CLAUSE 8.—(Rates and Conditions of Benefits.) (Hansard, 17 July 1911)

HC Deb 17 July 1911 vol 28 cc697-840 697

§ (1) The benefits conferred by this Part of this Act upon insured persons are—

(a) Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines (in this Act called "medical benefit");
(b) Treatment in sanatoria or other institutions when suffering from tuberculosis, or such other diseases as the Local Government Board with the approval of the Treasury may appoint (in this Act called "sanatorium benefit");
(c) Weekly payments whilst rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, commencing from the fourth day after notice thereof is given, and continuing for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks (in this Act called "sickness benefit");
(d) In the case of the disease or disablement continuing after the determination of sickness benefit, weekly pay- 698 ments so long as so rendered unfit by the disease or disablement (in this Act called "disablement benefit");
(e) Payment in the case of the confinement of the wife of an insured person, who is not herself an insured person, or of a woman who is an insured person, of a sum of thirty shillings (in this Act called "maternity benefit");
(f) In the case of persons entitled under any scheme made in accordance with this Part of this Act to any of the further benefits mentioned in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act (in this Act called "additional benefits") such of those benefits as may be distributable under that scheme.

§ (2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the rates of sickness benefit and disablement benefit to which insured persons are entitled shall be the rates specified in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

§ (3) The right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the insured person attains the age of sixteen and shall cease on his attaining the age of seventy, but, save as aforesaid, the right to benefit (other than additional: benefits) shall continue throughout life.

§ (4) Except with the consent of the society or committee administering the benefit, no insured person shall be entitled 699 to any benefit during any period when he is resident either temporarily or permanently outside the British islands, or to medical benefit during any period when he is resident outside the United Kingdom.

§ (5) Where an insured person, having been in receipt of sickness benefit recovers from the disease or disablement in respect of which he receives such benefit, any subsequent disease or disablement, or a recurrence of the same disease or disablement, shall be deemed to be a continuation of the previous disease or disablement, unless in the meanwhile a period, continuous or discontinuous, of at least twelve months has elapsed, and at least fifty weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him:

§ Provided that the benefit in respect of such subsequent or recurrent disease or disablement shall not commence to be payable before the date at which it would, apart from this provision, have commenced.

§ (6) Where a woman is herself entitled to maternity benefit she shall not be entitled to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, or medical benefit at and for a period of four weeks after her confinement.

§ (7) Notwithstanding anything in this part of this Act, no insured person shall be entitled—

(a) to medical benefit during the first six months after the commencement of this Act;
(b) to sickness benefit unless and until twenty-six weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;
(c) to disablement benefit unless and until one hundred and four weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least one hundred and four contributions have been paid by or in respect of him;
(d) to sickness benefit in respect of any disease or disablement which commenced during the twenty-six weeks, or to disablement benefits in respect of any disease or disablement which commenced during the one hundred and four weeks, next following his entry into insurance;
(e) to sickness benefit or disablement benefit during any period when he is provided with board and lodging by his employer;
(f) to maternity benefit unless and until twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two weeks have elapsed since his entry into insurance, and at least twenty-six, or in the case of a voluntary contributor fifty-two, contributions have been paid by or in respect of him.

§ (8) As soon as a sum has been 'accumulated by investment sufficient to provide interest at 3 per cent, per annum on the amounts then standing to the credit of all approved societies the benefits payable to insured persons under this part of this Act shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine, but in determining the distribution of such extended benefits amongst the persons who become entitled thereto regard shall be had to the claims or special considerations of persons who have entered into insurance at an early age.

§ Amendment proposed [12th July], in Sub-section (1) paragraph (c), leave out the word "Weekly." ["Weekly Payments"].—(Mr. Lees Smith.)

§ Question again proposed, "That the word ' Weekly' stand part of the Clause."

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I understood that this Amendment was accepted at the end of the last sitting. It is a mere drafting Amendment, and the point of it is this: Suppose a man was sick for say, sixteen days, how many days' sickness benefit under this Clause would he be entitled to. With the period of four days he would only be entitled to one week?

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I was not quite clear as to what the object of this was. There may be something in it. It is a point of drafting. Perhaps the word "periodical" would be better.

§ Mr. H. W. FORSTER
Is it necessary to put in anything of the kind here. You could deal with it later under the schedule.

§ Question, "That the word 'Weekly' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), to insert the word "Periodical" before the word "payments" ["payments whilst rendered "].

§ Amendment agreed to.

701

§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (c), after the word "disablement," to insert the words "of which notice has been given."
4.0 P.M.
This Amendment is intended to raise the whole question of the notice to be given in the event of disablement and of the effect of that notice. It seems to many of us that the Bill makes the benefit depend solely upon the notice, and we are convinced that that would in all probability inflict great hardship among many of those who may be victims of disablement through sickness, disease, or mental disability. Those of us who are connected with trade unions have had experience of this difficulty already. The wife of a sick member does not always think straight away of the necessity of tendering notice for the benefits to which her husband may be entitled. In all probability, if the sickness is a very serious one and comes on suddenly, the house is thrown into a state of great confusion, and, whilst the doctor is sent for, the benefit to which the man is entitled from a friendly society or a trade union is often lost sight of for two or three days. In such an event, the benefit provided by the Bill would not come into the home at all until notice had been duly tendered, inasmuch as the Bill makes the payment of benefit depend solely on the receipt of notice. We have other Amendments on the Paper; but we are not moving them to remove the necessity of notice altogether. We are actually providing for notice, but we want the notice to be put in such a way that the payment of the benefit will not be solely contingent upon it taking effect as from the date of the notice. What we seek to establish is that the benefit shall be contingent upon the disablement, although notice of the disablement will have to be given. We hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to make the qualifying period as short as possible. If he cannot see his way, as we should like to see him do, to make the benefit take effect from the day of disablement, we sincerely trust that he will make it operate as early as possible after the day of disablement is made known. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I read the Sub-section as it would stand in the event of our Amendments being accepted:—
"Periodical payments whilst rendered unfit to provide for their own maintenance by some specific disease or by 702 bodily or mental disablement of which notice has been given, commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered unfit."
It seems to me that the fourth day might be somewhat modified. There are Amendments on the Paper in the names of Members on both sides of the House proposing to strike out "fourth" and to substitute "first" or "second." I thought we might raise the whole question on this Amendment, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be disposed to tell us if he was prepared to make any alteration in the directions I have indicated.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am disposed to agree with the hon. Member that this Amendment would be an improvement of the paragraph. It is important that there should be notice; that is vital," but, after notice has been given, it might be desirable that the computation of the benefit should be from the date of illness. What we really want to guard against is the person who, the moment he has a cold in the head, runs off to the friendly society and says, "Give me my 10s. or 15s. a week." I do not think that is exactly the kind of case for which you set up a system of national insurance; but unfortunately there are many cases of that kind. I think on the whole it is far better that you should confine these payments to ailments of a more or less serious character. It is not as if the State would save anything by it; but I think it would be better that the money should be used for the purposes I have already indicated. My suggestion is that we should accept the Amendment, because a man may say, "I will not give notice now, the illness may not be serious," and it may afterwards turn out to be more serious than he had expected. I do not think in such a case he ought to be punished, because he has behaved well by the Insurance Fund. I think the benefit ought to take effect from the fourth day of the illness. I hope hon. Members will not press me on the question of the fourth day, because that would make a very serious difference. You would be taking away something like £600,000, which would be much more usefully applied in other directions. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will be satisfied with the Amendment which has been moved.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
If the Amendment is accepted in its present form I do not understand what evidence there 703 will be as to the date on which the illness began. I fully sympathise with the object of the hon. Member, but it is of the first importance to the security of the fund and the protection of the resources would have to cover all those who are insured, that fraudulent or mistaken claims shall be avoided. Unless you have notice of the commencement of the illness, how are you to check it? Take the case of a man who is feeling unwell; he is more or less sick, but does not think the sickness serious. It develops into a graver illness, and the man then wants the sick pay dated back. How are you going to test the claim? Very likely the man's own recollection will be quite vague as to the exact date of the commencement of the illness. In any case, unless you have notice at the time, I do not see how ex post facto you are going to verify his statement as to when the disease began. But perhaps the payment of any benefit is only to date back to the time when the man stopped work?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
He must have stopped work, but he need not necessarily have given notice?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Sick pay is to date from the fourth day. A man may say, "I am not likely to be ill more than two or three days," and he does not give notice. The sickness, however, develops into a serious illness. If he were put off to the fourth day after notice it would mean seven days instead of four. That is really what is intended to be covered. There will be the fact that he has ceased work, and also the doctor's certificate.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
There must be a doctor's certificate?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Oh, yes.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
And the man will have ceased work?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
That in the main meets my case. There is, however, a case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider between now and Report, namely, that of a man who for other reasons happened to be out of work when the illness began. That kind of case will have to be watched over for the general security of the fund.

704

§ Mr. GOULDING
I was glad to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the Amendment: The proposed procedure is entirely different from that of the friendly societies, because at present the day a member declares his illness he gets his benefit. I had put down an Amendment importing the plan of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which I think secures what the right hon.. Gentleman desires. Notice is given, and then, when the man has been four days ill,, the benefit dates back to the day on which he was seized with the illness. The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless fully alive to the fact that throughout the country there is an enormous amount of misapprehension with regard to this Bill. If he wants the., measure to be satisfactory to the poorer classes of the community it is vital that, he should try to meet them on those points-in regard to which they consider that injustice is being done. I have met a good number of friendly society members, and, it is impossible to explain to them that grave injustice has not been done by the Government as against friendly society institutions by depriving them of this benefit which they have to-day. Surely the right hon. Gentleman in adhering to his ideal of having notice given before the man gets, the illness benefit is making a mistake, May I say one more word, because I do-not quite understand his statement that it is not only minor illnesses. Friendly; societies insure for minor illnesses. If the members suffer from a serious illness then, they are bound to go to a hospital or an infirmary. What the rank and file of friendly societies do is to insure, not for the big illnesses, but the small ones. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will extend his sympathy a little more and say that the benefits can date back to the commencement of the illness.

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)
Clearly that is the same point that is raised by a later Amendment. I mention it now, so that if we are going to discuss it we shall not discuss it again.

§ Mr. GOULDING
If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite is accepted it will rule out the Amendment which I have-down on the Paper, because it deals more or less with the same point.

§ The CHAIRMAN
It does practically raise the same point; and if the Committee understands it in that way we can go on with the discussion.

705

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is how I understand it, and those are the conditions on which the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I looked at the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite once or twice, and considered it, and I was disposed to regard it as a way out of the difficulty. But I was warned of this, and I think it was a very important caution. The. Employers Liability Act—it is no use denying the fact—has worked badly. A man knows that if he loiters a little, say up to the fourth day, that he then will get paid for the whole four days. After a couple of days he knows that all he has to do is to hang on an extra twenty-four hours, and then he gets paid for the four. I do not think there is any doubt that it has encouraged a little bit of—I do not like to say "malingering," but we will call it "loitering on the way"—that is the danger. A man might say I have a bad cold. I have been in bed a couple of days, and if I can only make another day of it then on the morning of the fourth I get my 10s.

§ Mr. GOULDING
He has to have a certificate.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
He has a certificate that he is suffering from a bad cold. He need not have a certificate every day. I am not sure whether the certificate is altogether final. He gets his certificate now under the Workmen's Compensation Act; in fact, he has to get it. But it is not altogether conclusive, I am sorry to say. That is really one of the points which the doctors make; that it is very important that they should be independent. I have always justified that contention of theirs. I think it is unduly encouraging the prolongation of illness beyond what is really reasonable. A man who is ill for ten days gets his pay. He does not get the first three days, that is true. It is not a question of hospital altogether. It is a question of maintenance of the family. What I had in my mind was the larger illnesses. Therefore, I think it is far better that we should stand by this rule. What the real opinion of the leaders of the friendly societies is, what they would like to say if free is, that they would infinitely prefer this system, because the present system is a very costly done, and encourages a man who is readiest to seek that kind of aid. I believe that in Germany they have made a great struggle to get the third or fourth day, and I think they have got it. Might 706 I also point out that at the end of three years, if it is discovered that there is a surplus, it can be used wisely. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I would infinitely rather find the two-ninths for the purposes of extending the benefits to women or some kindred purpose than give it to a man who simply has been ill for two or three days. I do hope the Committee will see its way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the distinct understanding that the arrangement is subject to this alternative remaining.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to support the change to the first day from the fourth day. He has been telling us, and we have been discussing in Committee, the difficulties that may arise if certain suggestions are accepted. Why depart from the friendly societies' practice? All these difficulties have been considered by the friendly societies, and all the big societies, without exception, support their benefits being paid from the first day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to put a new system into his Bill, and that new system will undoubtedly produce a good many difficulties. He endeavours to justify it on the ground of expense. If he refers to the Actuaries' Report he will see, and the Committee will see, that the actuaries have not taken these four days into account at all. On page 17 of the Actuaries' Report they say:— We have not made any modification on the Man Chester Unity rules allowing for sickness benefit commencing after the fourth day of sickness, as by that a considerable saving will probably result. We consider this should be kept as a margin. The official scheme, as a fact, has been worked out on the Manchester Unity tables, and upon the practice of the Manchester Unity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought if the leaders of the societies were to say what they thought they would prefer to have the benefit starting from the fourth day, and not the first, I do not know to whom he refers. This matter has been discussed by the Manchester Unity and their conference has passed a resolution suggesting an Amendment to the Bill, reducing the period from the fourth day to the first day. The Foresters have done the same. The National Conference of Friendly Societies also passed a similar resolution. When you have the whole of these bodies in their official conferences all pronouncing against the scheme of the Chancellor of 707 the Exchequer it surely requires better justification than he has given the Committee to-day, when he asks the Committee to make such a great departure from friendly society practice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
May I, I will not say correct, but make one or two observations on what the hon. Gentleman has said? All I said was that I think the surplus could be applied to a better purpose. For instance, we had a very interesting Debate the other day on the extension of sanatorium benefits to women and children. We shall want all the money we can spare for that purpose. I should have thought it would have been far better to put the money to a purpose of that kind than use it merely in order to cover these trivial illnesses—for after all it only applies to trivial illnesses. I would rather, I say, put the surplus towards the extension of sanatorium benefits or other remedies for consumption. That is the sort of benefit I had in my mind when I spoke.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
My argument was that the money was there, and that the actuaries were keeping it as an extra margin.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Then I propose that it should be extended on increasing the benefits.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
Speaking as a member of a big friendly society I know that when we give notice we give it in something like the following form: "I, John Smith, am ill, and have been unable to follow my employment since the 14th July. Dated the 18th July." Friendly society benefit is then paid from 14th July. But if I had stated I had been ill from 1st July, and had dated the notice the 18th, no friendly society would pay benefit from the 1st, but only for the three or four days from receiving the notice. This Amendment is simply for the purpose of bringing the Bill into line with the friendly societies. Some friendly societies will undoubtedly cease to pay some of their benefits under this Bill, if it becomes an Act. That being so the Government ought to see to it that the members are treated no worse than under the society's rules. I am very pleased the Chancellor has accepted the Amendment. If I understand it aright, under it the benefit will be paid from four days prior to the notice being received. I want to 708 point this out to the Committee, that the suggestion that a person who is ill might malinger, or play the "old soldier," is not quite correct. I will tell the Committee why. I take it that the insured person will have to get a doctors certificate. He will have to send that doctor's certificate to his society, and if he does that he is giving notice before the fourth day; or otherwise, on the fourth day he is so ill that he is unable to follow his employment. That being so, I think we are justified in asking that our second Amendment shall be accepted. If I understand the Chancellor aright, it is that sick benefit has to be paid from the fourth day preceding the receipt of the notice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If this Amendment is accepted, instead of the fourth day after notice it would be the fourth day after the man has been rendered unfit— that is, the fourth day after he has had to leave work.

§ Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire. That Amendment was put down as a compromise; a compromise between extremes. I think it is a very fair compromise and a compromise that I know is approved by many of the leaders and many of the rank and file of the friendly societies. I have not consulted with the leaders, but I have talked with many of the rank and file of friendly societies in my own Constituency, and in different parts of the country, and I find that general consensus of opinion, that among many of the blots of this Bill—I do not say intentional blots—from the friendly societies point of view there is nothing that members of friendly societies resent so much as the fact that the benefit is not to be paid till the fourth day. They are willing to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend that it shall be paid on the first day, if it lasts four days. For little illnesses they do not ask for any benefit at all. They are prepared to make this concession, and they resent very much than their ordinary practice of paying on the first day should be departed from and that a rule should be laid down that they should only pay from the fourth day. The right hon. Gentleman agrees to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he refuses to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Goulding. I quite realise we must not discuss this matter twice over, but I feel 709 that the right hon. Gentleman is departing from the wishes both of the leaders and the rank and file of the friendly societies, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be allowed to move his Amendment so that we may take a Division upon it. We are not discussing this matter in any hostile spirit; we are simply anxious to improve the Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentle man the Chancellor will yet see his way to accept what is proposed really in a spirit of compromise.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to resist the appeals made to him by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken as if the demand they put forward had the unanimous support of the friendly societies. As a matter of fact, it is a subject upon which the friendly societies are divided. Only a fortnight ago a conference of the friendly societies met in Glasgow, and the resolutions of the conference have been sent to every Member in this House, and one of these resolutions strongly protests against the Amendment suggested from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for Worcester City (Mr. Goulding) spoke as if members of existing friendly societies were being deprived of a right which they were accustomed to possess. As a matter of fact, this is an additional benefit. Any society which wishes to do this will be able to do so after the first triennial valuation. I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman opposite will not be able to prove that a single member of any solvent friendly society will be deprived of one halfpenny if this Clause remains as it is. The representatives of the Hearts of Oak called upon a number of Members of the House the other day, and I went into the figures on this question with them, and I found that to give this benefit out of their funds would cost them 1s. 5d. per year per member, or less than ½d. a week. Does the hon. Member mean to say that if this Bill passed these friendly societies would not have one-third of a penny per week to spend as they like. Take the case of the Manchester Unity. Mr. Watson, their actuary, pointed out that if the Bill is passed a member of an ordinary benefit society will get for his subscription all his existing benefits, including this payment from the first day, and will get in addition all the extra benefits given by the Bill, including sanatorium, and after this every society will have l½d. per week to spend as it thinks 710 fit. Yet the hon. Member opposite thinks the society will not be able to afford this one-third—

§ Mr. GOULDING
I did not say that at all.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
Under the Bill of my right hon. Friend no member of a society will lose one halfpenny. The hon. Member for Colchester spoke as if this money was a margin held under the Government's Bill. Of course it is not held. The actuaries have noticed it, and all they say is that they are counting upon it as one of the advantages of the Bill. If you destroy the whole of this, what I may call the second line of defence, you are leaving merely the financial margin of 11 per cent, for men and 12 per cent, for women, and if you leave us with this margin, and this alone, you do not improve the position. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to accept this Amendment he would be giving a most perilous blow to the financial stability of the scheme.

