pledged to support an income limit with regard to the voluntary contributors so far as medical benefits are concerned. How is it possible to have one limit for medical benefits and another for sick benefits? It would be quite impossible. It would mean the recasting of the Bill to enable the voluntary contributor to come in with an unlimited income for sickness benefits and a limited income for medical benefits. I feel sure the Chancellor will see, as he is pledged to a limited income for medical benefits, he must agree, and I think it would be to the advantage of the scheme he should agree to an income limit for the whole of the voluntary benefits. I have pointed out not merely with regard to medical benefit that it will be to the benefit of the Bill altogether to limit the number so far as you possibly can of voluntary contributors because each such contributor adds to the cost of the Bill, and will help to pile up the deficit. Every voluntary contributor above the age of sixteen who comes in up to the age of forty-five as if he were sixteen, must necessarily add to the deficit and to the cost of the Bill. Therefore if we can, without doing an injustice to any section of the community limit the number of voluntary contributors we shall limit the cost of the Bill to the deficit—or I may put it in another way: we shall set free more State money for other purposes, at the same time we shall be doing no injustice to men of large or moderate incomes by limiting them from taking part in the benefits so far as State payment is concerned. It would be no injustice whatever to a man with an income of £160, or £200, or £300 per year to prohibit him sharing in the State benefit under the provisions of this 1268 Bill. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the Amendment in some form or another.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think there is a good deal to be said for limiting benefits of this character. The hon. Member is quite correct when he says that every voluntary contributor who comes into the scheme increases the deficiency, and therefore places a burden on the industrial members of the community having a low wage, which is very unfair, as being imposed by persons whose income is sufficient to enable them to provide medical attendance for themselves. It also simplifies the matter so far as the medical profession is concerned. One of the greatest difficulties we have had is the apprehension under which medical men are labouring that the class of patients which enable them to give more liberal treatment to the lower wage earning community will be taken from them, and that they will have in future to deal with them on contract terms. Therefore, I cannot resist an Amendment of this kind. I agree that a great scheme of national insurance of this kind should provide medical and maintenance benefits for those who are unable to provide them for themselves, and I think that those who are over the Income Tax limit hardly come within that category. I therefore will not resist the Amendment of the hon. Member.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThere is a slight hardship that may be done by the acceptance of this Amendment, exactly as it stands, as existing members of friendly societies will be shut out again in precisely the same manner as they were shut out by the acceptance of another Amendment. If we are really endeavouring to maintain the position of friendly societies we ought at least to maintain the rights of existing members of friendly societies. You are otherwise going to break up the organisation of friendly societies which are largely dependent for their management and some of the best advice of members who will be shut out under this Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member is quite wrong. They are not shut out, and they are not deprived of any existing rights they have. They will be exactly in the same position they are in at present. This is one of the greatest complaints of the doctors, that men who have hundreds of pounds a year insist on being doctored at 4s. a year. That is a very serious thing, 1269 and it cannot be interfered with as long as it is a voluntary organisation, but I do not think its members have a right to come to the State and ask for this 2d. a week to enable them to pay their 4s. a year for a doctor when they ought to be paying the full rate.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understood my point. I do not in the least want to have the 2d. I am quite willing if he limits them not to have the 2d. at all, but you are interfering with existing members of friendly societies.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that is going back to the old point. I do not think that part of the question arises on this Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI submit that my hon. Friend was really not arguing the point which had been previously discussed. He was arguing as to the effect of this Amendment upon existing members of friendly societies.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt was discussed for about an hour.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis Amendment introduces a new restriction. My hon. Friend may be right or wrong as to its effect upon the existing members of friendly societies. He could not have been discussing the restriction introduced by this Amendment before it was moved on an entirely different Amendment.
§ 11.0 p.m.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am saying that under this proviso you are shutting out those who are at present members of friendly societies. I do not want them to get the extra 2d. I do not want to extend that provision. I want, to preserve the rights of those who are at present members of friendly societies. That is all I want to do.
§ Mr. HOLTBefore the Amendment is definitely accepted I should like to put this to my hon. Friend. I think it is quite proper with regard to Sub-section (a), but is it quite fair with regard to the voluntary contributor under Sub-section (b)? If you take the case of a man who has been a compulsory contributor, an employed contributor, and ceases to be so by reason of the fact that his income has risen above the £160 limit, is it quite fair to prevent him by this Sub-section from getting the full benefits of the State contribution if he chooses to go on as a voluntary contributor?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI agree that this is at the wrong point. I think we shall have to move it back to its original position when we come to the Report stage. I am accepting it now in order to accept the principle.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAs to the business to-night, perhaps this would be a convenient stage, as it is now after eleven o'clock, for the right hon. Gentleman to state how long the House is to sit. I do not suppose it is intended to sit late to-night.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think there is very much more to discuss on this Clause. I would suggest to the Committee that we should get this Clause. I will then move to report Progress.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4). My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has an Amendment down which raises the same question in another form, and it is a matter of indifference to me which Amendment you accept. This Sub-section bars persons over sixty-five years of age from the benefits of the Bill. I submit that the deletion of this Sub-section would remove what we regard as a great blot from the Bill. The Bill proposes to penalise persons who are from sixty-five to seventy years of age. I say that because it is only when men or women reach seventy years of age that they become entitled to the benefit of the Old Age Pensions Act. It is proposed that men and women over sixty-five years of age should not be entitled to the benefit of this Bill. That would be a grave injustice to them, because they have lived the productive part of their lives and have contributed to the fund from which must be drawn the money wherewith to pay the benefits to those who are under sixty-five years of age. We say that is a grave and manifest injustice. The matter has already been brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer by myself and others, and the only plea against the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has stated is that the risks of sickness are so great over sixty-five years of age that the insurance scheme would not stand the strain. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that that is the very best reason that could be adduced for the inclusion of these people in the scheme. We have been told by the Home Secretary that this 1271 Bill is to pool the luck, so that the burden which would otherwise fall with crushing weight on the shoulders of the individual will be borne by the broad shoulders of the many.
If that be the purpose of the Bill, then the deletion of this Clause is consistent with such a purpose, and the insertion of our Clause is justified. The shutting out of these people from the benefits of the Bill is altogether inconsistent with that purpose. It is manifestly unfair that we should leave these people after sixty-five years of age to bear their own burdens. If that is the only reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer has for their being shut out, I hope it will not weigh with the House. If one goes into the tables of expectation of life at sixty-five years of age—I have not the figures; I have been called upon to move this Amendment without preparation—but I think I should be right in saying that the expectation of life of persons at the age of sixty-five is not more than three years.
§ HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
§ Mr. BARNESWell, the average—
§ An HON. MEMBER: Eight.
§ Mr. BARNESTaking it at that, the burden, such as it was, would be spread over that period, and over the whole of the resources of the employer and of the State, and the contributions of the workmen could be drawn upon to fulfil the obligations in respect to these people; and I say, whatever the burden may be, it is manifestly unfair on our part to leave these people outside the scope of this Act. These are briefly the reasons that operate in our mind for the insertion in the Bill of those who are over sixty-five and under seventy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have in his mind an intention, when excluding those between seventy and seventy-five from the operation of the Act to immediately reduce the pensionable age under the other Act from seventy to sixty-five. That would meet my purpose much better, because I think that people at the age of sixty-five are entitled not only to the benefits of a scheme of this sort, which is founded on the contributions of the people, but that, having lived a life of industry presumably, they are entitled to a pension from the State under the Pensions Act. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has that in his mind, and would reduce the 1272 age in the immediate future, possibly we may be induced to withdraw this Amendment. Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, I shall press it to a division, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will avoid the need for doing so by accepting it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am not quite sure that my hon. Friend is not under the impression that some people have as to the effect of these words, and that they mean that as soon as a man reaches the age of sixty-five, he is disqualified and he receives no benefits.
§ Mr. BARNESNo.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere were certainly some who thought that was so, but it is not the effect of the Bill. If a man joins at the age of sixty-four, he receives benefit under the Bill. But my hon. Friend says: "Why do you exclude these men? Why do you forbid men at the age of sixty-five joining for the first time?" We do not forbid a man at sixty-four from joining, and if it were not for this Bill not only the man of sixty-five but the men of fifty-five, and the men of forty-five would have gone on receiving nothing. This is the first time under any scheme in any country that it has been proposed to admit all these men up to the age of sixty-five. But my hon. Friend says, "Why do you go on to exclude men from sixty-five to seventy?" My reply is that you must have a waiting period. You have six months as a waiting period for sickness pay. You must have a waiting period of two years for invalidity. In Germany it is five years. We have cut it down to two. Therefore the man who is over sixty-eight years of age might get his six months' sickness, but after that he would receive nothing, unless you propose to increase the burden upon the whole fund. Therefore it is purely a question of the man between sixty-five and sixty-eight. That is the period when the burden is really heavy upon your scheme, and you are beginning to insure at a point when your contributions bear no proportion at all to the amount that you are paying. At whose expense will you be doing that? Not at the expense of the State, but at the expense of the other members—the expense of the men who have got the burden of the family. The case of the old people is a very hard one, and we are providing for them. But we can only provide up to the limit of the means at our disposal. If you go beyond that you 1273 must make the burden upon the younger people greater, just at the time when they are bringing up a family.
As between the two classes, I think that the case of the man of thirty-five or forty, with young children, the breadwinner, who is stricken down with sickness, is much harder than that of the old man of sixty-six, who at any rate is done with providing for a family. The suffering is infinitely greater that a man would feel for his own children than that which he would feel for himself. Therefore, I consider that the man of thirty-five deserves more of the attention of the State from the point of view of the suffering involved, and from the point of view of the fact that the State ought to see that the children are properly fed. It is to the interest of the State. Why should you increase the burden of these younger men with families? They are bearing a very large burden now. They are postponing their benefit for fifteen and a half years in order to enable people up to sixty-five to benefit. If you put on in addition to that the very heavy burden of sickness between sixty-five and seventy for people who have contributed practically nothing, I think it is an excessive burden to ask the younger man to bear. It amounts at least to a deficit of five millions. The whole of that five millions has got to be borne by the young people who have got to bring up a family and who have got to postpone for a much further period the time when they receive the additional benefit which will enable them to get doctoring for their family, and bring the family in, which everybody desires to hasten. I think it Would be too great a burden to ask them to bear, and, therefore, I think, that the conditions of the Bill are exceedingly liberal. If you put on an additional burden of that character, for periods that amount from ten to eleven, twelve or thirteen weeks in the course of the year in respect of people who have not contributed it ceases to be a contributory scheme really in respect of these people. I very deeply regret, therefore, that it is impossible for me to do what is asked.