§ Mr. BARNES
I wish to say a few words in support of the proposition which comes from the other side of the House. It seems to me there are two classes of men that have to be considered in this matter. There are those who come under the operations of this Act and are not at present members of friendly societies or trades unions, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequar has quite appreciated the position of these men. He spoke of men suffering from trivial illness for two or three days, and the saving that would be effected. But it means more than that. A man may be ill for two or three weeks and he will not get paid for the first few days if the Bill is only amended in the manner which the Chancellor indicated he is prepared to amend it. It may seem a small matter, but it is not a small matter for a very large number of poor people who are on wages which are just sufficient and no more to secure the ordinary necessaries of life. In the case of such a man it is a serious hardship that he should be deprived of sick pay for three days out of a week's illness, or out of ten days or two or three weeks' illness; and, therefore, I hope the Chancellor will reconsider this matter. So far as a man is at present a member of a friendly society or a trades union, it docs not matter a brass button to him, because the society of which he is a member will pay him his 10s. or 12s., as the case may be. But it is a matter of some importance to the society, because on an average illnesses do not last a long time—the average is 711 about, three weeks—and then the society in question is not going to get the relief from this Bill for one-sixth of the time that it is paying sick benefit. It is a serious matter from the society's point of view. I think there is ground for reconsideration, and for paying, I will not say from the first day—that might encourage a good deal of trivial illness—but I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he cannot accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member opposite he will at least leave the matter open for discussion, and that perhaps he might be prepared to accept the second or the third day for the fourth.

§ Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS
I feel grateful to the Chancellor for having accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but nevertheless I should like to join with my hon. Friend, who has just spoken, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will concede the further point. I am unable to understand why we should depart from the present practice of friendly societies. Despite what the hon. Member for Northampton has just said, I point out from personal experience that most of the friendly societies do pay benefits from the first day of illness. The hon. Member for Northampton defied anybody to prove that any member of a friendly society would be one penny worse off because of the Chancellor's provision. The friendly societies at the present day practically pay from the first day. They will continue that practice, undoubtedly, but their obligations will only extend to supplementary benefits. Therefore the man will not receive the 10s. or 12s. rate which he gets at the present time because the obligation undertaken by the State in relation to the friendly societies will simply consist of supplementary benefits. Therefore it is not accurate to say a man will not lose under this provision; he will still draw from his friendly society, but that will be a much lower figure that he at present receives when sick.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
Is it the case that under Clause 55 a friendly society will make a scheme by which it can pay all its members its benefits from the first day?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. G. ROBERTS
I am not denying that, but nevertheless that will impose obligations upon the friendly societies which should be undertaken by the State 712 scheme. My hon. Friend is dealing with an entirely different point. How we shall dispose of the surplus is a matter of ultimate consideration. Here we are dealing with the actual provision governing sickness. What happens now in the case of a man who calls upon the friendly society for benefit? He is not entitled to sick benefit until such time as a doctor has certified he is unable to follow his employment. He has to see a doctor or the doctor has to see him. That occupies the first day; and he cannot call upon the funds of the friendly society until such time as the doctor has certified him unfit, and I cannot imagine this operation could be accomplished under three or four days. If the right hon. Gentleman can produce statistics to prove I am wrong I shall be satisfied, but I am judging by the experience I have had in the practical working of friendly societies. I am a member of several friendly societies, and have been an actual worker and administrator in these friendly societies, and therefore what I am saying is not merely theoretical but is derived from actual experience. My experience is that very few illnesses are shorter than three or four days, and I do not see how the several processes I have mentioned can be covered in a less period of time. My hon. Friend who has preceded me pointed out a very substantial grievance. This is not merely a question of men suffering from trivial complaints. You may say if a man is not sufficiently ill to be away from his employment for three days such a case ought not to be encouraged to come upon the funds. But then you are imposing a very serious burden upon a man who is ill and who has to remain away for a fortnight or three weeks if you declare that for the first three or four days of his illness he is not to receive any benefit. I am satisfied there is no necessity for departing from the practice of the friendly societies, which pay sick benefit as from the first day of sickness, and it is from that point of view that I am in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.

§ Mr. WYNDHAM
I have had the advantage of conferring with representatives of four of the great friendly societies, and every one of them attached great importance to this Amendment. As a matter of fact, they referred the matter to an open meeting, and that meeting unanimously concurred with the view their representatives had taken. I understood that if it took three or four days to ascertain, and 713 in the end it was ascertained, the man was paid from the first day. These societies apprehend that under the Bill a man will not be paid until after the four days. Why should there be that departure from the standard already recognised? The Bill suggests that this practice leaves an open door for malingering, but it has not led to malingering in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes, it has."] I do not think hon. Members will deny that it has been in the interests of friendly societies to stop it. Do hon. Members think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to succeed in this matter better than the friendly societies? We are told that the members of friendly societies will not lose because they will continue to be paid from the first day. We cannot judge of these cases as isolated instances, and this matter is on all fours with the question we were discussing last week. If you put on friendly societies, in not one, but six out of seven cases, the obligation of finding out of their funds something the Bill does not provide, then you encroach on the financial stability of those friendly societies. When we come to consider and add up all the occasions upon which a burden is put upon the special funds of the friendly societies, I think you will find that this Bill will strike a deadly blow at those societies.

§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)
With regard to the question which was put to an open meeting of members of friendly societies referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that it was whether pay should be given from the first day of illness or from the fourth day. The right hon. Gentleman said that upon this question there was a unanimous vote in favour of payment from the first day. I am bound to say that if I had attended that meeting as a member of a friendly society and the question had been put to me in that form I should have voted for it. But that is not the way it ought to be put. If it had been said, "Here is a sum of £600,000; you cannot increase that sum; that amount is coming out of the money, part of which you have provided yourselves. Do you wish that sum of money to be spent upon you by paying from the first day of your illness or do you wish it to be spent upon some other form of benefit?" If the question had been put in that way, I do not think the Vote would be quite so unanimous. I ask the Committee and the hon. Member for Norwich to look at the question from that point of view. I do not 714 think it will be disputed in any quarter of the House that the tendency of payment back from the first day is to encourage, malingering. I will not put it higher than that. I do not think that will be disputed. When you have got £600,000 to spend is it not better to devise some means for the payment of that money for some benefit which will not encourage malingering rather than one which it is admitted has that disagreeable quality attaching to it. It must be remembered that the amount of money involved in this practice is not large and does not amount to more than 10 per cent, of the whole of the sick benefit. You have to remember that in the average case the man who is not paid on the first day docs not lose this 10 per cent, of his sick benefit because you are going to give him that 10 per cent, in another form. This sum of money is not counted in the provision made for sick benefit, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised that he will spend this sum upon benefits in another form. I submit that this is simply a business matter upon which there is no question of principle involved one way or another.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
We have not been told what benefits.

§ Mr. McKENNA
It is simply a business question as to whether this is the best way of spending the money.

§ Mr. NEILSON
I wish to give to the Committee my experience in a largo rural district in regard to a lodge of which I am a member. I have known two or three days of serious illness to elapse before the patient has received a visit from the doctor, or has been in a position to communicate with the doctor. In some of the rural districts of this country the doctors are very few, and I think this proposal is going to impose a hardship, perhaps more extraordinary than the hardship is at present, in the case of friendly societies. Upon this point I wish to read the by-law of the lodge of which I am a member, because it might strike the imagination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and show us a way out of this particular difficulty. It reads as follows:— Members who fall sick must obtain a certificate from the surgeon and send it to the residence of the permanent secretary on the same day, or sick pay will only be allowed from the date the secretary received the certificate. I wish to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, because I know in rural districts, when men are 715 ill, how difficult it is for them to communicate with doctors, particularly in the winter. In some of our sparsely populated districts it would be necessary for a sick man to have to travel four or five miles to communicate with a doctor.

§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I think every hon. Member of this House desires to deal fairly with the man who is genuinely sick. The only difficulty in discussing this Amendment appears to be as to how you are going to protect yourselves against those who malinger. I think it should be generally understood that the experience of those connected with the working classes to-day is that the employers themselves are dealing very effectively with the malingerers. It should be recognised that when any dismissals have taken place or when men are going to be discharged it is those who have lost most time that are first told to go. I am satisfied, from a long and personal experience, that frequently men hesitate about taking a few days off, even when they are ill, for fear of this consequence. I do not think we are justified in assuming that there is so much malingering as some people imagine. I entirely disagree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman as to how this matter ought to have been put to the meeting. I agree that if you submit to any meeting of men the question: "Are you in favour of sixpence or threepence," or any other sum, they will hold up their hand in favour of the largest amount. It is not a fair way to put the proposition to say, "Here is £600,000, and it is for you to choose as to whether this is the best way to spend it or not." What you ought to have put to the mass meeting is, "Here is the State taking over the administration of friendly societies work which they have been doing for a long time. Are you prepared from your experience of the friendly societies' method to allow the State to introduce a new method to that which experience has proved beneficial to the men."
It is quite true to say that there are some unions that do not pay sick pay until after three days, but it is equally true that over 90 per cent, of the friendly societies of this country pay sick pay from the first day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that if those responsible for the administration of friendly societies could be consulted they would tell a different tale. I know that they 716 have been consulted. They have studied this Bill carefully both from the standpoint of the State and from the standpoint of their own members, and without exception they support the Amendment which we are proposing. [HOST. MEMBERS: "No."] I have had an ample opportunity of judging upon this point, and I say that the general preponderance of opinion is in favour of paying the sick pay from the first. Take the case of a man who is wholly dependent upon this ten shillings benefit. You are practically saying to that man, "We expect you to keep your wife and family for five shillings." Whilst you are punishing the man who malingers you are also punishing the man who may have a long illness. I hope the Committee will act in accordance with the well-established practice and experience of the great bulk of friendly societies in this country.

§ 5.0 P.M.

§ Mr. COOPER
The First Lord of the Admiralty has pointed out that this is simply a business matter, and he appealed to the Committee to look at it from a business point of view. I think, if one does, it is very difficult indeed to agree with the proposal which has emanated from the Government. Their proposal is that sickness benefit shall be paid from the fourth day, knowing it is contrary to the practice of the great friendly societies, and knowing further that the friendly societies, and certainly the big ones, are almost certain to make up that hiatus of the first three days themselves, and to give their members payment for that time. I think it would be a very bad thing indeed in a scheme like this to create a sort of dual system in the matter of sickness benefit. It would be far better if the Government recognised the benefits members of friendly societies are enjoying to-day and will certainly require to enjoy in the future, and left the friendly societies to deal with benefits additional to those laid down in Clause 8, and additional to benefits necessary in connection with sickness among the working classes.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I would ask the Committee whether we ought on the first part of Clause 8 to dispose of our available funds. We have to consider many problems connected with the doctors, women, children, and sanatoria, and, if right at the commencement we are going to say how we will dispose of our available money, we had better face the facts of the situation. I do not think, if we were to ask the 717 friendly societies to make their choice, they would select this benefit. If you said increased benefits were to be made in certain portions of the Bill, I do not think they would choose this one. In administering this Bill, you will have three great groups: the existing friendly societies, the trade unions, and the new approved societies. The existing friendly societies deal with five or six millions out of the sixteen or seventeen millions who will come under the Bill. We must, therefore, look at it as a whole. We shall have many chances to alter this Bill and to dove-tail it into the work of the friendly societies. We are, however, simply recasting the Bill and laying up difficulties for ourselves in the later portions of it. I think this is too narrow a view to take. I was anxious when the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. George Roberts) was speaking of his experience of the friendly societies, he should go on to show that in some way the trade unions demanded this, and he should also go on to show that all the new people coming in. as approved societies would exactly want this particular suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). It is perfectly certain they do not want an alteration of this kind. The influence of the societies' actuaries is rather in a contrary direction. The only communication I have had on the subject is from the Institute of Actuaries, signed by their president, Sir Gerald Ryan, a man chosen for distinction at the time of the Coronation, and in this letter he seeks to influence the Committee on this particular Sub-section rather in the other direction. He thinks the benefits are too great, and he points out that in the view of the Institute, under the data of the actuaries who framed the Bill, the benefits should be tightened. We are admitting an Amendment which enlarges the scope of the benefits, and we are running in direct opposition to the whole Institute of Actuaries.
I appeal to the House as one who will perhaps have a considerable share in forming and working the new approved societies under the Bill to deal with many millions not now dealt with. Many Members of the House will have to buckle to and endeavour to group the small societies that would otherwise be shut out, and to bring into various forms of approved societies many millions, and I do appeal to the Committee not to begin by making it difficult. Surely, if we are going to form these societies, it must be on a sound actuarial basis, and, if you introduce Amend- 718 ments of this sort, you will not get the actuaries to co-operate in the formation of these new societies. It is not a case of money being rained from Heaven. There is a certain amount contributed under this scheme, and, if you spend it in the first four days, you will have to deny yourselves on many Amendments which hon. Members 'have put down to later portions of the Bill. It seems to me we shall be able to spend the money to a much better advantage, and, if we are not spending it to the best advantage, we are striking at the actuarial basis of the scheme and making it insolvent. Nearly all these large friendly societies are insolvent now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They do not deny it. I must ask hon. Members to verify the facts. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this statement some days ago in the House, hon. Members opposite did not challenge him. I think he said there was only one solvent. I am not making any attack on them. I am only showing the great difficulties with which they have had to grapple. We want to help them out of their difficulties, so that they may become sound institutions and not add to their liabilities by an unsound scheme.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I have listened to this discussion certainly without any desire to take other than the business side of it. I think the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Booth) was wrong in bringing in the actuaries, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it perfectly plain the money is going to be spent anyhow, and, if that is so, the financial position will not be affected whether it is spent one way or the other. It seems to me to stand to reason if a man has a slight illness for two or three days and he knows if he returns at the end of the fourth day he will benefit by it, and if he returns at the end of the third day he will get nothing, there is a strong temptation to him to make his illness last four days. I therefore think it will be a temptation to a man to prolong his illness. On the other side, it is really a question of what is desired by the men who are going to be affected by this Amendment, and, when I hear Member after Member below the Gangway point out that in the case of a man ill for a fortnight or ten days the loss of the first three days' pay is most serious, I think it is a matter we really ought seriously to consider. I am not sure the First Lord of the Admiralty was not a little wrong when he came so hastily to the conclusion that if he had been a member of one of the 719 friendly societies to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) referred, he would at once have taken one view. He would have taken that view if he had meant to be a malingerer, but not otherwise. If he was a member of a friendly society and meant to act fairly, then he would vote to benefit' others with himself and not to get an unfair advantage for himself. It is a vital consideration, and it is one which will turn my mind in the direction of the Amendment, that the men who are members of the friendly societies wish the benefit in this particular form. If it were possible to postpone the matter, I would far father do that than give a vote on one side or the other at this stage. It is really a question which benefit is best for the men. I do not think we can judge of that when we have only one particular benefit before us, and when other shadowy benefits are held out to us. Is it possible to leave this and to decide it later on when we have clearly before us the alternative benefits which the man may receive instead of this?

§ Mr. GEORGE THORNE
I should like to join in the appeal just made from the Front Opposition Bench. It seems to me a matter of such great importance that there should if possible be general agreement. It would be very unfortunate if we went to a Division and were divided on such a matter. I would, therefore, sincerely join in the appeal for an adjournment of the discussion if that be feasible. Although I agree with the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that other benefits may be provided for women and children—and with that all of us are in sympathy—nevertheless the interests of the women and children are involved in this Amendment, because, if a man while sick goes without pay for four days, the women and children suffer as well as himself. It is therefore a matter affecting their welfare as well as the welfare of the insured. It seems to me a matter which should be chiefly decided by the members of the friendly societies, and I want to be guided by the opinion of the friendly societies, who have had great experience in this matter when they have all the facts before them. An unwise and sudden decision might be come to if they had not an opportunity of discussing all the facts, and it seems to me more desirable everything should be taken into consideration. The whole point is this: Is 720 it wise to commence sick pay on the first day, and thus spend £600,000 in that direction, or is it desirable to keep it as a nest-egg for further benefits under the Bill? It materially affects the men who are concerned as insured persons, and I should like to be guided by the considered opinion of the friendly societies themselves. I should, therefore, like to join in the appeal that we should have a further opportunity of ascertaining what that opinion is.

§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
I am very much in favour of having this matter decided now, because, by putting these matters off, we are in danger of getting no decision at all on important points. I am very strongly in favour of this Amendment. I take the same view as the hon. and learned Member opposite that we ought in this question to be guided by the opinion of the insured themselves. It is much better they should select the form of benefit which to their knowledge is most suited to them than that we should enforce other benefits upon them. I rose to speak from the point of view of the small agricultural societies. I have been connected as manager with one of those societies, and I think I may say of all of them that the benefit starts from the first day after notice. Personally, I do not know any exception to that as regards these small agricultural societies. It is very important that the small agricultural societies and the agricultural labourers insured in them should be properly considered, and I want to say a word on behalf of the agricultural labourer insured in the agricultural society. It is really not true to say he is a malingerer. It is unjust to accuse him of endeavouring to get these benefits instead of going to work. My experience is just the contrary. A man likes to get out to his work as soon as he can. He is much happier at work than sitting at home, even although he gets certain benefits paid to him. I employ something like 200 people in the country, and I find every one of them wants to have the benefit on the first day. I do not find any of them ever malingering, and I think that is an unfair aspersion against them. They want to do their work, and they are happiest when they are at work. I think that is true of all classes. All classes are happiest when at work rather than when sick or when trying to make people think they are sick. Although I do not think it exists, my hon. Friend provides against malingering in his Amendment, because ho proposes to introduce the same provision as in the Workmen's Compensa- 721 tion Act, that if the illness does not last four days no benefit shall be given. Representing as I do an agricultural community, I think it is of the utmost importance that this Amendment should not be postponed, and I hope that the Committee, in giving their vote, will bear in mind that, after all, it is the views of the insured persons that ought to be consulted, and, undoubtedly, the agricultural labourer wants his benefit from the very first day of his illness. I, at any rate, shall cordially support the Amendment.