I have a suggestion to make to which I invite the attention of the hon. Member. We provide in this scheme that the employer should pay 3d. As far as that goes that ought to go to the benefit of these people. I would not object to an amendment that would give 2d. from the State between sixty-five and seventy. It is the burden on the fund that I wish to avoid. If these men 1274 were to contribute their own 4d. and we were to put the fund to their benefit to draw upon, then there would be not merely the 4d., but there would be the 3d. from the employer, and they would get the whole benefit of the 2d. from the State. I would suggest that is as far as we can go. The fund would be of value to those who have worked for two or three years, and then have suddenly broken down. It would just give them the necessary help to bridge the gap between that time and the time they reach their old age pension. The Bill, within the limit of that fund, which would be ear-marked, would enable them to get the medical benefit. That is really all the Government can do, and I think it is a very fair proposal.
§ Mr. G. J. WARDLEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether inquiries have been made as to how many people there are between sixty-five and seventy years of age who are already in friendly societies and are being provided for? It would greatly simplify matters if these figures were available.
§ Mr. CROOKSIf a man at sixty-five is at this moment a member of a friendly society, you are taking him over as a member of an approved society. Either you do or you do not. If you do not take him over you leave the old man a burden on the society, while, at the other end, you nip off from the young man who is keeping the old man. That is manifestly unfair, because you have the burden of the old man on the society, while you are getting the benefit of the new blood.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGESurely the hon. Member knows the friendly societies better than that. The man of sixty-five has been paying to the friendly society, and the money has been accumulating up to that age. There is no more profitable member of the friendly society than the man who has reached sixty-five years of age. It is for the man who is not in a friendly society that I have real sympathy. The man who is already in the friendly society is in clover.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI should like made a little more clear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. I think we on this side want clarifying a little on the subject. Am I right in understanding that the man may pay 4d., the employer 3d., and the State 2d., and that the money would be carried to the Post Office—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, to deposit.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSYou make a deposit fund, and they will have their money as far as it goes.
§ Mr. GILLEven if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion is adopted, it it would still be necessary to pass the Amendment, because otherwise those of sixty-four and sixty-five years of age would not come in. It appears to us, from the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, after the next three years everybody will be in affluence. The men of sixty-five years of age cannot draw on the very large sum of money expended, while the young persons who pay at thirty years of age, the employers deducting the contributions from their wages, will not be entitled to anything until they are sixty years of age. If the whole thing was averaged up, it appears to me that it would be a reasonable thing to have in persons between sixty-five and seventy. It is an age that appeals to everybody, just as the old age pension did, seeing that the people of that age are not able to look after themselves. I think the Chancellor would be well advised in accepting this Amendment. At any rate, the scheme he proposed is an advance on what has been suggested previously, but is it not necessary to accept this Amendment in order to carry out that scheme?
§ Mr. MOUNTIt was stated, I think, by the Chancellor that he was going to pay 2d. towards the benefit of the old people. I understood the State paid two-ninths of a penny, and not 2d. per week.
§ Mr. BARNESI should like to make the point quite clear. It has been suggested these men are to be put on a Post Office contributory basis. As I understand, it is nothing of the sort, and that what he would do would be to make this a collected fund, so that if a man broke down between sixty-five and seventy he would not be entitled, but that the whole of the money in respect of the old people would be pooled. Of course, the moneys in respect to any person reaching seventy would revert to the pool, and therefore those men and women would to some extent be insured.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIn reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mount), the amount would be two-ninths of a penny, which would be the equivalent of 2d. We have no intention of the money reverting to the pool at seventy. I think the person ought to get the benefit of his deposit.
§ Mr. BARNESHe would get the benefit of the old age pension.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhat he really wants is that the person should have the benefit of his own money.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIt is to be an insurance deposit fund.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEHe is to get the benefit of his own 4d., of the 3d. of the employer, and of the 2d. of the State— that is practically making it deposit contributors. What I suggest is that I am prepared to move or let the hon. Member move at the end of the section, "Except a deposit contributor as hereinafter provided." I think he would be well advised at the present stage to accept that.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe matter is rather complicated, and I do not yet quite understand what the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. I understand that he does not propose to put all men from sixty-five to seventy years of age into a pool together, but that he means to treat each man separately. Each man has a deposit account of his own, with no claims against any surplus there might be on the fund if it were treated as a whole. But what happens to a man who at the age of seventy has not exhausted his fund? Is the balance paid over to him then and there, or what does the right hon. Gentleman propose should be done?
§ Mr. BARNESThe matter could be-settled without discussing these complicated details if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept an Amendment quite in accordance with what he has just stated—namely, to insert after the word "year," or wherever is more appropriate, the words, "except as hereinafter provided." That would give us free scope to discuss at the proper place the whole question between a pooled fund and individual funds.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will accept that Amendment, but it would not be fair to do so without making it perfectly clear what the view of the Government is.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDCould not the words come in at the beginning of the Sub-section?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWould it not be simpler to leave out the Sub-section altogether? All that the Chancellor of the 1277 Exchequer has suggested could, I think, be done by an Amendment on Clause 9.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI hope the hon. Member will allow this Amendment to be made. It will not prejudge the question later on, but it makes it perfectly clear that a person of sixty-five does not come in on the same terms as others.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI desire—
§ The CHAIRMANI would point out that if the hon. Member is not allowed to withdraw his Amendment that these words cannot be inserted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to Move, at the beginning of Sub-section (4) to insert the words, "Except as hereinafter provided." Then the Sub-section goes on as printed in the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this alteration does not increase the compulsory nature of the Bill? We are not really insuring these people. You are only putting them into the Post Office contributory scheme. None of them are really insured. I do not think we have any right under these circumstances to force them to pay their contributions. My Amendment later on is to alter sixty-five to sixty. I view with great regret any alteration which would force people of sixty-five or seventy to enter into this very deficient insurance scheme.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI do not know whether the acceptance of this Amendment will do away with the possibility of dealing with the plan referred to in the last Amendment, that is in relation to persons who have been members of friendly societies for five years? It is really a very important point. No one who is acquainted with the work of the smaller friendly societies can help but be aware that the effect of the Bill will be that the smaller societies will be destroyed. The result will be that men between sixty and sixty-five who now have benefit from the friendly society of which they are members will be deprived of that benefit by the operation of this Bill, and will at the same time be excluded from the benefit of this Bill by the operation of this Clause. In my own county there are at least 4,000 members of small societies and two conferences have been 1278 held by them. They have drawn the particular attention of their representatives to the fact that the inevitable result of the Bill will be to destroy them; that their members will ultimately be men between sixty and sixty-five, who will be brought into the category where they have no provision for ill-health or old age. If then these men are also to be excluded—
§ The CHAIRMANIt does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI only wanted to know whether the acceptance of this Amendment will exclude discussion later on as to the position of these societies?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move in Sub-section (4) after the word "require" ["nothing in this Section shall require or authorise "], to insert the words, "a person over the age of sixty."
This Amendment, if accepted, would still leave these people the option of becoming insured if they wanted to do so. I think it is probable that persons over the age of sixty would be wise to insure, but there is another point. A man over sixty finds it very difficult to obtain employment, and I think he will not be very anxious to insure. In any case, there is no family depending upon a man of sixty. It is not a question of letting the children or the mother starve; a man at that age has only himself to consider, and surely people of that age might be allowed to do as they like. I understand the object of making the ordinary workman insure is that the family may be made secure. When a man reaches the age of sixty he will begin to consider himself free of responsibility to his family. Therefore I hope the Government will consider the possibility of giving this slight extension to people over sixty years of age.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe Amendment of the hon. Member would cut people of sixty and sixty-five out of the scheme and prevent them getting these great advantages.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am not proposing to cut them out, I am proposing to give them the option.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe whole point is that all the benefits are calculated on the basis of giving persons over sixty 1279 years of age these very great benefits. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHI have an Amendment on the Paper lower down which raises this point, but perhaps this would be the more convenient place to raise it. Many Members of the Committee will bear me out when I say it is becoming increasingly difficult for men at sixty and sixty-five years of age to find employment. I do not think the answer which has been given quite meets the point. Our object is to make it easier for these men to have employment between the ago of sixty and sixty-five. Hon. Members are saying it is bed-time, but they do not seem to care about the bed-time of these poor men of sixty and sixty-five. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
§ The CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member confine himself to arguments which are appropriate to the Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHYes, Sir. I think this Amendment raises a most important point upon which the operation of this Bill will be judged. If we could make pro-vision for these people in some other way than by extracting contributions from the employés, then we should be contributing to the solution of the continued employment of these men at this critical age.
Mr. WALSHThe hon. Member says the Workmen's Compensation Act has given us an illustration of how easily the old people are displaced. That is perfectly true, but what comparison can be established between the Workmen's Compensation Act where an employer has to undertake a known obligation, but under this Bill he knows his obligation exactly. The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment did so in the name of individual liberty, but the hon. Member who supported him has given us an indication that this proposal will mean the destruction of individual liberty. The Amendment means that every old man of sixty-five will practically have to contract out of the Act, and when he applies for employment the employer will say, "We cannot take you on unless you are prepared to abdicate your rights under the Act." Therefore, there is no comparison between the Workmen's Compensation Act and this Amendment. Individual liberty would be destroyed by this Amendment, and it would not enable the elderly men to exer- 1280 cise their individual liberty, and would mean a destruction of that liberty. Those are just the people for whom the benefits of the Act are most important, and not so much the young life.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe intention of this Amendment is not to compel old people over sixty to contract out of the insurance. As I read the Bill they will have to continue to pay under any circumstances, and it will only be the contribution of these men that would be exempted.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThe hon. Member for Ince is quite wrong. Ninety-nine out of every hundred employers insure.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.