§ . Mr. SNOWDEN
I think the first point, that in regard to malingering, has been dealt with most effectively by the last speaker. I do not believe that, in connection with friendly societies, there is at the present time very much malingering, I feel that an Amendment of this nature ought not to be rejected in the face of the opinions of the vast majority of those who are affected by it. Another point which has been put forward is that under this Bill there is only a certain amount of money available and, if it is all spent in one direction, nothing can be given in another. I cannot accept that contention. It is the business of this Committee to knock this Bill into shape; we have to say what we want; we have to make this Bill as good as we can possibly make it, and, if the sense of this House be that certain Amendments which cost more money should be incorporated in the Bill then it is the business of the Government to make complete their Financial Resolution and to find the necessary money to carry out the expressed wishes of the House. Personally I have had no experience of friendly societies, but I am willing to accept the views of my hon. Friends who have had such experience.
I am given to understand that in the case of the Hearts of Oak Friendly Society it would take 1s. 8d. per year per member to give this particular benefit. Now I would like to cite the case of a member of a friendly society in my own Constituency. He is a member of the Manchester Unity, he is now paying 1s. 6d. per month, or 4½d. per week, and, under this Bill, he will have to pay 4d. per week. "But," he says, "unless I can substitute my present friendly society payment to the extent of 4d. per week for the 4d. per week payable under this Bill I shall have to relinquish my membership of the friendly society because I cannot afford to pay more." Now this man is at present entitled to far 722 higher benefits from the Unity than he will get under the Bill. He is, in fact, entitled to 12s. per week sick pay, £10 funeral benefit, and £5 on the death of his wife, as well as other benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for the West Houghton Division of Lancashire said that he also pays 4d. per week. As I understand it there is only one halfpenny a week to give a man this additional sick pay and the funeral benefit. According to the hon. Member opposite one-third of the benefit would be required to give the three days additional sick pay in addition to the other benefits. Therefore, it seems to me, so far as I can understand it, that if the members of friendly societies are going to substitute 4d. of their present contribution for 4d. of the compulsory payment they are going to get far less benefit, and will be worse off than they are at present.

§ Mr. LANE-FOX
I think one point which has escaped the attention of the Government is that we are dealing with money which is coming largely out of the pockets of the working men, and it is, therefore, essential to consult them as to the form of its expenditure. The next question is in what way would they rather have this money spent. Now this is a point on which people in my own Constituency have a great grievance against this Bill. An ordinary agricultural labourer naturally objects very strongly to be deprived of three days' sick pay merely because it appears to the Government to be a better financial adjustment. This is a point which will give rise to great unpopularity, so far as this Bill is concerned. I think the Government hardly realise the importance which is attached to this particular point by a large number of those who are considering what is the effect of this Bill. I wish to point out that, in the case of an agricultural labourer, it is a very serious matter that three days' sick pay should be deliberately taken away from him. If he were consulted I am certain his opinion would prove to be in accord with that of the great friendly societies, the Foresters, the Druids, the Hearts of Oak, and the Manchester Unity. I have also a resolution to the same effect from the Leeds Federated Friendly Society. When the right hon. Gentleman questions our statement as to the views of the friendly societies, I would venture to ask him what opinions have been sent to him against this Amendment. Personally, I believe that friendly societies' opinion, as a whole, is in favour of 723 removing this limitation. At any rate, the vast majority of members of friendly societies are in favour of such a course. The great leaders of friendly societies do not always in these matters truly voice the opinions of their members, and, in many cases, the rank and file do not prove to be in agreement with the proposals put forward by their leaders.
The only other point I wish to raise is as to whether any authoritative statement is forthcoming as to what this will actually cost. There seems to be a considerable difference of opinion, and a suggestion has been thrown out as to the substitution of some alternative plan. But, unless we can be assured that a really valuable alternative can be produced I do not think our constituents will welcome our voting in favour of keeping this particular provision in the Bill.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I have listened with considerable interest in order to learn the reasons which have induced the Government in this matter to run counter to the practically unanimous expression of opinion coming from all the friendly societies, and, so far, I have heard no reasons advanced. After all, in this matter we must recognise the opinions of friendly-societies. The First Lord of the Admiralty appears to think that he knows the business of friendly societies better than they do themselves. With the deepest deference I dispute that. The First Lord told us that if the friendly societies had thought of a certain thing would have come to a different conclusion. But I venture to reply that they have considered this Bill and this particular question in the light of all the great experience which they have had in the working of sick benefits in the past, and they have practically come to an unanimous opinion that those benefits should be paid as from the first do. What, in the face of that experience, can be said against this proposal? For my part, I prefer, in a matter of this kind, the experience of men who have worked these benefits with enormous advantage to their members in years past, to the experience of any Minister, however eminent. I do hope that the Government will see that there is really no reason for interposing this purely artificial restriction of time by which you limit the condition on which sick benefit is to be given. Unless some reason can be given to us to justify our taking a contrary view, I shall certainly 724 most heartily support this Amendment, believing it to be in the interests of the insured, and carrying out their wishes.

§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE
The speeches which have, so far, been delivered have dealt with this Amendment from the point of view of friendly societies. But it strikes me there is another section of the community which will be affected even more seriously, and that is the unfortunate person known as the Post Office contributor. The members of friendly societies can at any rate look to their societies for some help, but those who are precluded from insuring either by reason of their small wages or other causes, will find themselves in this position, that, in the first week of their illness they will only be able to obtain two days' insurance money. This will press more hardly, of course, upon those who are in receipt of very low wages, and the 10s. a week which the Post Office contributor is to be allowed in order to maintain him and provide for his illness will, in the first week, be seriously reduced, as he will only get two days' pay. I venture to say that this occurring at the beginning of an illness, when nourishment is necessary, may have the effect of prolonging that illness. I think in the interests of the fund itself proper provision should be made for these men to enable them to keep the homes together when illness comes upon them. The argument as regards malingering might be used in any circumstances. Of course, there will be a serious danger of malingering, but that is one of the difficulties which the Government will have to face, and it is one which the friendly societies, at any rate, have faced in the past, and faced, as we have been told, successfully. I shall vote for this Amendment, and I hope it will be supported on both sides of the House, and that no attempt will be made to defer it, but that a decision will be come to, so that we can lay the matter before our constituents at the earliest possible moment. I deprecate these constant references back of questions, and their postponement, because it makes it much more difficult for us to explain to our constituents what the proposals of the Government really are.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I am sorry to disagree with the last observation of the hon. Member. I rise in response to something that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) Those who support this allocation of the money have naturally given every reason that can be urged in support of it. There is no 725 doubt whatever that strong grounds have been shown on both sides of the House for paying from the first day of sickness. On the other hand, I think grounds have been shown, I put it no higher than that, for the view that payment for the first day of sickness tends to malingering. I simply say it tends to encourage malingering, and I think that on the balance of these grounds we should spend our money in another form. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) put to us the question, what are the other benefits going to be? He said that unless we knew what the other benefits were we might, on the balance, prefer spending the money in payment of the initial three days. I was impressed by that argument, and it enforced upon my mind the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle, who asked why the consideration of this question could not be postponed until we knew what form the benefits which would require this sum of money would take. I consulted the Chairman when that suggestion was made as to whether the Government could agree to undertake to leave the matter for final decision upon the Report stage, and then readjust the benefits in such a way as the House, on the balance, might choose.
I find it cannot be done on Report, but this is possible, and we might consider it, that we should take the Bill in its present form as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and then in the later stages, after Clause 8, we could have an opportunity of judging of the nature of the benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose in order to expend this sum, totalling, I believe, £600,000, and then the Members of the Committee should then have an opportunity of consulting the friendly societies. It has been very much impressed upon me to-day that we should consult the opinion of the friendly societies. In that case their opinion could be taken upon the alternative benefits, and we would discover whether they were still firm on that three days' payment, and not inclined to change in favour of the alternative benefits. If it is found that the alternative benefits are not of a kind which would satisfy this House and the friendly societies, it will be possible to re-commit the Bill. I should, therefore, be disposed to advise the Committee now to accept the Amendment of my Friend the Member for Barnard Castle on the understanding that no other change would be made in the Bill 726 at this point; and then, when the Committee have had properly before them and have had an opportunity of discussing the alternative benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will offer, if they then reject these alternative benefits and prefer this payment for the first three days, we can have the Bill re-commited and passed in the form moved by the hon. Member for Worcester City (Mr. Goulding).
That would be meeting all the arguments which have been put forward in every quarter except those of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) who goes further and says he does not wish to be bound by the Financial Resolution passed by the Committee. I must remind him that he voted against it, but the overwhelming majority decided in its favour. It does not bind the hon. Member or a single man who voted against the Resolution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor those who voted for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer qualified that."] The Resolution was passed and therefore I cannot accept at this stage the argument of the hon. Member that this question has got to be considered without any regard to anything the Committee have done already. This matter has been pressed with considerable force from both sides of the House, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy most hon. Members. We will be prepared to accept the Amendment of the Member for Barnard Castle; then to leave the Bill in its present form at this stage; and to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle to take into consideration the alternative benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to move, and if these are not accepted the Bill should be recommitted in order to put it into the form suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester City.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I do not want to strike a discordant note, but the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is one that I do not think we should be well advised to accept. We have got to face the problems with which we have to deal in this Bill, and we shall not make that task any easier by postponing all the difficulties. We have got to settle them some time or other, and it is nearly time we began to face some of them with a view to a settlement. The First Lord of the Admiralty has suggested that we should postpone dealing with this question until 727 we were able to compare its value with the value of the alternative benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have told us sooner—I gather that he referred to it to-day—that he intended to offer this £600,000 for the provision of sanatoria treatment for the wives and children of insured persons. A large number of us take the view that that is a national matter, and that the money necessary for the provision of that kind of benefit ought not to be subtracted from the contribution which we are going to take from the insured persons. I think the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Barks-ton Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) is a very strong one. He says you are taking the money contributed from the pockets of the working men, and you should accept the opinion of the majority of them as to how these benefits should be divided. There is not the slightest doubt whatever of the wish of the great majority of the workmen that the benefits should be given from the first day of sickness. The First Lord suggested that we should postpone coming to a decision upon this question so that we might have time to consult the friendly societies. Why, God bless my soul, Sir, if I may use such a remark, we have been bombarded with the views of the friendly societies in this matter until I think every Member who has had time or opportunity to read the voluminous mass of correspondence that has poured in upon us every day must have been driven to the conclusion that at least 90 per cent. of the friendly societies desire to have this question settled in the manner suggested in the Amendment of the Member for the City of Worcester. I do not think we shall make it any easier for ourselves to reach a decision if we postpone that decision to a later stage of the Clause. I think it is fundamental that we should settle before we go any further the principle upon which sickness benefit is to be paid, so far as the waiting period is concerned, which we insist upon for the payment of sickness benefit. I do not think it necessary to take up time further arguing the merits of the case. I hope we shall come to a decision now, and not postpone it.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I rise only for the purpose of pointing out that when I made my suggestion to the House I did so because I was prepared to accept a proposal to postpone the matter which had come from 728 the Front Opposition Bench. It shows the difficulty of dealing with the views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when, after we had considered a proposal made from that bench, and consulted the Chairman of Ways and Means with a view of meeting it, and when we had met it, another Gentleman gets up from that bench and repudiates it and attacks the Government for accepting it. I think that was where he used the phrase "God bless my soul" when he was showing how foolish I had been in not being aware of the arguments that could be used against this proposal which emanated from that Front Bench. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, it does make it very difficult to endeavour to meet their views and arguments, which, I admit, are put forward with the genuine desire for the interests of the Bill. I think the House will agree that we have made a very fair offer.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I only want to say one word in answer to the point the right hon. Gentleman has made against me. He says it was suggested from the Front Bench here that we should postpone this matter, and that then, when the Government agreed to it, I got up and attacked them. That shows the difficulty of treating Bills in a purely non-party spirit. My right hon. Friend thought there were some ad-vantages about postponing it. On the other hand, I think it is essential that we should come to a decision now, and all I say is, that, if we are to treat this Bill in a purely non-party spirit, we shall inevitably find these minor differences occurring among Members of the Front Bench.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I hope the Government will not give way on the point before the House. Some hon. Members have urged their case with regard to persons who have serious illness, yet the disadvantages of the proposal are so enormous, and they would lead to so many claims upon the fund that I feel quite convinced it would bankrupt the fund. There is no question amongst those who have had any practical experience that a large amount of insolvency among friendly societies is due to the fact that they pay from the very first day of illness. In the first place it is often exceedingly difficult to know at an early stage whether the illness is serious. If we were to allow a person who has a trivial illness, which could easily be spun out to a week, to claim on the fund for a full week's pay we should be placing a great 729 burden upon the fund, and should be doing more than anything else to encourage imposition on the fund. In many respects the Workmen's Compensation Act operates somewhat unfairly and encourages malingering to some extent, and I believe that if a man who was alleged to have influenza could claim a week's pay from the beginning of his illness we should be placing such an enormous amount of additional charge on the fund as to make it unworkable. We are all anxious to do the very best we can to prevent sickness, but the hardship which arises in the case of a man who is ill for three or four days is comparatively trivial if we compare it with the enormous benefit which we confer on the community as a whole by avoiding charges for this very limited period and using the money for much more valuable benefits of a much more permanent character. If it is possible for a man to hang about for a day or two and then send for a doctor, who cannot come until the next day, and when he does come says there is nothing much the matter with the man, we can see that if we allow that individual to demand payment from the first day on which he thought he was ill, or if we made it possible when a doctor was not at all certain as to the nature of the illness for him to give a certificate that the man was laid up, it would be open in multitudes of cases, unless we insist upon some limit, for the insured person to claim upon the fund from the very beginning. I sincerely hope that those of us who are fully desirous to see these additional benefits of a permanent and incalculable value conferred will not seek to burden the fund by placing upon it a charge of this description.

Colonel WILLIAMS
The hon. Member is mixing up two things—the beginning of the illness and the date of the notice.

§ Dr. ADDISON
The point I am speaking on is that payment shall date from the first day.

Colonel WILLIAMS
That is not the Amendment. The Amendment is that payment shall date from the first day after the notice and not the first day after the illness. That makes all the difference. By far the larger number of persons insured are insured in the Country, where it is the invariable practice to pay from the first day of sickness without any delay at all. There is a great deal In favour of the Amendment from the point of view of what has been the 730 practice that the payment should count from the first day of the notice. A man may have been ill for three or four days and the doctor has not quite made up his mind what the matter with him is. If the notice is given and accepted by the society then payment begins at once and not four days afterwards.

§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR
The disadvantage of discussing two Amendments together, in my judgment, is very great. Apparently the whole House is in favour of the Amendment as the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted it, but what we are doing is to discuss another Amendment by the Hon. Member (Mr. Goulding). I am in a little difficulty. Why not proceed to vote on the Amendment, about which we are all agreed and discuss the other point separately. The Chair has allowed this for the convenience of the House, but it is a most awkward thing for us to be discussing two Amendments together.

Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)
There are two points that I for one do not understand and I think we ought to come to a definite understanding about them. The first is from what date the payment is to commence, and, secondly, what is the minimum payment. I understand that to take out the word "weekly" and to put in "periodically" does not meet the intention at all. We are almost contemplating payment for three days illness only, which I gather is what the House does not want. In the case of a serious illness we want to know when the man has the first opportunity of handling the coin. That is the practical point. If it is to be a week or the fourth day that puts it off rather further than is the custom in the country at any rate. Roughly speaking, ten or eleven days is too vague. On the other hand if we accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Goulding) without any definition of the minimum period of payment, we may have to pay for only two or three days' illness. Now that "weekly" is taken out, there ought to be some understanding as to what the minimum payment shall be, say 10s. per week, and then if there is a minimum definitely stated I shall not hesitate to say that we might take the payment from the first day that the real illness is certified.

§ Mr. GUINNESS
There is a consequential Amendment which limits this to four days.

Mr. J. W. WILSON
We are discussing the whole matter at once. My contention 731 is that the minimum payment ought to be not less than one week for a case of illness, but that the man ought to be able to handle it at the end of the first week from the date of his illness and should not have to wait for twelve or thirteen days for it on the one hand, nor should we be exposed to the risk of having to pay for such a short illness as three or four days. I hope it will be quite clear that a week is the minimum time of payment in cases of serious illness, and that the payment shall begin a week after the illness and not ten days after.

Dr. ESMONDE
Besides handling the money you have the question of health to consider. There is sometimes very great difficulty in getting a bonâ fide working man—the bulk of working men are not malingerers—to come in time when he is really ill. If you are going to put this matter off until the fourth day you may save a certain amount of malingering—I deny that malingering is at the commencement of an illness; my experience is that nine-tenths of it is at the end of an illness—but there will be a greater amount of very serious illness. That illness is going to be a great drawback, not only to the men and their wives and families, but to the funds which you are going to dispense. If a man gets on for a week and is put off at the end of a week—if doctors attend to their work they will see that he gets off as soon as he is fit for work—you will not have the same amount to pay as if you allow him to come on for two or three days and then perhaps have a serious illness which will draw twenty-six weeks out of your fund. I think any general practitioner will tell you that the number of bonâ fide working people will not come on the fund until they are obliged to, and that it is by men not coming on in time in many cases that long illnesses are caused which throw a lot of expense on the funds of friendly societies.

§ 6.0 P.M.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
As I understand the position it is this. The House is practically unanimous in regard to the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson), but in dealing with the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised another question which is dealt with in an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Goulding), and with the assent of the Chair a discussion on the two Amendments was taken to-together. I understood the Chairman to 732 say that he would allow them as a matter of convenience, but that he could not allow a double discussion. Therefore when we have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. A. Henderson) we shall have an opportunity of voting on the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Goulding), but it will not be open to us to renew the discussion upon that Amendment. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Radcliffe Division was not in the House at that stage.

§ Mr. T. TAYLOR
I have been here during the whole discussion.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested a certain course which the Chairman said he would not allow, namely, a discussion on the two Amendments on this Amendment. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington, that is a different matter, which is not covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Mr. Arthur Henderson), nor by such an Amendment as is foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). I agree that if it is inconvenient to discuss these two Amendments on one Amendment, it would be still more inconvenient to discuss three Amendments now. I hope the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Islington will be left over until we have cleared the Paper of the other two propositions. For myself I am quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division, and I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester if he presses his Amendment to a Division.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Inasmuch as we are about to decide on this Amendment, and as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has put the position from his point of view, I should like to put the position from the point of view of the Government. The reason why I suggested that we should discuss the two Amendments together was this: My hon. Friend's Amendment undoubtedly involves an extension of the benefits. It has been pointed out that in the case of agricultural labourers it takes three, four, or five days before they can give notice, and if they have to claim benefit from the day notice is given, it is not merely four days, but it may be nine days, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle has proposed an Amendment that the benefit should date back to the time of illness, 733 Clearly that is an extension of the benefit, and I think it is very desirable before that extension is agreed to that the Committee should take into its cognisance the whole situation. I think that was generally the view accepted by the Committee. I want to put the whole position before the Committee before we come to a decision, because it is a very important position. It is a decision that not merely affects four days. I want the Committee to be fully aware that it is a decision which affects an important Amendment which I saw my way to accept, or rather to introduce into the Bill, and it affects others than those with whom the Amendment now before the Committee deals.
I want the Committee to fully realise what they are doing. So far as we are concerned, it is choosing between two benefits, because the cash is limited. It is the only money we can see our way to get, and if the Committee come to the conclusion that they would rather take it in this form, then there is no money for the other benefits which I thought I could see my way to extending the scheme to. What are we deciding? We are deciding whether the Committee shall now incorporate in the Bill at this stage a provision for sick pay for small and trivial illnesses extending over two or three days, [HON. MEMBERS: "Four days."] On the fourth day payment begins. Let me point this out. If we accept this Amendment, it is on the fourth day from the time the illness begins that payment begins, and that is a, very important modification of the Bill As a matter of fact it may be better than the present practice of the friendly societies. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I admit that my hon. Friend has a wider acquaintance with friendly societies than I have. He has pointed out that it is very often two or three days before a man is in a position to give notice.

§ Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS
My point was that the illness must have lasted three or four days before a man can give notice. He has to be seen and certified by a doctor, but he comes on the fund from the first day. He cannot return to work unless he gets a certificate from the doctor that he is able to return.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Even the first process covers some time. This is what I wish to point out to the Committee. I have consulted the actuaries and I find that this is a matter of £560,000. My proposal was that the whole of that £560,000 734 should be applied for the purpose of extending the benefits of treatment for consumptive women and children. My proposal was that when we come to Clause 34 there should be some modification of the provision in regard to those who, having first of all come into the fund as working women, marry and get out of the fund. My hon. Friend said: "We want to be quite sure that we shall get the £560,000." I quite agree that he is right in trying to make sure of that. Then comes the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law). He asked whether in the event of the proposal of the hon. Member for Worcester not being carried out, we would recommit the Bill in respect of these benefits, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) said "Yes, I will accept that." Having accepted that, forthwith another hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite said "I cannot accept that." The offer of my right hon. Friend still holds good, namely, that if it is discovered that we have not carried out our undertaking in regard to the application of this money, then the Bill should be recommitted for the. reconsideration of this identical question. We still stand by that. On these conditions, I say it is a matter for the Committee. We cannot abdicate our responsibilities in the matter. Our view is that the benefits we suggest as an alternative are infinitely better benefits, and it is a question whether the Committee think that this is a better offer. If eventually we find that the money is not going to be spent in the way suggested, the Bill can be recommitted with a view to considering this question again.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a statement with all his accustomed kindliness and ingenuity. I quite agree with him that if there is a certain sum of money to be allocated, the right solution is not that put forward by the hon. Member opposite. I could not help being a little surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said on the subject. The hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division seemed to be under the impression that he could vote for any number of Amendments, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find the money sooner or later. We have to decide, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, between a good many benefits. Surely the best thing to do is that those in favour of this Amendment should carry it now, and if it turns out in subsequent Debates 735 that there are more effective proposals and better ways of spending the money, nothing is easier than to go back upon the decision come to now. The procedure of this House has many faults, but irrevocability is not one of them. There will be plenty of opportunity to strike out these words and to restore the original words if we are convinced that they provide a better way of spending the money. But do not let us part from this Debate without coming to a decision of the merits of the Amendment which has been presented to us, because if we do we shall have to enter upon another discussion when the arguments used to-day will not be so fresh in our minds. We shall then pass from point to point, never coming to a decision of our own at all, but coming to the conclusion which under the skilful management of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he wants us

736

§ to come to. The Committee has been asked to knock the Bill into shape. We have an opportunity of knocking it now. Let us knock, and if we find we have made mistakes, let us knock them out at subsequent stages of the Bill. The right way to proceed is not to postpone the decision, but to come to a provisional decision now, for after all we can revise it if we find that we have made a mistake.

§ Mr. GOULDING
moved, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), to leave out the word "fourth" ["commencing from the fourth day after notice"], and to insert instead thereof the word "first."

§ Question put, "That the word 'fourth' stand part of the Clause."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 150.

737

Division No. 272]	AYES.	[6.15 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Duffy, William J.	Lewis, John Herbert
Addison, Dr. C.	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Lundon, T.
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lyell, Charles Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lynch, A. A.
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Furness, Stephen W.	Macdonald, J R. (Leicester)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Goldstone, Frank	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Macpherson, James Ian
Barnes, G. N.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	M'Callum, John M.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Barton, W.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)
Beale, W. P.	Hackett, J.	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hancock, J. G.	Manfield, Harry
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Bentham, G. J.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Harmsworth, R. L.	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Meagher, Michael
Booth, Frederick Handel	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Brady, P. J.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Mooney, J. J.
Brunner, J. F. L.	Hayden, John Patrick	Morgan, George Hay
Bryce, J. Annan	Hayward, Evan	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Munro, R.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Murray, Capt Hon. A. C.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Cameron, Robert	Higham, John Sharp	Nolan, Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hinds, John	Norman, Sir Henry
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Chancellor, H. G.	Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Nuttall, Harry
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Hughes, S. L.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Clough, William	Hunter, W. (Govan)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Dowd, John
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Johnson, W.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Cotton, William Francis	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Cowan, W. H.	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jones. William (Carnarvonshire)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Crooks, William	Joyce, Michael	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Crumley, Patrick	Kellaway, Frederick George	Pirie, Duncan V
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Kelly, Edward	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Dawes, J. A.	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Pringle, William M. R.
Delany, William	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Leach, Charles	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Boris, W.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Reddy, M.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)	Watt, Henry A.
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Soames, Arthur Weltesley	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Robinson, Sidney	Sutherland, J. E.	Wiles, Thomas
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williamson, Sir A.
Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Rowntree, Arnold	Tennant, Harold John	Winfrey. Richard
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Toulmin, sir George	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Samuel, J. (Stockton)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Wardle, George J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Sheehy, David
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Gibbs, G. A.	Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Gill, A. H.	Nield, Herbert
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Goldsmith, Frank	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Grant, J. A.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Ashley, W. W.	Guinness, Hon. W. E.	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Astor, Waldorf	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Pointer, Joseph
Baird, J. L.	Hamersley, A. St. George	Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)
Baker, Sir R. L (Dorset, N.)	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Quitter, William Eley C.
Balcarres, Lord	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Baldwin, Stanley	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Ban bury, Sir Frederick George	Harris, Henry Percy	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hickman, Col. T. E.	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Sanders, Robert A.
Barnston, H.	Hillier, Dr. A. P.	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hills, John Waller	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hodge, John	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hohler, G. F.	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Bern, Ion H. (Greenwich)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bigland, Alfred	Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Snowden, P.
Bird, A.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Hume Williams, W. E.	Starkey, John R.
Boyton, J.	Hunt, Rowland	Stewart, Gershom
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Ingleby, Holcombe	Swift, Rigby
Bull, Sir William James	Jessel, Captain H. M.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Butcher, J. G.	Jowett, F. W.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Kerry, Earl of	Talbot, Lord E.
Cassel, Felix	Kimber, Sir Henry	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Cautley, H. S.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Cave, George	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)	Valentia, Viscount
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lee, Arthur H.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Locker-Lampson. O. (Ramsey)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craik, Sir Henry	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wilkie, Alexander
Cripps, Sir C. A.	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Croft, H. P.	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Doughty, Sir George	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Duke, Henry Edward	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Wolmer, Viscount
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Mason. James F (Windsor)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Falle, B. G.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Worthington-Evans, L.
Fell, Arthur	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Morrison-Bell. Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Forster, Henry William	Mount, William Arthur	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Foster, Philip Staveley	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Gardner, Ernest	Newdegate, F. A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goulding and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen
Gastrell, Major W. H.	Newman, John R. P.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Lord HENRY BENTINCK
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "weeks," to insert the words "and also weekly payments for any period not exceeding twenty-six weeks in respect of the wife or widow of any married male insured person while she is undergoing curative treatment by the order of a duly qualified medical practitioner in any sanatorium, or hospital, or other institution."
738 The object of this Amendment is to absolve the insured person from the necessity of giving notice. There is much reason to fear that if such necessity existed difficulties might arise in the case of ignorant persons who, owing to lack of knowledge, would not give notice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
This is a consequential Amendment, and I agree to it.

§ Amendment agreed to.

739

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (d), to leave out the word "weekly," and insert instead thereof the word "periodic."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) at end of paragraph (d) to add the words: "An insured person shall be regarded as being rendered unfit by disease or disablement if he, or she, is not in a position to earn in his or her usual occupation one-third of the amount which a physically and mentally healthy person engaged in the same industry in the same district would be capable of earning."
I think it is necessary to have a definition, and the definition contained in this Amendment, which was put down by the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir Alfred Mond) is a very good one.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I hope that the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment. It represents the German practice. We considered it very carefully, and we came to the conclusion that it would not be suitable at all. It involves consideration of questions of decimals, whether a correct figure would be 17.1, 17.2, or 17.4. That is the sort of thing which is being debated seriously in all the courts which interpret the Act of Parliament in Germany. It is far better to have an elastic definition, such as is in the Bill, which will be interpreted by the societies themselves, than to have constant decisions upon decimals, such as 33.3 and 33.5.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I would like to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means by an elastic rule which the societies are to interpret themselves? We did not raise this point on the previous Subsection. We did not move an Amendment which appeared on the Paper, and which made the matter plain, because we understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week that the Government merely inteded these provisions to apply in cases of total disablement, and not in cases of partial disablement. We ought to lay down what the intention of the House of Commons is. We ought not to leave it wholly to the discretion of the societies to say, "This man, in our opinion, is in such a condition that he ought to have disablement benefit," while another man equally disabled, or possibly even more disabled, would be refused. We ought to know where we are.

740

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree that the hon. Member might have very properly raised the question upon the previous Subsection. There was an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ross (Captain Clive), which, I must say, I liked, and I rather regret that he was not here to move it. That is the intention of the Bill. It is the view that the Government take as to the interpretation to be placed on this provision. If the hon. Member for Ross had been here I think he would have accepted that Amendment. I hope later in the course of the Debate he may see his way to move it. That is the rule laid down by members of the societies. It means practical incapacity. It is not altogether total incapacity. The rule is that if a man goes on working at his business he will get out of benefit; and unfortunately you have got to apply it, as otherwise you will encourage malingering. I trust, after what I have said, that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
This short discussion shows that the matter is not quite clear. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept on report the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross I will withdraw this.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ The CHAIRMAN
There are two manuscript Amendments handed in by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), which appear to have been submitted in order to get a ruling upon them. They are Amendments dealing with points on Clauses 34 and 36.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The only object of handing in these Amendments was to get your ruling. I do not want when we come to Clauses 34 and 36 to be told that we have passed the proper section, and that they cannot then be moved.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (e), to leave out the word "payment" ["payment in the case of confinement."]
This is in conjunction with a further-Amendment of paragraph (e), which would make the provision read as follows:—
"In the case of the confinement of the wife of an insured person, who is not herself an insured person, or of a woman who is an insured person, medi- 741 cal benefit and the payment of a sum of 30s. (in this Act called 'maternity benefit')."
The object of the two Amendments is quite clear. It is to provide that those persons who under the Sub-sections as it reads, will be entitled to maternity benefit, shall receive medical benefits also. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gained a great deal of credit on account of the maternity benefit. I entirely support the idea of maternity benefit; I think it is most important; but when we come, to consider what the maternity benefit actually is, I do not think it amounts to nearly so much as most people understand. It is simply a payment of 30s., and I believe the money is to be administered through the approved society or the health committee.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. I do not care whether this question is raised now or not, but I wish to make certain that it will not be raised twice over. It seems to me that the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise comes under Sub-section (6).
"Where a woman is herself entitled to maternity benefit she shall not be entitled to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, or medical benefit at and for a period of four weeks after her confinement."

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
May I point out that Sub-section (6) only deals with a case of a woman who is herself entitled to maternity benefit, but it does not deal with the case of a woman who gets it because her husband is insured. I could not raise the whole point if I raised it on Sub-section (6). I venture to submit my Amendment properly comes in at this stage.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Have we not already decided this question on paragraph (a), that medical benefits are not to be extended to married women who are not insured persons?

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is quite true that we decided that medical benefit was not to be given to married women who were not insured persons. But this is a much narrower point, and I carefully considered this morning whether I ought to allow this Amendment after the decision to which we came on paragraph (a). I took the trouble to go through the Debate on that point, and, really, there was so little 742 reference made to the particular point now raised by the hon. Gentleman as to medical attendance, that I thought it only reasonable to allow the Amendment. With regard to the other point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the case of the woman who is herself insured, that, of course, comes under Sub-section (6). I do not know if we could sufficiently separate the cases of the wife of an insured person and of the person who is herself insured, but it does seem to me that this is the right place to raise the point submitted by the hon. Member for Dudley. If the Committee came to the conclusion to discuss it in relation to Sub-section (6), I have no objection to offer, but strictly speaking the present discussion should be confined to the case of the woman who is the wife of an insured person who is not herself insured.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I am quite prepared to limit the Amendment to that, but it seems to me that we are dealing with the question of benefits, and that this is the proper place to consider the benefits to be given to those women who receive maternity benefit. I think, therefore, it would be more convenient if we took the discussion on paragraph (e). May I ask if we may really consider the two points together? For myself I have no desire to raise the point again on Subsection (6) if it is decided against me here.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It really does not matter whether the discussion takes place here or on Sub-section (6), so long as the Debate is not raised twice over. That is really all I ask for.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The paragraph we are actually discussing has reference to the two classes of women. It is quite conceivable that the Committee might desire to adopt a different decision in regard to the second of these two classes, I do not think it would be possible to debate that if we decline to give the benefit to both classes under this paragraph. In regard to Sub-section (6), I want to reserve my right to vote against it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If we discuss one class, it would be quite possible to say something about Sub-section (6). All I ask is that we should not have the Debate twice over. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to vote against Sub-section (6), that is a different matter.

743

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I want to reserve the right of the Committee to vote on Sub-section (C), without being prejudiced by what we may decide on the present Amendment.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The point decided upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) applied to wives and children of insured persons. I submit that is a very different point from extending it to wives.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not agree. We discussed the general question of medical benefit to wives and decided it. This is another point, and I think we can discuss it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I have also an Amendment on the Paper, and I do not want that any discussion on the present Amendment should preclude my bringing it forward. It is to leave out Sub-section (6) and to substitute the following:—
"Where the wife of an insured person is herself an insured person the maternity benefit to which she is entitled shall be paid out of such portion of the insurance fund as is applicable to benefits payable to men, and her right to other benefits shall not be prejudiced because she is in receipt of maternity benefit."

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Sub-section (6) deals with sickness benefit and disablement benefit as well. It would be very unfortunate if the discussion of the narrower point now were to prejudice the discussion on the larger point under Subsection (6).

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and two others of my colleagues, which refers very much to the same point. The Amendment provides to add the words at the end of paragraph (e) "which in the case of an insured person shall be in addition to the other benefits conferred by this part of this Act."

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot decide the question of that Amendment until I have heard what is said. The discussion of the present Amendment might partly settle the question of other benefits, and really I cannot tell until I have heard what is said what will be settled or will not be settled. It is an extremely difficult point. I cannot 744 see any way in which to make an arrangement which will be satisfactory. The best plan will be as far as possible to deal with the case of women who are wives of insured persons.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I will go back to the point which I was raising when the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the point of Order. It is proposed to give a lump sum of 30s. as maternity benefit, which is not to be handed to the woman. That is a point of administration we can discuss later. The proposal of the Bill does not include anything in the nature of a benefit in addition to 30s. When we come to Sub-section (6) we find it deals only with the case of women who are themselves insured, because as a matter of fact women who are not insured would not be entitled to any of these things. Therefore the woman who gets maternity benefit would not be allowed even medical benefits or anything else—no disablement benefit or sickness benefit for a period of four weeks. I submit that a woman in the case of maternity may very often be unable to follow her occupation for four weeks, so that the maternity-benefit during that period comes only to 7s. 6d. per week. That is precisely the sickness benefit which a woman gets in the case of ordinary illness, and in addition she also gets medical benefits. I submit that in the case of maternity benefit—

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is not discussing the point which you, Sir, have already ruled out of order? I understand he is discussing the case of a woman who is an insured person.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not know exactly what the hon. Member is saying, because my attention has been given to another hon. Member who has been consulting me privately, but as far as possible he ought to confine himself within the ruling I have given.

Sir A. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN
I was referring to the case of the insured woman, but I will not pursue that further, and I will take the case of the woman who is not insured but is the wife of an insured person. She gets maternity benefit because her husband is insured. This benefit, as I pointed out, amounts to 7s. 6d. per week for four weeks, and I submit that she ought to get the medical benefit as well, I am not in any way hostile to the Bill, but I want to improve it, and I beg to 745 assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this particular point has been very much criticised in the country. I want to make the maternity benefit really effectual and useful. I do not know what view the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take, and it may be that we shall be thrown back on that unfortunate financial resolution which was passed the other day. The right hon. Gentleman may say that I must not propose this Amendment, because it would largely increase the cost to the State. If that is so, all I can say is that it is another example of how our discussions have been confined by the financial resolution. In any case, I trust that will not be the line of argument taken by the right hon. Gentleman, but that he will try to add medical benefits to the maternity benefit now proposed in the Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I was not quite sure that I understood fully the import of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. As I understand it, he proposes that in every case where maternity benefit is paid they should also be paid another 30s. in respect of sick benefit.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I did not say that in every case where 30s. is paid that there should be another 30s. paid. What I say is that wherever there is maternity benefit there should also be medical benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
To confine it to medical benefit.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
Yes, in addition to maternity benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree that that is not nearly as formidable a proposition as I had apprehended. The other one was really very formidable.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I never proposed it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Let me just say exactly the position of the Government in regard to medical benefit and maternity benefit. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that the maternity benefit conferred by the Bill is a small matter. I wonder whether he has realised that there is only one friendly society that has undertaken maternity benefit, and that is a friendly society which confines its membership to those whose income is 24s. and over. They will not take members under that, so that they have got the pick of the working classes. They charge about 8d. 746 per week, and they give a maternity benefit of 30s. Some of the other societies give a kind of voluntary grant, but it is confined to very few. I think the Foresters have got a voluntary grant, and just a few thousands of their members have been able to enjoy it. Thus it is practically confined to one friendly society of a membership of 300,000. Take the 6,000,000 members of the friendly societies and take the big collecting societies and they never conferred maternity benefit. So for the first time we are proposing, not merely in respect of 300,000 people, but in respect of the whole millions of people who are married people, a maternity benefit which will give something like a million and a half per year. That is a very considerable sum to begin with. It runs from a million and a quarter to a million and a half. I do not think anything is gained by statements which do not represent the character of the benefit conferred. This is a very substantial benefit indeed.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I did not really say it was a small matter. What I said was that it was not nearly so large as many people had understood.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On the contrary, it is much larger than people understand. As a matter of fact, most people are so occupied in trying to get more out of me, and they realise that the only way to get more is by depreciating what they are getting, because if they said, "we are getting very large benefits and they are exceedingly munificent," they know that that is not the way to get more. They have just gone on the other plan, and they say, "30s. Is that all you give?" First of all we are giving a million and a half to the wives of insured persons. A criticism has been directed against the Bill that it is a hardship on the people who are insured twice over. In the case of a man who is paying the full premium he would be entitled to 30s. benefit even though the wife is not insured, but supposing his wife paid her sixpence per week she would be entitled to maternity benefit, and it is considered unfair that you should deprive her of what she has insured against. I am prepared to admit that and when the time comes to remedy it. That is in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) and of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), and others, and those are Amendments which I think it would be quite impossible to resist.