§ Mr. CAVEI beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "authorise" ["shall require or authorise"], to insert the words, "a person under the age of sixteen years or."
The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that a person under sixteen years of age would not be entitled to insure under this Bill. I want to understand exactly the position of boys under sixteen who are in employment. Clause 8, Sub-section (3) says the right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the assured person attains the age of sixteen, and I cannot understand why his employer should pay for what he does not get. He has no benefit except the right to medical treatment and treatment at a sanatorium, which would only be required in a few cases. I know it is provided by Clause 10 that arrears should not be calculated while the person employed is under sixteen, but I am doubtful how far that is intended to exempt persons under sixteen from payment altogether. In any case, it seems to me the employer has to pay, and I do not quite see for what he is to pay. Clause 38 provides that no part of the contributions above 4s. 8d. in the case of a boy and 4s. 6d. in the case of a girl, payable in respect of a person under sixteen shall be credited to the society of which he is a member, or, if he is a deposit contributor, carried to his credit in the Post Office Fund, so that a young person suffers in every way. This question is a very important one to a great many persons and societies. For instance, the district messengers are very much concerned as to what their position will be under the Act. There are others, such as paper boys, as 1281 to whom there will be some difficulty in deducting the amounts from the small sums paid to them. Would it not be better, as you have an upper limit of age, to have a lower limit of age, and exclude altogether from the Bill children under sixteen?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)If you exclude children under sixteen you put a premium on child labour, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree it is undesirable to give any advantage whatever to an employer in favour of employing children under sixteen rather than persons over sixteen. I admit for the time being the sick benefit is reduced in amount, but the youthful contributor later on gets the full benefit of his contributions. I think the general desire not to put any premium on child labour is so strong that it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. It must be remembered that the medical benefit and the sanatorium treatment are exactly the same for the youthful person as for that of any other insured person. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member on Clause 10, it only appears that no account shall be taken of arrears due from a contributor under the age of sixteen. That is really a proviso in favour of the youthful contributor. I think, therefore, on the whole, looking at the advantages I have stated, it is undesirable to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. FORSTERI want one point made perfectly clear. Is the employer of the youthful contributor to pay the full contribution of 4d. or 3d. as the case may be? I understand that no account is to be taken of arrears, and if the youth does not pay nothing happens.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates this part of the Bill. This is a real concession to the boy under fifteen. In other cases the arrears accumulate. In the case of those under sixteen we do not propose to take account of arrears during the period before the age of sixteen, because the labour may be of a very casual nature.
§ 12.0 M.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIs it not the fact that out of these youthful persons a sum of £807,000 is made by the Insurance Fund? That is my recollection of the actuaries' report as to the results of the payment of 4s. 8d. in the case of boys and 4s. 6d. in the case of girls per annum. But when the right hon. Gentle- 1282 man says that these youthful contributors are going to get the full benefit of their money he is speaking of the sweet by and by, when there may be additional benefits. There are some words in the Bill that young persons shall be personally considered, and I think the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies or the Insurance Commissioners ought to take into account the case of these young people who are robbed to the extent of £807,000 a year. That is a very small compensation surely, for what is being done, and it seems to me that the Amendments either to give them benefits or else not to take contributions from them is a thoroughly just one. I do not want to put a premium on child labour, and I should like in some way either that they get additional benefit or some cumulative advantage definitely guaranteed them, and I say without fear of contradiction it is not guaranteed them under the Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member has been discussing a point which could not possibly be met under this Clause. The question whether they should receive additional benefit is a proper one for discussion, but even if I were prepared to agree I could not meet it under Clause 7. The whole point is whether you are to exclude them altogether. If they are included that does not prejudge the question whether they are to receive additional benefit. I suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. CAVEIf I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will later favourably consider an Amendment to give something in exchange I will withdraw.
§ Mr. HOHLERUnless the right hon. Gentleman gives us an undertaking, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. There is no right in this Bill to penalise any particular form of boy labour or any particular class of employer. If you pay you should receive your benefit. We may all agree in regard to boy labour, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider to what extent this will injuriously affect agriculturists. This is particularly important in Kent, where there are two great industries, hop picking and fruit picking, and invariably small children and whole families go out to these employments. Under this Bill, 1283 in regard to each of these members of a family employed, there will be a liability to contribution. Look at the injustice you will do to these persons who are as a result not to be employed at all. This is not a Bill for a penalty at all. If it is improper to employ boy labour introduce legislation to deal with it. It is well within my knowledge that in these great friendly societies they insure from the age of twelve upwards a great number, and I ask that in some way effect may be given to a most just and proper Amendment. We cannot at this stage go into all the questions which have been raised on the other side. There will be ample opportunity at a later stage to deal with any special advantage which may be given to young persons, and obviously it will be a most unjust thing to persons under sixteen to shut them out from the scheme and to encourage employers to employ the very class of labour which is so largely producing unemployment. Newspaper boys are one class that we do not want to encourage. It would be a disastrous thing to do, and I hope very much that the Committee will reject the proposal.
§ Mr. POLLOCKWhat my hon. and learned Friend is asking by this Amendment is why these young persons are included? As I understand the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty it is in order to prevent any premium on the employment of child labour. That does not follow. Children are safeguarded in many other ways in almost every trade. I think that by the Acts which have been passed in the last three or four years their interests are sufficiently protected. Surely the real answer why they are included is that by this means the sum of £800,000 is obtained for the scheme. That seems to me to be so powerful a motive to include them that I attach more importance to it than to the statement that it is intended to prevent the giving of an advantage to persons employing them. It seems to me that there is a difficulty in dealing with this, for if hereafter, when the Committee is discussing the later stages of the Bill, we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be possible for him financially to give these increased benefits, he may be compelled to say that inasmuch as the Bill has a financial foundation to stand upon it would take away some portion of that foundation if he provided benefits for those very young people. That seems to 1284 be the real difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman asks whether, in the event of this Amendment not being carried it will be possible for the Committee at a later stage to discuss a proposal to increase the benefits for young persons under sixteen—
§ Mr. POLLOCKNot only to discuss the benefits but to grant them.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is a matter that must be discussed. It would certainly be possible to discuss it.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I think I understand him. The question before us was whether we should cut them out of the scheme or leave them in the scheme. What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say is this: that, if and when we are discussing the latter stages of the Bill, and what benefits they shall be entitled to, that no difficulty of any sort or kind, nothing in the terms of the financial resolution, and every other sort of difficulty, will not stand in the way of the Committee against further benefits being granted to those persons in respect to their contributions under the Bill. If he will give that undertaking to the full, in the way I have expressed it, that to a large extent will meet the difficulty. That is what I have been asked to look for, and I must press the point upon his attention, so that there may be no misunderstanding. If we are asking for further benefits to be granted, or, in the event of the House so deciding, no difficulty of any sort or kind, financial or otherwise, will be— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I think I am in order. I only want to put it so that it may be perfectly plain, so that not only myself but hon. Members may understand it. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes us all to understand what he means. If I have happened to be exceptionally stupid, he can make it clear out of his courtesy to the Committee that no difficulty of any sort will be placed in the way later on.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to say is that nothing in the form of the Resolution will prevent this matter being discussed, and that the House will have full liberty, if it wishes, at a later stage, if the Amendment is withdrawn now.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE expressed assent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf he could go a little further he would save us the necessity for a Division. I frankly confess I should be sorry to see the subject prejudged, and we want to be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will keep an open mind. I cannot expect him to accept it; that would be prejudging it the other way; but I ask that he will not make up his mind on this point until the House has had a full opportunity of discussing it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI at once accept that suggestion, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look again at what I have said he will see that there are strong reasons to be considered. It is not merely a matter of the children; it is a question of the fund itself, and I think it would be well worth while for the Committee to keep an open mind. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will keep an open mind I will promise to keep an open mind.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI have an open mind on the broad principles.
§ Mr. CAVEI beg leave to withdraw with the understanding on my part that if we are not fully satisfied after the later discussion as to the condition of these young people under the Bill I may take the opportunity of moving this Amendment again at a later stage.
§ Mr. HUNTMay I ask whether there is any pledge that we shall have another chance of discussing whether agricultural children shall or shall not be cut out of this scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYou can only cut them out on the Report Stage. You cannot increase the charge. You can cut out the whole of the children on the Report Stage if you think the conditions are not satisfactory.
§ Mr. HUNTShall we have another chance of discussing the question of cutting out agricultural children from the contributors to the scheme? Is there no answer to that?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CAVEI beg to move to add at the end of Clause 1 the words:—
Provided that a person who for at least one year before the passing of this Act has been a member of a society which provides benefits similar to those 1286 conferred by this part of this Act shall be entitled to become an insured person under this Act, notwithstanding that he is over the age of sixty-five years.A previous Amendment was to permit all existing members of societies which become approved societies to become contributors under the State scheme, and we did not have the benefit of a reply on that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.Under Clause 35 you are practically liquidating so much of the friendly societies funds as is attributable to members who become insured and you leave as a special class with a special fund those members who cannot become insured or who would be entitled and do not. It may be that that special fund would not be sufficient in the end to provide the benefits, and, therefore, you are making them less secure by your scheme and should give them something in exchange. Therefore, I ask that if they have subscribed for any time to a friendly or similar society they shall have the benefit of their thrift and the special privilege of coming in although over sixty-five. By virtue of this scheme all the younger contributors are likely to drop out, and if so the fund will diminish and be less likely to be solvent than if the Bill did not pass. I am afraid that whatever happens the scheme must injuriously affect the whole friendly society movement. There is a tendency for all voluntary movements to be absorbed in the end in a State scheme. But I think that this special privilege should be given to the men who are now subscribing. I do not want to put an undue burden on the fund, but I think that the number coming under this Amendment would be small.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have already indicated that the Government are willing to consider some special benefits to all persons over sixty-five. Those who are members of friendly societies will get exactly the same privilege as those who are not. The principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that to him who hath more shall be given. I do not say that he should be in a worse position. These people should be in as good a position at any rate. They are in an exceedingly good position at 65 years of age if they are members of a solvent society. The hon. and learned Member is under the impression that somehow or other a friendly society will be weakened. One view of the friendly societies is that the younger men pay for the old. That is surely not 1287 the principle of an accumulating society, and any society which went on that principle would soon arrive at insolvency. The whole principle of an accumulating society is that the accumulation should come out of the period when a man is young, in order to provide for him when he is old. So far from societies being weakened they are enormously strengthened by this provision. What do we do? We take the whole of the responsibility of the reserve between sixteen and sixty-five for every member of a friendly society in the country, and we undertake it at 20s. in the pound. [An HON. MEMBER: "An approved society."]