747

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I desire to have it made quite clear as to what the Chancellor proposes to do. Is it that in the case of the wife of an insured person who is herself insured that she should have double maternity benefit, or, in other words, 60s. instead of 30s.?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes. She is paying as if she were quite independent of her husband. She is making a contribution and she is entitled to the full benefit of her money. She is deprived of it because her husband is insured. On the whole I do not think it is possible to defend that except as a sacrifice on their part for the benefit of the rest. As they are not prepared to make it I think they are entitled to say: "We ought to get the full benefit of our money." What I propose in those cases is that you should transfer the maternity benefit from the woman's fund on to the men's fund, and that she should get her 7s. 6d. per week sick pay. That is the proposal which I make and I think it really meets the case. As to medical benefit in the case of married women who are not insured that involves a very great complication with the doctors. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has really calculated what it means. If you calculate a fee of 10s. in every case the doctor will say that you are compelling him to accept 10s. in every midwifery case; and the doctors will not do that. On the other hand if you say a guinea, that means a million and a half per year. That is a very serious charge on the fund and I am not prepared to undertake that responsibility at this stage at any rate unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to tell me that the doctors are quite willing to accept this and have it included in the medical benefits. Of course they are not. They always insist on a separate fund. Let us take the case of the woman whose husband is insured, and who is presumably poor; and then there is the case of the woman who earns. You give the 30s. to cover the medical benefits—that is the point. It is in order to see that she gets proper medical attendance. In a great many cases she pays a nurse. In some localities it is entirely a nurse's matter, and the doctor is never called in. In other cases the practice is to call a doctor in always. That is the rule. Whatever the rule is, this 30s. is provided for that purpose. It is to cover medical benefits, and if you give medical benefits in addition you introduce a serious complication to the doctors. I ask the hon. Member on whose fund would 748 he put this burden, if he imposed statutory obligation to pay the doctor in addition to the 30s., although 30s. is intended to cover the doctor's fees. Is he going to put it as a charge on the man's side or the woman's side? I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he must have considered this before he moved the Amendment.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN
Exactly in the same way as the 30s. is put on the men.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Does the hon. Gentleman really realise what that means. At the present moment the men's surplus is, I think, something like a million and a-half, available for additional benefits. The hon. Gentleman proposes with a stroke of the pen to wipe out a million one hundred thousand, which would leave them with a surplus of £400,000 which they could not utilise for the purpose of any additional benefits. I suggest that the Government has met the real grievance in this case, by saying that they are prepared to move an Amendment. This is what I propose to move to Clause 8, after Subsection (6):—
"Provided that the Sub-section shall not affect the right of such women to sickness benefit during such period, if her husband is also an insured person."
That means that she gets 30s. sickness benefit in addition to the maternity benefit. I think that is about all we can undertake.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
I take it that in that case you are not to give medical benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No. She will be getting £3, and 30s. is really going to her to supply medical benefits—doctor or midwife, as the case may be, and also comforts during confinement. That is what it is intended for. She will say either pay her doctor a guinea, and she will have nine or ton shillings, or she will pay a nurse half a guinea. Then, in addition, with the case I mention, she would get 30s. sickness pay. I think that substantially meets the only grievance that exists in those cases, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The Chancellor did not say whether the maternity benefit was to come out of the men's fund. That is practically my Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is so. I am substantially accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

749

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
There is one point as to this proposed Amendment as to which we are not quite clear here, and that is whether the extra sick pay in addition to the maternity benefit is to be given to an insured woman who has no husband working and paying?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No.

§ 7.0 P.M.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
Then the concession only applies to those working women who are themselves insured, and who also have a husband working and paying into the fund. If that is all, it is a very small concession. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has not realised how very small the concession really is. It can only apply to a very limited number of women. I submit, with all respect, that the widow whose husband is dead stands much more in need of the sick pay, in addition to the maternity benefit, than the married woman who has a husband also working.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Would the hon. Member propose to limit the extra benefit in that case to a certain period after the death of the husband?

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I had in mind posthumous children. But there is another class—the woman whose husband is alive, but unable to work. That is a very common class of case. Is she to be ruled out from receiving this sick benefit? She really has taken upon herself the responsibility of working for her children and of maintaining her sick husband. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider that case deserving of coming under the terms of the new concession. Another class of case is that of the woman whose husband, although not sick, has been unemployed for a length of time. Is that class of case to be ruled out? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go the length of saying that at least all these cases shall be included in the concession.
Then I come to a more general question. I think that not only insured women, but also the wives of insured men should receive this new benefit. As to where the funds are to come from the Chancellor himself has given an indication. He has told us that in the men's fund, as at present framed, there is to be an estimated surplus of £1,500,000, and that if this concession were made general, it would absorb £1,100,000 of that surplus. Could that surplus be applied to a better purpose? Is there any form of benefit which would be more helpful than that for which 750 we are now asking? Everybody is aware of the very high rate of infant mortality due to bad treatment of the child after birth, the poverty of the mother, and to a hundred and one causes, which might be removed if this concession were made. It frequently happens—everyone with experience of working-class life will bear me out—that a married woman becomes so enfeebled during her confinement as never afterwards to recover her normal health. The effect upon the succeeding children is very great. What we are asking for here is that when the State is attempting to deal with this question, it shall deal with it in such a manner as to ensure that the children shall have full opportunity for developing into healthy and well-formed children.
There is one source to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might turn—here I speak only for myself, as I must have an opportunity of consulting my colleagues on the point—if he requires extra money for this purpose. There could be such a rearrangement of the benefits proposed to be given under the Bill as, without injuring anyone seriously, would provide an extra fund with which to meet this fresh maternity charge. There is no great obstacle in the way of so rearranging the benefits to be paid to young persons as to leave more for their mothers in time of need. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not consider that this is a closed question with the concession he has just made, but will extend the concession to all classes of insured women, and also keep an open mind in regard to the wives of insured persons generally. There is no kind of benefit proposed under the Bill which would do more to create a healthy national asset than to provide that the mothers of children should during their confinements be surrounded, as far as circumstances will permit, with a healthy environment, including proper medical treatment, proper medicine, and proper food.

§ Mr. J. W. HILLS
It is somewhat ungracious to look a gilt-horse in the mouth, but I am not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making the best use of this money. Let us see to whom this double benefit will be given. In the first place, the husband of the wife who gets the double benefit must himself be an insured person.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think it would be better to leave that point until we come to the Amendment on Sub-section (6). The 751 Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to this particular Amendment, said he was going to make a concession on Sub-section (6). It is on that Sub-section I think that the concession should be discussed.

§ Mr. HILLS
I thought the discussion had gone mainly on the point whether certain women were or were not to receive a double maternity benefit. I only rose to warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a very strong case against it, but I will not continue if I am not in order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The time to raise that point will be when we reach the Sub-section and that particular Amendment.

§ Mr. HILLS
I shall ask for the money to be applied to a different purpose when that time comes.

§ Mr. CASSEL
If the suggested Amendment is made in regard to a woman who is herself an insured person there seems no logical reason why disablement benefit also should not be given.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is in the Bill.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I do not think it would be so under the Bill as it stands, because the Sub-section reads: "Where a woman is herself entitled to maternity benefit she shall not be entitled to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, or medical benefit at and for a period of four weeks after her confinement." At any rate, it is not clear.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I am sorry I cannot support the Amendment, because I recognise that the hon. Member has the same aim that I have. He is endeavouring to improve the position of married women under this Bill, but I do not think he has exactly apprehended what the position is as created by this Clause, as the words which he proposes are not apt to bring about the change which he desires. I want the Committee clearly to realise what this maternity benefit is in its essence. It is a limited kind of medical benefit; it is not a new benefit; it is a limitation of the medical benefit. Childbirth or confinement, properly considered, is a form of illness, and if nothing is said in this Clause, so far as we have gone, every insured woman is fully entitled to maternity benefit already—to medical attendance during confinement. If in this Clause we leave out subsequently all reference to the woman who is an insured person, she thereby, so far as we have 752 gone, secures full medical attendance during confinement, in addition to sick pay. Subsequent Clauses in the Bill limit it, but, so far as we have gone, that is the position. The real purpose of the introduction of medical benefit in this particular Sub-section is to extend a certain limited kind of medical benefit to married women who are not otherwise entitled to-medical benefit. It is to extend to them medical benefit to the extent of 30s. during the time of their confinement. Seeing that maternity benefit is a partial kind of medical benefit, I do not see why we should extend to the married woman who is not insured this partial medical benefit in addition to full medical benefit. If you desire to increase the benefit to cover all the risks of confinement, and all the possibilities of medical attendance, which may be greater or less than 30s., why not simply extend to the married woman who is the wife of an insured person, but is not herself an insured person, full medical benefit during confinement? I think these are the apt words which would cover the desire of the hon. Member:—
"Payment (of medical benefit) in the case of the confinement of the wife of an insured person, who is not herself an insured person."
Those, I think, are apt words to achieve the hon. Member's desire. If he moved that I shall have much pleasure in supporting and voting for him; then we can consider the case of the insured woman, not under Sub-section (6), as has been suggested, but on the words that follow, "or the woman who is herself an insured person." My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley has got on the Paper an Amendment omitting these words altogether, "or of a woman who is herself an insured person." That would leave that woman free to obtain full medical attendance during confinement whatever the cost of that may be, whether it is more than 30s. or not. It leaves her, of course, as far as we have gone, free to obtain sickness and disablement benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Will the hon. Gentleman say out of whose share it is to come?

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
In my remarks I was dealing solely with a woman who is herself an insured person. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, in my last remarks when the Chancellor interrupted me, I was dealing entirely with the woman 753 who is herself an insured person. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg pardon for knowing my own mind. I had finished my remarks on the married woman who is the wife of an insured person and who is not herself an insured person, and then we had come to the following words: "The woman who is not an insured person." Obviously, if she is an insured person she ought to bear the burden of medical attendance and maternity benefit. I do not dispute that. I want simple justice. It is not she, not the insured woman, who is so badly treated in this Bill. On the whole, I think she is well treated, though on Subsection (6) I should like to see Amendments. I welcome, so far as it goes, the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced as to the person, the married woman, who is herself insured, and who has to contribute out of the family income towards the insurance of her husband. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw his Amendment in its present form.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I am bound to say that I think the case of the married woman who is not herself an insured person is dealt with under the Bill in a fairly satisfactory manner. I do not think anybody can make out a good case for giving her some of the benefits that they would give to the woman who is herself insured. We cannot, in my judgment, give to the wife of an insured person who is not herself insured the same benefits as you give to the woman who is insured. It would be out of order to discuss the suggestion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. We will discuss that when we come to Sub-section (6). I am quite sure my hon. Friend would not desire to press this Amendment to a Division, and under those circumstances we might proceed to the next Amendment.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I quite agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment, though I must just say this, that the suggestion of the Chancellor affects a very limited class. Therefore, we must have, I think, probably on Subsection (6) a discussion on the matter. Subject to that I do withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
May I inquire whether, in the event of this Amendment being withdrawn, it rules out from discussion the case of the wife of an insured person?

§ The CHAIRMAN
If an Amendment is withdrawn, no effect whatever is produced.

754

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. In that case I must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow his Amendment to be negatived, so as to save having the matter discussed twice over. I agree that the proposal made by the Government will have to be discussed, and should be discussed in all its bearings. That is a different matter to discussing the same thing over again.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I have asked the Committee to allow me to withdraw the Amendment, and if the Committee will not allow that—

§ The CHAIRMAN
Shall I put the question, the Amendment be withdrawn?

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
Before getting this Amendment negatived we had better know where we are. If this Amendment is now negatived will that prevent us from moving Amendments on Sub-section (6) to effect the purpose of the Debate to which we have just been listening?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No; I do not think that our hands will be tied on Sub-section (6). Sub-section (6) only deals with the woman who is herself an insured person. I do not think we shall be tied down by the decision we come to upon this. If we come to a decision on this Amendment, the Amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley and this Amendment of the hon. Gentleman for Merthyr Tydvil, which propose much larger benefits, will be ruled out by that decision.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
To which Amendment do you refer?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The one with the asterisk. To insert "medical treatment and attendance, including a nurse and the provision of proper and sufficient medicines," etc." The later one will come properly under Sub-section (6).

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
And be in order?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that would be in order.

§ Mr. BOOTH
If this Amendment is negatived, will mine also be out of order?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member's Amendment raises an entirely different point. I shall rule that out, because it seems to me to increase the charge.

755

§ Mr. HARDIE
May I submit that the Amendment before the House, for which leave to negative has been given, does not of itself rule my Amendment out. I only leave out "of a sum of 30s." of the Clause in order to insert the words which stand in my name: "medical treatment and attendance, including a nurse, and the provision of proper and sufficient medicines, a sum of thirty shillings for the child, and ten shillings a week for a minimum period of two weeks before and four weeks after confinement. If health is not restored in this time the allowance to be continued as in the case of other illness. "Therefore the omission of the retaining word "payment" should not necessarily affect my Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
If we decide on this Amendment, we decide against increasing the 30s. by the added medical attendance.

§ Mr. HILLS
We are not to be given the opportunity of discussing the question of the extension of medical benefits to the wives of insured persons when such wives are not themselves insured persons provided that we can do it within the terms of the Financial Resolutions? I certainly understood on Clause I the Chancellor to say that all these questions were postponed to Clause 34, and that then there would be a general Debate on the position of married women under the Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No, no. Clause 34 refers to the woman who is a contributory, and then becomes married. Under the Bill as it stands her benefit is suspended. I did consider that any Amendment would be possibly in order. But that is not the point to which the hon. Gentleman now refers. That I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, was the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley—the extension of medical benefits to married women.

§ The CHAIRMAN
We have settled the question of general medical benefits to the wife of an insured person who is not an insured person by rejecting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on paragraph (a) of this same Sub-section.

§ Mr. HILLS
I misunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I thought we could raise the question of the extension of medical benefits to the woman who was insured before marriage and lost her insurance upon marriage.

756

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is a different matter. That is a question for Clause 34. That is not the point just now. The present point put is to limit the person who is a contributor before marriage. Then comes the question whether her benefit will be suspended. That, of course, will be discussed on Clause 34. I always understood that, and I never understood the Chairman to rule to the contrary. The hon. Member put a very much wider point than that.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
We have now before the Committee an Amendment that deals simply with the question as to whether the wife of an insured person who is not herself insured should be entitled, in addition to maternity benefit, to medical attendance. I think that is the exact point now before the Committee. My hon. Friend has been asked to withdraw his Amendment, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has requested that, on the other hand, this Amendment should be negatived. If we negative this Amendment I take it your ruling is perfectly clear that we shall not, under any of these subsequent Clauses, be able to discuss the question as to whether the wife of an insured person who is not herself insured shall receive any benefit whatever beyond the 30s. at the time of maternity. Now I take it that point has really not been fully discussed. There are, I am sure, a large number of Members in the House who would be of the opinion that the woman who is not an insured woman is presumably a wife of one of the workers of this country. When that wife is confined the only help that can be given at that juncture is to be limited to 30s.? That is the effect if you negative this Amendment. A large number of us are of opinion that it is as little in any scheme of national insurance, regardless of the point as to whose fund it is to be charged, that it is as little as the State can do on that occasion to see that the woman is properly looked after by proper medical attendance. That is the point which is now before the House on this Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is exactly what the 30s. is for.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
The right hon. Gentleman says that is exactly what the 30s. is for. But it is as well to remember what that 30s. is required for. There are things to be got for the household. For some weeks before and for some weeks after there are various additional 757 things to be got into the home, and the household is deprived of the services of the wife and mother and someone has to be got in to look after the children. There is the question of the nurse, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would care to make a schedule of what he thinks a workman's expenses ought to be at such a time—with four children, perhaps, and the other one coming. What are these suggested extra expenses of that home under these circumstances?

§ Sir CHARLES HENRY
How do they do it now?

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
That is not the point. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. I quite expected that. What are we engaged on at the present time? We are engaged upon the question of trying to make a scheme of national insurance for the health of the people. Here is the first point. We should not pass without giving it the fullest consideration. I am entirely in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Gentle

758

§ man the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and also in sympathy with the line suggested by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham City. It is because some of us on these benches are against any form of putting a premium upon woman labour—and that is the point that is going to be raised on the Section on the next page and on which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make some concessions, but concessions which appear to me to be objectionable—that we are against the attitude of the Government on this point. The point now before the Committee is what is to be done for the married woman, for the wife of a respectable married man? I, for one, protest against the suggestion that 30s. is enough to cover everything—doctor, nursing, and all the extra expenses. I hope this matter will be put to a Division, and I, at all events, will vote for this Amendment.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 101.

759

Division No. 273.]	AYES.	[7.35 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Levy, Sir Maurice
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Lewis, John Herbert
Alden, Percy	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Lundon, Thomas
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Furness, Stephen W.	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macpherson, James Ian
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	M'Callum, John M.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Greig, Colonel J. W.	M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Beale, W. P.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Manfield, Harry
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Hackett, J.	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Bentham, G. J.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hayden, John Patrick	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Hayward, Evan	Morgan, George Hay
Brady, P. J.	Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Brunner, John F. L.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor	Neilson, Francis
Bryce, J. Annan	Higham, John Sharp	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hinds, John	Nolan, Joseph
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Norman, Sir Henry
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nuttall, Harry
Cameron, Robert	Hughes, S. L.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)	O'Connor, John-(Kildare, N.)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Dowd, John
Chancellor, H. G.	John, Edward Thomas	O'Malley, William
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Johnson, William	O'Shaughnessy, p. J.
Clough, William	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Cotton, William Francis	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Crumley, Patrick	Joyce, Michael	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Keating, Matthew	Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Kellaway, Frederick George	Pringle, William M. R.
Dawes, James Arthur	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Delany, William	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Radford, G. H.
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Doris, William	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Duffy, William. J.	Leach, Charles	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Reddy, Michael	Sheehy, David	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Sherwell, Arthur James	White, Patrick (Heath, North)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)	Wiles, Thomas
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Robinson, Sydney	Strachey, Sir Edward	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Sutherland, J. E.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)	Winfrey, Richard
Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Tennant, Harold John	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Rose, Sir Charles Day	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Rowntree, Arnold	Toulmin, Sir George	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Watt, Henry A.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Richards, Thomas
Baldwin, Stanley	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Barnes, George N.	Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hillier, Dr. A. P.	Rothschild, Lionel de
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hodge, John	Sanders, Robert A.
Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)	Hohler, G. F.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bowerman, Charles W.	Hunt, Rowland	Snowden, Philip
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)	Jowett, Frederick William	Stewart, Gershom
Boyton, J.	Kelly, Edward	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Keswick, William	Swift, Rigby
Bull, Sir William James	Kimber, Sir Henry	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Locker, Lampson, G. Salisbury)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Craik, Sir Henry	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Crooks, William	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Touche, George Alexander
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Doughty, Sir George	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Valentia, Viscount
Duke, Henry Edward	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Falls, P. G.	MacCaw, Wm. J MacGeagh	Wardle, George J.
Fell, Arthur	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Foster, Philip Staveley	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Gardner, Ernest	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Gill, Alfred Henry	Morrell, Philip	Wilkie, Alexander
Goldstone, Frank	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Newman, John R. P.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Gretton, John	Nield, Herbert	Wilson, W. T. (Westhaughton)
Haddock, George Bahr	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Wolmer, Viscount
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Yate, Col. C. E.
Hancock, John George	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. W. Hills and Mr. Watson Rutherford.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pointer, Joseph
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Question, "That the words 'they themselves be entitled to' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (e), after the word "wife" ["payment in the case of the confinement of the wife"], to insert the words "or daughter, or sister, or mother."

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand that Amendment is not in order.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I understand, Mr. Emmott, you consider it is not in order because it does not give the benefit to the insured person. My whole purpose is to give benefit to the insured person—to a person who remains at home keeping the mother and sister rather than get married himself. They have to pay the bill. Where a young man is keeping his sister and widowed mother, if the girl gets a husband at the right time it is all right, but if she is deserted, and if the young man runs away and does not do as a man ought the expense falls upon the home.

760

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
May I ask whether my Amendment in paragraph (e)—after the word "payment" to insert the words, "to the wife"—is in order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That Amendment is in order.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Then I shall move it. My object in moving it is to secure that the payment shall actually be made to the wife and not to the husband. It may seem extraordinary to suggest that a man who insures himself should not be the person to receive the money, but in this case I think the Committee will agree with me there are several arguments in favour of the money being paid to the wife instead of to the husband.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order surely this is the very point which is covered by Clause 16, Sub-section (2)? 761 That is the intention carried out there, and if Sub-section (2) of Clause 16 does not carry out that intention, an Amendment could be moved; but that is the intention of the Sub-section.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, this Amendment could be moved upon that Sub-section, and I think it would be more in order there. I omitted to take a note of it. Now with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) I really cannot allow it to be moved in the form in which it is on the Paper.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Perhaps if I insert the words, "Where such person is dependent upon the insured person," it would be in order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that would make it in order.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I make this appeal for high-minded and faithful young men in this country. There are many young men who make a home for their mother and sister rather than get married themselves and leave them destitute, and it is wholly for the purpose of benefiting these people that I make this appeal. These young men sometimes decide to look after their sisters, and they deny themselves the privileges of a separate home, under the circumstances I have described. A brother often endeavours to induce the young man to marry his sister and make an honest woman of her. If he fails, then he has to choose whether he will still be faithful to a sister in her disgrace, or leave her to the tender mercies of the Poor Law. To their credit, many of these young men often decide to stand by their sister when the cloud comes over the home. In such a case where a young man stands by a sister in her hour of trouble I do not think the benefits of this provision ought to be denied. A man would be entitled to maternity benefit for his wife, but if he stays at home, and in that way is loyal to his sister or his mother, there is no maternity benefit allowed. This money comes out of his pocket; he is paying into these funds, but when this trouble comes to his home simply because he elects to be loyal to his blood relatives, the State deserts him.
I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. When a poor girl in such circumstances is disappointed and left to face the world, that is not the time for the State to turn its back upon her. I propose my Amendment for another reason. Care has to be taken of the child, and it is necessary that competent medical treat- 762 ment should be given even in cases where the child is illegitimate. In these cases I think proper medical attendance and maternity benefit should be given to the mother. On behalf of the brother or relative standing by his sister in sorrow, and also on behalf of the child brought into the world under great disadvantages, I make this appeal. I have had my proposal criticised from a professing Christian society, and I have been urged to withdraw it because, I am told, my proposal means putting a premium upon immorality. May I point out that in these circumstances the question whether a woman should be attended by a good nurse and a good doctor has no influence whatever upon the question of immorality. This is not a question which I care to discuss at length, and perhaps hon. Members will excuse me for importing the warmth of my own feelings and for having spoken in this way.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. Member has given us some admirable doctrine, and my only objection is that it is not quite relevant to this Bill. We are considering purely a question of insurance. It is not a question whether care should be taken of women in the circumstances he has mentioned or whether there should be proper medical treatment to safeguard her life and her child. That is not the point. The question is whether this should be done at the expense of the Insurance Fund. The question raised is whether a sister of an insured person, or one of several sisters of an insured person, or a mother or a daughter, should be included in the Bill. I think that is an unwarrantable extension of the doctrine included in this Insurance Bill. I think if my hon. Friend will consider this question from the point of view of an insurance proposition, he will agree with me that it is not a fair proposal. If my hon. Friend was drafting the rules of an insurance company or of an approved society he would not propose that there should be an almost unlimited extension of the doctrine. This proposal is too far-reaching and sweeping a proposition.

§ Mr. BOOTH
In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
There is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Its object is to leave out any special maternity benefit so 763 far as it concerns an insured woman, the belief being that if this done she will be entitled to full medical attendance in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (a).

§ The CHAIRMAN
That will not be in order. We have already dealt with part of that question.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
In this Subsection we are giving a kind of limited medical benefit called maternity benefit to an insured woman. My contention is that they are already fully covered by a previous Sub-section which gives them medical benefit.

§ The CHAIRMAN
If that is the point the hon. Member should have got rid of the word "payment" and the other words following. That is the only way to deal with it.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
In this Subsection the first part gives maternity benefit to women who are not insured. I agree with that proposition. I want to leave out the following part with reference to the woman who is insured, and I submit that it is in order to do that. It is quite a distinct point. I want to leave out the words "or of a woman who is an insured person."

§ The CHAIRMAN
We have practically committed ourselves to these words by the previous discussion.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
By a previous ruling, Mr. Chairman, you decided that it was impossible to discuss this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did make some suggestion as to what he would do with regard to these women, but I have had no opportunity of voting to leave out altogether any special maternity benefit as far as the woman who is herself an insured person is concerned.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member should have moved to leave out the Subsection.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
It is a very serious matter.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have replied half a dozen times and I have settled the point. I now call upon the hon. Member for Blackburn to move his Amendment.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I do not think you quite appreciate my point.

764

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have done my best. I have replied to the hon. Member in perfect good temper, and I must ask him now to allow the Debate to proceed.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
It is a very serious matter if a point of this kind is to be passed over. I have had no opportunity whatever of excluding the insured woman from maternity benefit.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member can move to omit Sub-section (6) and put another Sub-section in its place.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
But that does not raise my point.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The Amendment I intended to propose was, in paragraph (e), after the word "woman," to insert the words "married or unmarried." The reason for my proposal was to clear up a doubt as to whether the use of the word "woman" will cover my point.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Undoubtedly it covers the hon. Member's point.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Then I do not press the point.

§ 8.0 P.M.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (e), after the word "shillings" ["A sum of 30s."], to insert the words, "for the child, and 10s. a week for a minimum period of two weeks before and four weeks after confinement."
This raises the whole question in a more concrete form of what benefits are to be paid to the married woman, not merely to the married woman who is herself insured, but also to the wife of an insured person.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. This is substantially what was settled before. It is true the hon. Member is putting it in the form of shillings, but the substance of it was really covered by the discussion on the Amendment by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir Griffith-Boscawen). The same arguments will be used over again, and I can say nothing fresh.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I clearly understood the Government declined to allow the last Amendment to be withdrawn. It was dealt with, and it was thereupon settled that the Government were against giving anything beyond the 30s. I simply made my protest on that particular point.

765

§ The CHAIRMAN
Technically this is a different proposition, but substantially, of course, it is precisely the same point over again. I have to rule on fine and technical grounds, and I cannot, therefore, say it is out of order.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I can assure the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not intend to repeat the arguments. On the former occasion the issue was so involved that a fair and open discussion of the question was not possible. My Amendment seeks to specify that the benefits given not merely to the insured woman, but also to the wife of the insured person, shall be substantially increased. With all respect to what has been said, the 30s. proposed, however helpful it may be, does not nearly go sufficiently far. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted there is a surplus of £1,500,000 which is to be given in some form of extra benefits, and my point is that a million of it should go to the mothers at the period of their confinement. It could not be spent for a better purpose.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is exactly the Amendment settled before. The hon. Gentleman has used exactly the same argument, in the same words and with the same figures, and, if I were to reply, I should use exactly the same argument over again. I do not think that is fair to the Committee, and I hope, therefore, we shall come to a decision upon it.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (f), to leave out the words, "any scheme made in accordance with."
This Amendment has to be read in connection with the next Amendment on the Paper. The Clause confers additional benefits, and, if I understand the Bill aright, there are additional benefits of two kinds: those conferred by Clause 34, which are conferred under a scheme in case there is a surplus, and those conferred by Clause 9, for which no scheme is necessary. The wording of this Clause confines the additional benefits to those conferred under a scheme, and would not therefore cover those conferred under Clause 9.

§ Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

766

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have an Amendment here by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, but I am not sure I understand what it means.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I will explain my Amendment. It is in Sub-section (1), paragraph (f), after the word "Act" ["Fourth Schedule to this Act"], to insert the words, "or such other further benefits not being death benefits, as the Insurance Commissioners may approve." The object of it is simply that we should not bind ourselves to hard and fast benefits which may be given as further benefits. We have already found other benefits have had to be included.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
All the hon. Member has got to do is, when we come to Part II. of the Fourth Schedule, to add words which will extend the additional benefits.

§ Mr. CASSEL
That does not quite meet the point. The list in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule leaves out, for instance, dental benefit and treatment in a convalescent home. Why should it not be competent to the friendly society and the Insurance Commissioners to agree that the additional benefits should include treatment in a convalescent home or in a hospital. I submit it is better to have these words here than to put in an exhaustive catalogue in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think this Amendment will be just as well put in the Schedule.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The proper place to put it is at the end of Part II. of the Fourth Schedule. It would be perfectly in order there.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I am quite ready, if I can, to take it at a later stage.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is certainly entitled to take it if I say it is in order.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (f), to leave out the words, "may be distributable under that scheme," and to insert instead thereof the words, "they may themselves be entitled to."

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Is this consequential?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, purely consequential.

767

§ Mr. HILLS
Do not these words rather limit the application of the money for maternity benefits, and are they not rather dangerous? Would it not be held you have to keep a separate account for each individual and are compelled to apply the surplus of that account to that man and that man alone. I am quite certain that is not the meaning, but the words seem to me rather far-reaching.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No, we have consulted our legal drafting advisers, and they are perfectly satisfied.

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. HILLS
I beg to move in Subsection (2) at the end to insert the words, "and such benefits shall be deemed to accrue from day to day, and shall be payable in respect of periods of less than one week."
I can find no Clause in the Bill which says at what time the benefit is to accrue. It is quite clear it ought to accrue from day to day. It need not be paid, of course, from day to day. It may be paid weekly, or at stated intervals, but a man ought to know the exact number of days' benefit to which he is entitled. As far as I can read the Bill, there is no allowance now for a broken week of benefit. This is quite a harmless Amendment. It follows the ordinary course. The benefits accrue from day to day, but they are paid weekly.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point is that disablement benefits shall be deemed to accrue from day to day.

§ Mr. HILLS
All benefits.

§ Mr. McKENNA
All benefits. But in the terms of Clause 13, Sub-section (2) the hon. Member will see words have been expressly inserted for this purpose. There is no question about it that under the Bill whatever a person is entitled to in the shape of benefit he will receive, whether it be for less than a week or not, and, in order to emphasise that point the word "weekly" was omitted in an earlier part of this Clause, and the word "periodic" substituted.

§ Mr. HILLS
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point. Sub-section (2) of Clause 13 provides that all 768 approved societies may make rules as to calculating the benefit. I want a general indication of the lines on which those rules are to run. It is clear that if a man is ill for, say, three weeks and five days and is to get 10s. a week it should be calculated as from day to day, and not weekly. As I read the Bill it might be held that he should complete a week before the 10s. is payable. What I propose will lay no additional charge on the Treasury. All my Amendment does is to give the Commissioners an indication of the methods on which they are to calculate the benefit. It is clear a man should be entitled to the benefit from day to day. The sum should so accrue as it does in the case of rent. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
There is no difference between us on the merits of the point raised. I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House when Sub-section (c), paragraph (1), was under discussion, and when the word "weekly" was omitted and the word "periodic" substituted. I think that meets his point. Whatever a person earns, if I may so put it, under this Bill, whether it be for one day or for a week, he will receive. The only thing laid down is the rate of payment. The sum will be reckoned from day to day, and the proportion for a part of a week will be payable. There is not the slightest doubt about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
All I want is that what the right hon. Gentleman says is the intention of the Bill shall be actually put into it. Periodic does not mean day to day. It does not alter the Bill at all, in this case, to change weekly into periodic. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to define periodic. I do not think he will find it means that the benefit accrues from day to day. It might mean a man is only to receive the benefit after four weeks have elapsed, and then the four weeks would be calculated at the rate of so much per week. It does make it a daily calculation by saying "at the rate of," nor does the substitution of the word "periodic" for the word "weekly" make it a daily calculation. I am quite prepared to accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I want to point out that it is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I would refer the hon. Gentleman again to Clause 13, Sub-section (2), in which it is said: "An approved society may, with the consent of the In- 769 surance Commissioners, provide for the application of its existing rules in regard to the manner and time of paying," etc. It is left there to the approved societies.

§ Mr. HILLS
It is permissive only. There is no direction laid down.

§ Mr. McKENNA
It would be undesirable to lay down a direction.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Why?

§ Mr. McKENNA
It might mean that it should be paid day by day.

§ Mr. HILLS
The point is that it should accrue and not be paid.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The direction is given in Clause 13. I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman in saying that under the Bill it is to be a daily earning. That I repeat is already provided for.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
This is an important point. It is a point of drafting. We are at one in what we intend, and if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consult his legal advisers on the matter I will be content. But I do not think this is provided for under Clause 13, which is merely permissive. That Clause allows the society to make rules. It might make rules in a sense exactly contrary to the Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Then it should come as a proviso under Clause 13, Sub-section (2), in some such words as these: "Provided such benefits shall accrue from day to day."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am quite willing to accept that.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Sub-section (2) of Clause 13 is governed entirely by the first words "approved societies." But what about the administration of benefits for Post Office contributors. That is not affected by that Sub-section. I submit we ought to put the words in now. I cannot see what possible objection there is to admitting them, as if they are found to be inconvenient they can easily be struck out on Report. This Sub-section does not deal comprehensively with the point, it only provides that rules may be made by approved societies with the consent of the Commissioners.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I think Sub-section (3) of the same Clause deals with the point. There is a good deal in the Amendment, and somewhere in the Bill it ought 770 to be laid down that the benefits are to accrue daily, otherwise they might be ruled to accrue hourly.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I quite admit that, but I think it must be done in Clause 13, Subsection (2).

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3): "The right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not commence before the insured person attains the age of sixteen and shall cease on his attaining the age of seventy, but, save as aforesaid, the right to benefits (other than additional benefits) shall continue through life," and to insert instead thereof the words, "(3) In the case of insured persons who have attained the age of seventy the right to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, and additional benefits shall cease."
This Amendment raises an important point which was first brought before the House by the Member for Salford. If it is carried it would strike out of this Clause all reference to boys and girls under sixteen years of age. I did not approve of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Salisbury for the reason that it seemed to me far too expensive a way of obtaining its object. It would cost the State 3d. per week for every boy and girl between fourteen and sixteen, and I wish to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the real grievance would be met if he would allow boys and girls to have benefits upon a scale similar to that which they are accustomed to receive in the juvenile branches of the great friendly societies. These benefits are much the same as are already described for young persons, and I think the case would be met if you allowed them 5s. per week for sickness and disablement for boys and 4s. a week for girls. In order to do that I have put down. Amendments to the Schedule extending the words "young persons" to those "under sixteen years of age." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has complained that proposals have been made involving expense without taking into calculation the amount of that expense. I will therefore endeavour to give some idea of what I think will be the cost of this proposal. It would not increase the expense to the Exchequer, nor would it reduce the margin of the approved societies. It merely diminishes the sum set aside from year to year to create a sinking fund, which would 771 go to wipe out the reserve for those who came into the scheme at the beginning who were over the age of sixteen. Disablement benefits for the whole of the boys and girls would cost only £4,000 a year. We would remove that great hardship upon boys and girls throughout the constituencies. There would not be many in each, but there would be some in every constituency, and it would only cost £4,000. I think the general result would be that to the three and a-half years required to pay off the reserve there would be affected only about five days. To give this concession and allow sickness benefit upon this scale to boys and girls would, so far as I can make out from the actuarial report, though it is not calculated there, £182,000 a year. That would postpone the period for paying off the reserve from fifteen and a-half years to about sixteen years and two months. It does not seem to be a very vital matter, and I am sure that the friendly societies and the boys and girls themselves would prefer the benefit of 5s. now than to have a chance of obtaining it at the age of seventy. I hope that the Government will accept the suggestion.

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ Mr. McKENNA
I understand that the hon. Member intends to strike out the disqualification here and to insert the benefits in the Schedule.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
Yes, we will put in the actual rate when we come to the Schedule.

§ Mr. McKENNA
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has just had to leave, told me before he went that he was very much impressed by the view of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and that he was willing to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
May I ask whether that also applies to the next Amendment which is down in my name—to leave out the words, "and disablement benefit shall not commence before the insured person attains the age of sixteen, and shall"?

§ Mr. McKENNA
It has the same effect as accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. There is an "aforesaid" left. We are really accepting substantially the Amendment of the hon. Member.

772

§ Question put, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I would like to know are we going to provide that old people after the age of seventy shall not have additional benefits?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I think it is for the convenience of the Committee that the question should be taken in the form in which it is moved. First, that we should leave out the whole of the Sub-section, and then move that the words which he proposes to insert should be inserted.

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
That is, in fact, the way I am putting it. I think the other Amendment and this Amendment are equivalent, but it is usual to put the words down to a certain point.

§ Mr. McKENNA
It is substantially the same.

§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
What words?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The word's upon the Paper, the re-drafted Subsection:— (3) In the case of insured persons who have attained the age of seventy the right to sickness benefit, disablement benefit, and additional benefits-shall cease.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Then I do want to raise the point. Are we to understand that people over seventy shall be cut out of everything but old age pensions?