There is no first-class society in this country that I know of which is not an approved friendly society. All they have got to do is to associate with others, and they can come in. I do not want to prejudge that, however; it will arise later on. Hon. and learned Members are always attempting to raise questions which will come on later. I contend that every member of a friendly society comes in. Take the Oddfellows. In that case it has been calculated that three and a half millions will go to that society alone. The hon. and learned Member said that the funds of friendly societies would be weakened. How can three and a half millions going to a society weaken its funds? It is a very extraordinary proposition. On the contrary, seeing that we are undertaking the whole of the burden up to sixty-five, the amount that the society has got to find will not be such a great sum. The position of a man at sixty-five who is a member of a friendly society will be greatly strengthened. The hon. and learned Member knows that none of the friendly societies, if wound up, would pay 20s. in the pound for all their branches. We take them over, and pay up to 20s. in the pound. That is putting them in a very much better position, in so far as the benefits of the Bill are concerned. May I also point out that these questions will arise on Clause 55?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI have some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman. The Government relieve the reserve of the friendly societies from all liability for members between sixteen and sixty-five. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo. There are certain members of societies who have 1288 insured from 18s. and 25s. We do do not undertake liability for that reserve. There are funeral and other benefits. We take up to 10s. and 5s., and we take whatever reserve is accumulated in respect of these benefits. We undertake the whole liability of that up to sixty-five years of age.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman is putting in a very necessary qualification. That was not in his speech. Surely even now he has not got the matter rightly before the Committee, because benefits under this Bill are limited for any who claim over the age of fifty.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade a remark which was inaudible.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINSo that they have got to provide not only for the men over sixty-five, but the difference between the reduced benefits of the men between fifty and sixty-five and those given by the society.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGESuppose their liability now in respect of all these persons is five millionspro tanto to the extent of the benefits we guarantee. There is a reduction of their liability. Three and a half millions does not represent the whole liability of the Oddfellows, but it does represent a very considerable reduction and to that extent releases their finances, and therefore to that extent must strengthen the society financially.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not deny that a large number of societies are going to get certain advantage under this Bill. That is a statement which I have never denied and never thought of denying. That is not at all the statement the right hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. He is limiting the statement very much now and if he made the statement in this form I do not know that I should have any criticism.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI said under the benefits of the Bill.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI will accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to say that. I can only say I did not hear him. That he is speaking in perfect good faith I have not the least doubt, but I was sitting opposite, and did not hear it. He went on further to say that the position of the old men who were already members of the society could not be prejudiced under any 1289 circumstances, and that there was no society in this country, if it were called on, could meet its liabilities.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOver all its branches.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHow, then, do those societies exist? How do they propose to exist except by the influx of new members? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that where there is a deficiency they levy a higher contribution. By those means they accumulate funds to make themselves actuarily sound. You come in and stop the method by which that process is going on, and leaves old men dependent on the society, and I think in such cases the position of the old men must be prejudiced, because the new scheme of the Government is taking away the subscriptions of the younger men which would meet the liabilities' incurred.
Major WILLOUGHBYI support this Amendment. I have one later down, in a rather different form. In the agricultural villages we have many societies which may not be absolutely solvent. We have men for a great number of years subscribing to a society, and under this Bill all the younger members will be absorbed by some great society, and so they lose the advantage they ought to get through having subscribed for a great number of years. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this point most carefully, in order that he may not inflict any injustice on a deserving body of men. I know that he has no desire to inflict any injustice, but possibly in thinking of the larger bodies he may have to some extent overlooked the small but deserving class.
§ Mr. BAIRDI think a case of some hardship has been put before the Committee. Only this afternoon I met the representatives of a considerable number of friendly societies, and they pointed out to me that this particular class of individual who would not come under the Government insurance scheme will not benefit by the action of the State, and that consequently the proportion of the funds that will have to meet the liabilities of the friendly societies as regards that particular section of their members will suffer. They will not be affected by what the Bill proposes to do for the other branch of the friendly societies' funds. It seems to me that they are people who have done something for themselves, and 1290 they are to be in a position not so favourable as they have a right to expect. It is true they will be in a better position than people who have made no provision at all for themselves, but that scarcely meets the case. It is only fair that something should be done to improve their position. There is no getting over the fact that in many country villages there is a great deal of anxiety amongst these people. It may be that the particular friendly societies to which they belong will not be in a position to become approved societies. What is going to happen to them? They will undoubtedly lose the benefit of the young blood which at present keeps the societies going. Unless you do something for them you will undoubtedly be inflicting a great deal of hardship on a large section of the population. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision on the matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. and gallant Member opposite asked if the Government were prepared to give an undertaking that these members would not be put in a worse position. Not only am I prepared to give that undertaking, but I will undertake that they will be in a better position as a result of the Bill.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman has just given an undertaking which I presume must be in connection with Clause 55. Can he not extend that?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI did not say Clause 55 at all.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman said they would be in a better position. There has been nothing in all the discussion on this Clause to show that they will not be in a very much worse position. The only substitute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer offers them is that they now have his permission to join some form of deposit contributory scheme, the details of which we are to get later on. Those members of friendly societies who are sixty-five have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, a considerable reserve value attached to them in their societies. That reserve value will in all probability be sufficient to make it a paying proposition for the Insurance Fund to take them in, to continue them, as approved members for the purposes of the Insurance Fund. If that reserve value is sufficient, what reason can there possibly be for their not continuing their insurance in the approved 1291 societies-going on just as if this Bill had not come into force?
§ Mr. HOHLERThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an undertaking that these men shall not be in a worse position under this Bill but in a better. I am not clear whether or not that undertaking simply means that he has said that he is going to confer an immense benefit on the friendly societies by something they will receive: consequently they will be in a better position. In my judgment that is not worth anything at all. What I want the Chancellor to give is an undertaking that in adapting the machinery to these approved societies of this Bill he will accept the whole of the obligations of those who are already insured in the approved societies. Why, otherwise, should they be in a worse position, as in my judgment they will be?
Under this measure there is to be a double set of accounts kept; a separate account for the funds received and expended under this Bill, and a separate
§ account that the societies have to keep themselves. What have these men of sixty-five to look forward to? It is a fact that it is the young blood that keeps these societies going. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the House to help him to make this Bill a good one. If we are to continue in the spirit of trying to make the Bill a good one, he will have to be more generous in the promises he makes to us in some of these matters. Consider the hardship this proposal means to the man who has been insured all his life, and who has been thrifty and prudent. You approve that, and approve it so much, that you are going to leave the man high and dry. The Chancellor shakes his head, and says, "No, no." But the Bill says that. He may have said differently in his speeches; and I ask for an undertaking to be given.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided; Ayes, 53; Noes, 156.
1293| Division No. 258.] | AYES. | [12.40 a.m. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Dairymple, Viscount | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dixon, C. H. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Doughty, Sir George | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Oerby) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Benn, I. H. (Greenwich) | Gibbs, G. A. | Starkey, John R. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hills, John Waller | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Bird, A. | Hohler, G. F. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Cassel, Felix | Hunt, Rowland | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Cator, John | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Cautley, H. S. | Knight, Captain E. A. | |
| Cave, George | Lewisham, Visccunt | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. Baird. |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Gelder, Sir W. A. |
| Adamson, William | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Clancy, John Joseph | Gill, A. H. |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Clough, William | Glanville, H. J. |
| Allen. Charles P. (Stroud) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Gulland, John W. |
| Anderson, A. M. | Crumley, Patrick | Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Hackett, J. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Dawes, J. A. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Doris, W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Barton, W. | Duffy, William J. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Beale, W P. | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Bentham, G. J. | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Hayward, Evan |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Essex, Richard Walter | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Falconer, J. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Brady, P. J. | Ferens, T. R. | Hughes, S. L. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Ffrench, Peter | Hunter, W. (Govan) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Fitzgibbon, John | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) |
| Johnson, W. | Morgan, George Hay | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Munro, B. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Needham, Christopher T. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Joyce, Michael | Nolan, Joseph | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Keating, M. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Kelly, Edward | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Sheehy, David |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | O'Doherty, Philip | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Lambert, George (Devon, S. Moiton) | O'Dcwd, John | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) |
| Lansbury, George | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | O'Shee, James John | Summers, James Woolley |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld. Cockerm'th) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Leach, Charles | Parker, James (Halifax) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Lundon, T. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Pointer, Joseph | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Maclean, Donald | Pringle, William M. R. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Radford, G. H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Webb, H. |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Reddy, Michael | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| M'Laren, Walter S. B. (ches., Crewe) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Manfield, Harry | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Robinson, Sidney | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Captain Guest. |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe remaining Amendments are either out of order, or else they should be moved at a later stage.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI desire to inform the Committee that it will be necessary for us to take the Financial Resolution after Clause 2 to-morrow, because we cannot get any further without it.
§ Lord BALCARRESI presume it will not be necessary to take the Report Stage of the Financial Resolution on Friday?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEUnfortunately we cannot proceed with Clause 3 without the Resolution. I am afraid we shall have to take the Report Stage the first thing on Friday to enable us to go on with Clause 3.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDoes the right hon. Gentleman propose to suspend the five-o'clock rule on Friday?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).