§ Mr. McKENNA
And medical benefit.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Old age pensions; and medical benefit; and not to get any other. Are we not passing that rather hastily?

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
May I suggest that this Amendment should be amended by leaving out the words "and additional benefits." If a person is in receipt of an old age pension as well as sick pay there is no reason why he should not be entitled to receive certain additional benefits provided for his comfort in old age. That would not affect the principle of the proposal before the Committee.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
May I add to the argument of my Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, the point 773 that those additional benefits are acquired before the age of seventy, and really ought to be treated as that person's property. They are not something which is assured at seventy, but something that has been acquired by a person who was insured before seventy, and belonged to the indi-individual before the age of seventy, and therefore ought to be excluded from that Amendment.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, after the word, "benefit" ["the right to sickness benefit "] to insert the word "and."

§ Mr. McKENNA
It seems almost harsh to oppose any argument against a proposal of this sort, which seems so eminently reasonable on the face of it; but we have to remember that the actuarial calculations are made out in a separate scheme, and part of that scheme is that the additional benefits shall cease at the age of seventy. If you give this additional benefit after the age of seventy, it may not cost much, but you will to that extent be withdrawing other benefits under the Bill.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
They have a right to the other benefits under the Bill, but there is no right to the additional benefits.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I think we have got into a difficulty which we might get out of, if instead of inserting the words which the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) desires to insert, we inserted the words of my Amendment. Then it would be open to amend them in a way consonant with the intentions of the Bill, and we should not get into this difficulty which is occasioned by the words "additional benefit." We have only now decided to cut out Subsection (3). It would be possible to insert another Sub-section in the form of my Amendment, and then it would be much easier to discuss it.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I will consult with my right hon. Friend as to what this means. If I find that the additional benefits ought to be continued, and that it does not mean very much to the expenditure of the Bill, the Government will be willing to accept the Amendment, leaving out the words "and additional benefits."

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Many of the Amendments on this Paper dealing with this Sub-section have been put down on the supposition that it would remain as it is in the Bill, and if we substitute these other 774 words, the order of precedence in which, the following Amendments should come will be altered. I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Hope) that perhaps we are going a little too fast and passing over some Amendments already on the Paper which might be moved. There is one, for instance, in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Barlow). Would not that come in in the case of insured persons who have attained the age of seventy and are not eligible for old age pensions?

§ Mr. McKENNA
That would still come in.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think that is affected by what the Committee is doing now, but in any case the Committee has already decided to drop out the existing words. The only question at present is the words which shall be inserted.

§ Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made in proposed Amendment: Leave out the words, "and additional benefits."

§ Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to— (3) In the case of insured persons who have attained the age of seventy the right to sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall cease.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "except that a person in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit on attaining that age, who is not qualified to receive a pension of five shillings a week under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, shall continue to be entitled to disablement benefit of such amount as will, together with the pension, if any, to which he may be entitled, amount to five shillings a week."
The object of the Amendment is that a person receiving sickness or disablement benefit shall be entitled to continue the benefit although he receives an old age pension, the old age pension and the disablement pension together amounting to at least 5s. a week.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
May I ask whether if this Amendment is negatived the subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Barlow) will be ruled out of order?

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I submit that this first Amendment concerns persons who are entitled to an old age pension of some sort 775 and the subsequent Amendment deals with persons who are not entitled to an old age pension of any sort, therefore the first Amendment will not cut out the second.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think they are identical points.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I am not sure whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton, (Dr. Addison) is not covered by the point raised by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. As I understand this Amendment my hon. Friend wishes to deal with two classes of persons, namely, those who are not entitled to an old age pension, and those who may be entitled to an old age pension of an amount less than 5s. a week. The only contingency under which a person would be entitled to an old age pension of less than 5s. a week is when such a person is in possession of a private income.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Or working for a living.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I do not think that is the case with which we are dealing. Of course, the moment such a person is disabled he would no longer be a worker. The first case I have to deal with for the purpose of this Amendment is the person who is in possession of a private income of a minimum of 8s. a week or of a sum up to 12s. a week. I submit to the Committee that such a case as that is not one which should be dealt with in the way proposed. The second case is that which is exclusively dealt with by another Amendment, namely, the person who is not entitled to an old age pension. Who are the people who are not entitled to old age pensions? They are aliens, criminals, or persons who have become naturalised, but have not been a sufficiently long period in this country. I do not know any other category except these three. Whatever may be said for giving disablement benefit in these cases, we must always remember that disablement benefit can only be given to persons entitled to that benefit under the Bill. You can withdraw a certain sum of money from them and give it to the alien or the criminal if you like, but you ought to do it with your eyes open. I submit it is not reasonable that in a scheme which is to so large an extent founded on contributions made by workers and their employers we should load the system of benefits with benefits of the kind suggested by this Amendment. I quite agree with 776 the desirability of recognising what may be termed the human side of the question of allowing bygones to be bygones in the case of the criminal, and of recognising that aliens are human beings who ought to be dealt with. But is this the right place to deal with them? Should it be done at the expense of people who have been building up the fund for the scheme? I think if the hon. Member will consider all these difficulties he will see that on the whole the Committee would be well advised not to extend the benefit to these people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I presume we are not attempting to discuss the second Amendment now. Personally, I prefer that, and I shall vote for it. I consider there is a difference between the two. The right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with this Amendment as if we were appealing to his sympathies on behalf of aliens and criminals. They are both interesting subjects, but I shall reserve my appeal on their behalf to another time. The people for whom I propose to put forward a plea are those who are now members of friendly societies, and who have entered into contracts with their societies to receive benefits which are not to stop at the age of seventy, but are to go on throughout their lives. Hon. Members say they will go on. It is true they will go on, but they will do so at the expense of the accumulated funds of the friendly societies, and the only way they can go on is by putting a charge under Clause 55 of this Bill on the existing funds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said—and the First Lord of the Admiralty follows him, though not quite so boldly—that the friendly societies are getting immense benefits under the Bill, and that they will be able to do all these various things out of their own funds. We found this afternoon that one of the benefits they would have to make good was the difference between the benefit as from the first day of illness and the fourth day of illness, the sum being £560,000. Unless this or a similar Amendment is accepted, there will be a large additional charge on the friendly societies, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, without asking his sympathies on behalf of aliens and criminals, that he has omitted a class who are really deserving and who ought to be considered.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I do not propose to press my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

777

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (3) the words, "but this shall not apply to those insured persons under the Act who are not eligible for relief under the Old Ago Pensions Act." I would like to direct the attention of the Committee to the case, of persons who have some means of their own, but do not receive old age pensions. Any person who has received the slightest sentence of imprisonment is disqualified under the Old Age Pensions Act. He may have committed some very small lapse in his youth, and for that reason he is not eligible for an old age pension, and now, under the operation of this Bill, he will not be eligible for the benefits under this Bill either. Therefore he falls between two stools, though he may have been a regular contributor to his friendly society. I submit that is an exceedingly hard case which ought to be met. I go further, and say that a person who has an income of 11s. a week ought not to be disqualified.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
That is not raised on the terms of the Amendment which refers to people who are not entitled to old age pensions.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Then I will confine my argument to the case of the technical criminal, whose offence may have been very small, and who if he had been a rich man, would have been discharged with a fine. You are also adding to the disqualification of persons of British nationality who have forfeited their right by going away for a certain time. It is very hard on these people to fall between the two stools of the Old Age Pensions Act and this Bill. This cannot cost the Exchequer very much; the number of cases is small but the hardship in individual cases would be very great.

§ Mr. CASSEL
What is the reason that you stop giving benefits at 70? Simply because then people become entitled to old age pensions? That may be sound and reasonable, but how can it be right to say that you are going to stop A's benefit who does not get a pension because B does. In the case of the people who do not get pensions, surely there is no reason for stopping their benefit. Why should they be in a worse position at seventy than at sixty-nine?

§ 9.0 P.M.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that in the matter of benefits under this Bill the person who does not get an old age pension has 778 not paid for benefit. That is why he does not get it. Of course it is perfectly easy to make an Amendment to this Bill and to give the benefits over seventy, but it can only be done at the expense of other benefits. We have to consider in the distribution of benefits whether it is wise to make that variation; you do not add to the benefits by this proposal; you only vary them. You have got to consider the people who are to be benefited under the variation which the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are people, first of all, who have got means of their own, who are over seventy, and this Amendment does not exclude them. It simply says that a person who is not eligible for an old age pension shall continue to get disablement benefit. In the vast majority of cases that means people who have got more than 12s. a week, and the hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce the benefits of other people in order to give disablement benefit to people with more than 12s. a week. The second category of persons who benefit by this variation, to the detriment of other people, are aliens. I would suggest that in a scheme of this sort we should not take away the benefits from insured persons who have contributed for a number of years for the sake of aliens. The third category are criminals. The hon. Gentleman has made an appeal on behalf of criminals who have been punished for slight offences. If it were possible in a Bill of this kind to make all the necessary discriminations, weighing in scales the amount of merit or demerit of each person who was condemned, if we could carry that out in an Act of Parliament it would be most desirable. But anyone who is familiar with the working of the laws knows that this cannot be done. You have got to make a general rule. Here the general rule seems to be extremely well founded. I appeal to hon. Members not to vary the proposal in the manner suggested in this Amendment.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the persons who would have got old age pensions but for the fact that they are receiving so much from friendly societies are ruled out. The point of the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) was that you are depriving these people of benefit, and you are doing it at the expense of the friendly societies. That point has not been met by the right hon. Gentleman, and, in fact, there can be no answer to it. Perhaps we might agree to 779 some exception in their favour while keeping outside the scope of the Clause the alien, the criminal, and the other person to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It seems to me to be a fair contention that if you are anxious to receive the support of the friendly societies you should at any rate relieve them of the necessity of giving at their own expense this old age pension. Would not it be possible in this Amendment to say that this shall not apply to those persons insured under this Act who are not eligible for relief under the Old Age Pensions Act, but who have since the year before the passing of this Act been regular members of a friendly society?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I hope the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) will not be accepted, but that the Amendment will be adopted as it stands. As I understand the criminal is one of the persons to whom we are not to be allowed to give an old age pension. We ought to take into account that if he has been a criminal he has paid the penalty and we ought to provide him with some means of existence when he reaches the age of seventy. It is quite a small matter. We are not a criminal nation, and it only affects a handful of people.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I did not speak from the point of view that it would cost so much, but from a different point of view. I thought we had agreed that where a person had means we should not give him this disablement over the age of seventy. The hon. Gentleman opposite deals only with people who have means.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Means they have provided themselves.

§ Mr. McKENNA
It does not matter whether the person has provided them through a friendly society or the savings bank. He has got means, and therefore to give benefit to him would be to abstract it from those whoso sole maintenance for themselves and their families is the benefit that they get. The case of those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is not nearly so bard as the case of the working man with a small family dependent on him. He is the man whom we must always have in mind, so far as the benefits under this Bill are concerned. It is not the individual, it is the home that may be broken up which you must keep in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. 780 Lansbury) raises quite a different case. He raised the case of criminals. May I suggest that is a proper matter for the amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act. There is a Bill now before the House for the amendment of that Act, and his argument is strictly relevant to that Bill, and I hope he will reserve the discussion on the point until the Old Age Pension (No. 3) Bill is before the House.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
There may be a very good case for including persons under the Old Age Pensions Act who are at present disqualified because they have committed some small offence. An Amendment to include them was proposed and passed in another place three years ago, but it was not accepted. In a case where the man pays for his benefit I submit that, even though he may be a criminal, he ought to receive what he pays for. Whether a man is a criminal or not, if he has paid for his benefit he ought not to be doubly disqualified from getting anything under this Act and under the Old Age Pensions Act.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Hon. Members who have spoken seem to suggest that we are taking away from a man something for which he has paid. There is nothing in the Bill, however, to relieve a society from any contract into which it may have entered to pay a man the benefits in respect of which he has contributed. He will receive those benefits, and he will get exactly what he has paid for. The societies, therefore, will not in any way be relieved from what they have contracted to pay.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I agree with the hon. Member that the people who will suffer most severely are the friendly societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] The friendly societies primâ facie must be more or less injured by the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] You then come to this point. Up to seventy certain assistance is given by the State in respect of the payments made by the friendly societies. Why should you stop at seventy? There is some logic in stopping at seventy where the person who has paid into the friendly society is already getting some other assistance from the State; but what possible logic can there be, where the friendly societies have received payments, even if the member be a criminal, in the man's not receiving the relief from the Government which is enjoyed as regards payments for every member up to seventy. Why should they not get it after seventy?
781 The only reason for stopping at seventy is the receipt of the Government grant in the shape of 5s. I say this is a most serious Bill for the friendly societies, and I press very strongly that this is not a question that can be dealt with, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, by an Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, in a Bill which may be introduced this year, or some other year, or never. The question is whether a man who chances to have more than the limit necessary for old age pensions, or who, perchance, has been a criminal at some period of his life, though he has paid to a friendly society, should not have from the Government the fair and proper quota of assistance. If you put too heavy a strain upon the friendly societies, and do not give them sufficient assistance, they will not be able to bear the burden. The Government will say that this has nothing to do with them, but I think they ought to give proper assistance.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I submit that this has nothing to do with the friendly societies. I am a member of a friendly society, and I hold office in one, and I submit there is an utter want of logic in the idea that the State should in some way reward a man at the age of seventy because he has been a member of a friendly society. Such ideas are entirely foreign to the Bill. If a man has made provision of any kind for himself that is entirely to his credit. In the North of England he makes provision through a building society or insurance company, or in some other way. He may provide for an endowment policy at sixty-five or seventy. If he is disqualified from receiving an old age pension, and if hon. Members opposite are determined to keep on making special pleas for friendly societies, we shall never get on with this Bill. I must protest against such procedure. I do not think any good can come of it at all. It will raise false ideas among people outside the House. I quite agree that the societies will have plenty to do under this Bill, and I hope that other Amendments which are to come on later will receive sympathetic consideration. But this is not an Amendment which could be

782

§ accepted, because it would, in fact, damage friendly societies. The Amendment would increase the burdens to be borne, and would render friendly societies unstable. To my mind there is not any more margin than is wanted under the Bill to enable these societies to work. If the Amendment does not mean that an increased amount of money will be required, if it does not mean that benefit is to be obtained, why are hon. Members pressing the claim? They are claiming that someone should receive benefit who at present will not get it under the Bill. If their object is that members of friendly societies or building societies or anybody else are to get increased benefits, it means that they will be robbing the fully paid working man and his family of benefits. The point to consider is that we are collecting these funds under the Bill, and we have to distribute them. If hon. Members think every man over seventy ought to have a larger share at the expense of the fully paid working man and his family, then they ought to have the courage to say so. These benefits do not come from some mysterious region; they would come at the expense of the fully paid working man and his wife and family.

Mr. BARLOW
We have had an exceedingly interesting Debate on the Amendment. We are all agreed, I think, that this Insurance Bill will not be effective unless it deals practically with the whole community (within the limits) who require assistance. Here you have a gap—a portion of the community who will not be dealt with. The Amendment deals with that gap. It will not be dealt with under the Bill for the Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, and there would be no means of assisting them except by falling back upon the Poor Law, which is not considered satisfactory. The Amendment seeks to stop this gap, to make provision for these people, and to make the measure as comprehensive as possible.

§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 186.

785

Division No. 274.]	AYES.	[9.15 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-
Ashley, W. W.	Barnston, Harry	Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)
Astor, Waldorf	Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Boyton, J.
Baird, J. L.	Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Bridgeman, William Clive
Balcarres, Lord	Beresford, Lord C.	Cassel, Felix
Baldwin, Stanley	Bigland, Alfred	Cator, John
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Bird, A.	Cautley, H. S.
Cave, George	Hills, J. W.	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Hohler, G. Fitzroy	Rawlinson, [...]. F. P.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Houston, Robert Paterson	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Hume-Williams, W. E.	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Craik, Sir Henry	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Croft, H. P.	Keswick, William	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Dixon, C. H.	Kirkwood, J. H. M.	Sanders, Robert A.
Duke, Henry Edward	Kyffin-Taylor, G	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Fell, Arthur	Lloyd, G. A.	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Forster, Henry William	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Gardner, Ernest	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Swift, Rigby
Gastrell, Major W. H.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Touche, George Alexander
Greene, W. R.	Mount, William Arthur	Valentia, Viscount
Gretton, John	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Guinness, Hon. W. E.	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Nield, Herbert	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Hill, Sir Clement L.	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Montague Barlow and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Hillier, Dr. A. P.	Pollock, Ernest Murray
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Gulland, John William	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Addison, Dr. C.	Hackett, J.	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Hancock, J. G.	Meagher, Michael
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morgan, George Hay
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Barnes, G. N.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Munro, R.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Beale, W. P.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Hayward, Evan	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Bentham, G. J.	Helme, Norval Watson	Nuttall, H.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bowerman, C. W.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Henry, Sir Charles S.	O'Dowd, John
Brady, P. J.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Malley, William
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hinds, John	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brunner, John F. L.	Hodge, John	Parker, James (Halifax)
Bryce, J. Annan	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hughes, S. L.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Hunter, W. (Govan)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Illingworth, Percy H.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Power, Patrick Joseph
Chancellor, H. G.	John, Edward Thomas	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Johnson, W.	Pringle, William M. R.
Clough, William	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Radford, G. H.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Joyce, Michael	Reddy, Michael
Cotton, William Francis	Keating, M.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Kellaway, Frederick George	Richards, Thomas
Crooks, William	Kelly, Edward	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Crumley, Patrick	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)	Leach, Charles	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Dawes, J. A.	Lewis, John Herbert	Robinson, Sidney
Delany, William	Logan, John William	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Doris, W.	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Duffy, William J.	Lundon, T.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Lynch, A. A.	Rowntree, Arnold
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E, B.
Ferens, T. R.	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Sheehy, David
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Macpherson, James Ian	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Callum, John M.	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Furness, Stephen W.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Spicer, Sir Albert
Gelder, Sir W. A.	M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)	Sutherland, J. E.
Gill, A. H.	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Goldstone, Frank	Manfield, Harry	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Toulmin, Sir George

784

785

Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Walton, Sir Joseph	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wardle, George J.	Wiles, Thomas	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Watt, Henry A.	Wilkie, Alexander
White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. W. Jones.
White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Question, "That 'twelve' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I beg to move in Subsection (4) to leave out the words, "Except with the consent of the society or committee administering the benefit."
The Amendments which I desire to move concern two points. As the House knows, the expressions British Islands and United Kingdom do not mean the same thing. The United Kingdom does not include the Isle of man or the Channel Islands, and it is necessary, I think, to clear that matter up in the Section. The other point is that the onus of proof rests upon the insured person who is, say, taken ill at Marseilles, and who might become disentitled to benefit. I am not speaking of medical benefit, because manifestly that would be impossible to administer. In order to secure the case of a person who was temporarily outside the United Kingdom, I would propose that the Clause be amended by a subsequent Amendment. The two proposals on the Paper are really alternative, and if the Committee accept the first, the second becomes unnecessary. I, therefore, propose that the Sub-section should read in this way. Omitting the words before the word "no," and inserting the words on the Paper slightly amended, in order to avoid the double negative, the Sub-section will read: "No insured person shall be entitled to any benefit during any period when he is resident, either temporarily or permanent, outside the British Isles, provided that if a person is temporarily resident in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands he shall, whilst so resident, be entitled to benefits other than medical benefit, and that if, with the consent of the society or committee by which the benefit is administered, a person is temporarily resident outside the United Kingdom elsewhere than in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, the society or committee may allow him, whilst so resident, to continue to receive sickness or disablement benefit." That would cover the points I have raised.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I shall be happy to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, leaving out the words down to the word "no," and afterwards his suggested proviso, amended, as I understand, to avoid the double negative.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I understand the Amendment to mean that if any man 786 ontitled to benefit goes out of the United Kingdom he will still be entitled to those benefits?

§ Dr. ADDISON
Not at all.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Then will the hon. Member explain?

§ Dr. ADDISON
Whilst resident outside the United Kingdom—in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands—the person would be entitled to receive sickness or disablement benefit, but not other benefits.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Is that confined to-the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands? I understand the effect to be that a man may still receive sickness benefit if he is out of the United Kingdom. What is to prevent malingering? If a man goes out of the United Kingdom, and while staying in a foreign country receive sickness benefit, who is to find out whether he is well or ill? If we are to pass this Bill, surely it ought to be confined to people resident in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. CAVE
We want to know what difference the Amendment makes. I understand the Clause as it stands, but I find a difficulty in understanding it as proposed to be amended. Why is an insured person who lives in the Isle of Man not to receive medical benefit?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The difference made by the Amendment is very simple. At present the opening words "except with the consent of the society or committee administering the benefit," govern the whole Sub-section. There is no distinction made between temporary residence in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. and temporary residence elsewhere outside the United Kingdom. The object of my hon. Friend is to divide persons temporarily resident outside the United Kingdom into two categories; first of all, those who are resident temporarily in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, who may receive sick benefit without the consent of the society; and secondly, persons who are temporarily resident outside the United Kingdom, who can receive sick benefit only with the consent of the society. My hon. Friend slightly enlarges the scope of the Sub-section. Residence in the Isle of Man or in the Channel Islands 787 is for all intents and purposes residence within the United Kingdom, but outside those islands the consent of the committee, who will of course safeguard the fund, has to be obtained. The reason why medcal benefit is not given in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands is that the cases would be rare and there would be difficulty involved in regard to the medical arrangements. Additional arrangements would have to be made, and I understand it would really mean that the medical benefit would have to be paid for twice over.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
The right hon. Gentleman says that the words "except with the consent of the society or committee administering the benefit" govern the whole Sub-section. But I understood him to accept an Amendment omitting those words.

§ Mr. McKENNA
My hon. Friend has moved his Amendment in a form which omits those words as far as temporary residence in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is concerned. But he re-enacts similar words, words which have the same effect as regards temporary residence outside the British Islands.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
Quite so. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me one other explanation. The first part refers to the contributor who is resident temporarily in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. It says he shall not be disentitled to benefits other than medical benefit. Why vary the language of the first and last part of the Amendment? The last lines say, "he shall be entitled to continue to receive sickness and disablement benefit." Are these words precisely the same? Do they mean that he will not be disentitled to the benefits other than medical benefits just the same as the opening words?

§ Mr. McKENNA
Precisely the same.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
Then why not reserve the same form of words in the last two lines of the Amendment? That it is different will undoubtedly give rise to all sorts of difficulties. Why say in the first two lines "shall not be disentitled," and at the finish say "he shall continue to receive"? Why the variation? It means the same thing.

§ Mr. McKENNA
It is two different categories. It refers to persons who are out-aide the British Islands. They may be 788 allowed to continue to receive benefits with the consent of the committee. That is why there is a difference.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
Only for sickness and disablement?

§ Mr. McKENNA
That is all.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
May I ask— [Interruption.] Really hon. Members below the Gangway do not seem to think it is necessary to pay any attention whatever, nor to follow these difficulties. Some of us know that if the words are varied that undoubtedly legal doubts will arise.

§ Mr. W. CROOKS
What I want to know is why the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment at all? I cannot understand these things. It is "making confusion worse confounded." You are going to allow them to draw their sick benefit in the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man. What I want to make clear is who is to decide whether a man is sick or who has to receive the sick allowance? A man in either of these islands may be drawing holiday money, and you are then going to throw it back on the committee to make an investigation as to whether a man is entitled to sick benefit or whether he is being paid for his holiday by his firm who sent him. He may be getting double pay. You are raising all these difficulties! You go a little further and say he may be on a ship in a distant part of the world, and make claim and be allowed after investigation. You are raising all these things on what appears to be a simple Amendment. Those of us who have to deal with these matters know that the whole time of the committee may be taken up with what appears to be a simple point, but what is not really a simple point. To accept such an Amendment appears to me to be disastrous.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I gather that the Government have brought this difficulty upon themselves, and brought it upon themselves in two ways. In the first place the Clause draws a subtle distinction between the British Islands and the United Kingdom. It was not obvious to me on the First Reading of the Clause exactly what that subtle distinction was, and I am bound to say that although the right hon. Gentleman has addressed us three or four times he has not yet made it quite clear what the Government intended by the distinction. Some of us are entirely at a loss to understand that a person was outside the British 789 Islands who still in some remarkable manner was not outside the United Kingdom, and that that particular person should be picked out as being a person who was not entitled to medical benefit. Then the matter was further complicated by the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, and moved it, not in the manner he had it expressed on the Paper, but moved it by leaving out the word "not" in one place which makes it entirely have a different intention. Then he endeavours to improve the position a little later down by leaving out the prefix "this." I say, Mr. Whitley, is it fair to the Committee for the Government to accept this Amendment, altering radically in two places the Amendment and making entirely different sentences to what appears on the Paper?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
By leaving out some of the negatives it leaves the Amendment exactly the same in meaning, but in better form.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I submit to your view as to the effect of the Amendment, but I have my own views, if I may say so, that it does not always follow—though it may be so in this particular case—that to leave out two negatives does make a positive! The difficulty arises here on a subsequent part of the Amendment. What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is: If some of my Constituents go to the Isle of Man—and a very large number of them do go—and are sick on the way or after they get there—and a large number of them are sick—I cannot understand why they are to be disentitled to any sick benefit? I wish to point out—and I trust my hon. Friends opposite will not misunderstand me, because I am perfectly serious— that a very considerable number of men and their wives ever year go to the Isle of Man from the Liverpool district. I say why should the temporary absence of these disentitle them to medical benefit? I presume, also while in the Isle of Man, that in the case of the women they will be disentitled to maternity benefit and other benefits of that description. If that is the effect of the Amendment which the Government Lave not accepted, I venture to protest against it. It is not right that the decent working man who is insured under this Bill, when he gets a few weeks holiday and goes to a place like the Isle of Man, which happens to be the principal holiday place of a number of these people, 790 should lose a large proportion of his benefits. It is perfectly obvious that in other parts of the country there are seaside and other places of recreation where the bulk of the people may go under similar circumstances; but we in the neighbourhood of Liverpool are picked out because the place of resort is the Isle of Man. So far as I am concerned, I shall be prepared to take a Division against penalising the people because they go to the Isle of Man, for I do not think that it is fair.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "or to medical benefit during any period when he is resident outside the United Kingdom," and to insert instead thereof the words, Provided that if a person is temporarily resident in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, he shall whilst so resident be entitled to benefits other than medical benefit, and that if, with the consent of the society or the committee by which the benefit is administered, a person is temporarily resident outside the United Kingdom elsewhere than in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands the society or committee may allow him whilst so resident to continue to receive sickness or disablement benefit.

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "other than medical benefit." My intention is that a person in the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands shall be entitled to the benefit that would be given to a man in any other part of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I think the Committee would be only too glad if it were practicable to carry out the views of the hon. Member, but how could an approved society make arrangements in advance to give medical benefits to any number of persons whom they did not know, whose movements are quite unrestricted and who go to the Isle of Man or elsewhere. They would not know the persons or the town 791 they came from or the conditions, and they could not possibly make arrangements with medical men in the Isle of Man to deal with these unknown patients. It is on the ground of its impracticability that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I should like to point out if a society, say in Glasgow, is dealing with this matter there may be a good deal of reason in the argument that that society may not be able to deal with people who went from Glasgow temporarily to the Hebrides or to some other island within a few miles of the shores of the United Kingdom. But there is no more difficulty in a health committee or in an approved society dealing with persons from Liverpool who go to the Isle of Man than there would be in such a committee or society dealing with members if they happened temporarily to move from Edinburgh to London or from any other parts of the United Kingdom. The objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman is purely imaginary, and to give that as a reason as to why you should exclude one of the principal resorts from South-west Lancashire seems to me to utterly fail. The difficulty which he suggests in connection with the Isle of Man would arise in regard to any two points in the United Kingdom.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
What would happen in the case of a man, John Smith, resident in London, who went to the Isle of Wight? Under the Bill would John Smith be entitled to benefits in the Isle of Wight just as he would be in London? If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that owing to the difficulty of following him to the Isle of Wight he would not be entitled to the benefits under the Bill I probably would support him. If, on the other hand, John Smith would be entitled to benefits in the Isle of Weight why should he not be entitled to the same benefits in the Isle of Man?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The answer is extremely simple. In the Isle of Wight there would be an approved society with its medical arrangements for dealing with those people. In the Isle of Man there would not be because it does not come under the Bill. Everyone knows the Isle of Man has its own Parliament, and it is not for us to decide what the Isle of Man should do. If there was a reciprocal 792 arrangement by which they gave medical benefits to our people and we gave medical benefits to theirs it would be different.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it would be open to the Isle of Man to adopt the Bill, and to make reciprocal arrangements exactly on the same lines as the Isle of Wight I will not press the Amendment, and will ask leave to withdraw it. But I do not see why a wealthy person leaving London and going to the Isle of Wight should still get his benefit, while a poor man going to the Isle of Man should lose his. If the right hon. Gentleman gives, me the assurance I ask for I should be quite content.

§ Captain CLIVE
It is not a question whether or not the Isle of Man may join under this Bill. There are no doubt branches of the Manchester Unity and the Foresters in the Isle of Man which would get over the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; and there is also a branch in the Post Office Society. Is it the intention of the Government that those who visit the Isle of Man must wait for benefit until the Isle of Man joins the scheme under the Bill.

§ Mr. HOHLER
Supposing John Smith goes from London to the Isle of Wight, and he is not a member of an approved society. Let us assume that he is a Post Office contributor. Would he lose his benefit? Supposing, on the other hand, he is a member of an approved society which has not got a branch in the Isle of Wight. What then is his position? Surely he will not lose his benefit. I can see no reason why the same principle should not extend to the Isle of Man. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty explain the real difference in sound argument between John Smith who goes from London to the Isle of Wight and John Smith who goes from London to the Isle of Man?

§ Mr. EDWARD WOOD
The First Lord of the Admiralty says there is no approved society in the Isle of Man. If so, I am quite sure he will feel it is rather an injustice to a man who, after paying his contribution here, happens to go to the Isle of Man and loses his medical benefit. Would it not be possible here to introduce the principle contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester to the effect that it should be possible for an approved society to make a grant towards the medical expenses of the man who 793 happens to fall sick in the Isle of Man. I should have thought it would have been purely a matter of book-keeping?

§ Mr. BOOTH
There was a Bill which came before the House of Commons relating to the Isle of Man, and I asked what was the difference in the position. I consulted Mr. Speaker, and he suggested I should put down a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising the whole question of the Isle of Man, and that is what I intend to do. I think the discussion at this point is most inconvenient.

§ Mr. BARNES
I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and not press this matter to a Division.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I have already offered to withdraw my Amendment, but leave was refused.

§ Mr. BARNES
May I point out that a friendly society member who goes to the Isle of Man or the Isle of Wight can get his ordinary benefits, but I have yet to hear of a friendly society which will follow him to those places and allow him medical benefits. In the Isle of Man and elsewhere there is no club doctor, and it would mean special provision. I fail to see why a man going to the Isle of Wight or the Isle of Man should have exceptional treatment.

§ 10.0 P.M.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am afraid the words suggested provide only for those permanently out of the United Kingdom, and the result is that those temporarily out of the United Kingdom will not be entitled to benefits.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
moved, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the following words: "Provided that his wife shall not suffer loss of maternity or other benefit if she is resident within the British Isles."

§ Mr. McKENNA
I have been authorised to accept this Amendment, although not in precisely the same form of words. The Amendment I suggest is in this form, "And that a person resident out of the United Kingdom shall not be disentitled to maternity benefit in respect of the confinement of his wife, if his wife at the time of her confinement is resident in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I accept those words.

794

§ Mr. BARNES
I beg to move, in Sub section (5) after the word "of" ["(5) where an insured person having been in receipt of sickness benefit"] to insert the word "full." The object of this Amendment is to provide that the person dealt with here shall only be penalised in the manner suggested if in receipt of full benefit on going off sick, and that if he is in receipt of full benefit for presumably a short period any subsequent coming on benefits shall be treated as a continuation of that sickness. A man may run thirteen weeks, and then come on short benefit, and it would be rather hard to treat that subsequent illness as a continuation with the penalty attaching.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
The effect of this Amendment would be to make thi3 Sub-section apply only to cases where persons should receive full sick benefit. I understand by full sick benefit the hon. Member means the maximum amount payable for a period of weeks. It is difficult to see why there should be any distinction drawn in principle between people in receipt of full benefit or anything less than full benefit. The whole object of this provision is to safeguard the fund from having to pay the sick benefit at a number of intervals instead of during continuous sickness. All we desire is that when there is a case of this kind they should not constantly be having to pay again and again a high rate of sick benefit. I would suggest that the same principle must apply both to the full benefit and to the lower benefit, and all we desire is to safeguard the fund to that extent.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. FORSTER
moved, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "continuous or discontinuous."

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I am prepared to agree to the omission of these words.

§ Mr. CAVE
Will this alter the effect of the Sub-section?

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out, I think, clearly, and at any rate to our satisfaction, that the words "continuous or discontinuous" were unnecessary. The effect will be to make the words read, "In the meanwhile a period of at least twelve months has elapsed."

§ Mr. CAVE
That makes it continuous?

795

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
You do not want the "continuous period." There must be a period of twelve months elapse. The words are really unnecessary to carry out what is, I think, the common, view of the whole Committee.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Ought it not to be a "continuous period?" What does it mean if it is not? If it means "continuous," why should it not be stated? Our suspicions have been aroused by the words "continuous or discontinuous," because we did not know what "discontinuous period" means. We know what the "continuous period" means. Why cannot that be so stated?

§ Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the word "twelve" ["at least twelve months has elapsed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
The Amendment is to reduce the interval between two illnesses from twelve to six months. I believe it is the general practice of friendly societies not to regard an illness as a continuation where an interval of six months has elapsed since a previous illness. I therefore move this Amendment to make the provisions of the Bill uniform with the general practice of the friendly societies.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
We have followed, not merely the practice of the friendly societies, but their growing practice. They have found it necessary to extend the period to twelve months in order to prevent difficulties with regard to claims for the higher benefits payable during the first part of an illness. I think my hon. Friend may depend upon it that when friendly societies have to alter their rules in a sense detrimental to their members as far as benefits are concerned, there must be some real need which they themselves recognise. That is really one reason why we have to put in this proviso. It is one of those checks on malingering which the experience of the friendly societies has proved to be absolutely necessary. I think, if my hon. Friend will look at what has happened in the large friendly societies, he will find that within the last few years several of them have altered their rules extending the period to twelve months for that very reason. Our actuarial calculations have been based upon "twelve months," and, if there is 796 any alteration, it would be a serious alteration to the actuarial basis. I do not think we should be justified, having regard to the warning we have had from the experience of the friendly societies, in making this Amendment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (5) to leave out the words, "Provided that the benefit in respect of such subsequent or recurrent disease or disablement shall not commence-to be payable before the date at which it would, apart from this provision, have commenced."
I do not understand what is the object of these words at all. Perhaps the Government will say what they mean. If they mean to treat a man as if he was a. new entrant after he has had a period of benefit then I shall maintain my objection and press my Amendment. It seems to me that is the only meaning you can attach to the words. When a man is insured, he has paid his premium and his employer has paid his contribution, and he ought to be entitled, subject of course to-reasonable provisions against malingering, to his insurance benefit, but this appears to be intended to keep him out altogether and to bring him in as a new entrant with a new six months' waiting period for sickness benefit and a new two years' waiting period for disablement benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It really means he will receive his sickness benefit under the conditions already settled in Subsection (c).

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
That is a two years' waiting period?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It provides for notice and includes the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson).

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
That is the four days and the notice?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, four days and notice.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Would it not be possible then to say that? This is quite capable of the construction that there is a waiting period of six months for sickness benefit and two years for disablement benefit as if he were a new entrant. If you refer me to the previous Sub-section, I have not the least objection.

797

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If I had known of the point, I would have had an Amendment ready to make it quite clear. The mere fact that the hon. Member thinks there is a doubt is quite sufficient to justify us in making it perfectly clear, and I will promise to introduce words to show it does not mean the two years' waiting period.

§ Mr. BARNES
I think we are entitled to a little more. I understand the four days' waiting period will be included. I do not think the Government are entitled to that. We have already decided this is a continuation of a previous illness in respect of which he has had benefit, and it; seems to me unfair to make a man have a waiting period of four days before he comes on.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is not a continuation at all. It means if a man falls ill within twelve months he will get his benefit exactly the same as he does the

798

§ first time. We have discussed that. My hon. Friend made his protest then, and I do hope he will be satisfied now. Otherwise if you raise the point over and over again we shall never get to the end.

§ Mr. HILLS
I cannot see why a man-should be deprived of this four days' benefit if his disease continues. Surely it is unfair to assume the disease in such a case is not continuous. And if you choose for your own purposes to treat the illness as one continuous illness, why should you deprive him of four days' benefit? This is a very small thing; it cannot make muck difference to the Bill, but it is hard that at both ends of the scale the Government should claim to gain.

§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 144.

799

Division No. 275.]	AYES.	[10.20 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Addison, Dr. C.	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Leach, Charles
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)	Ferens, T. R.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lewis, John Herbert
Armitage, R.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Logan, John William
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Furness, Stephen W.	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury E.)	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Lundon, T.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Lynch, A. A.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South))
Barton, W.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Macpherson, James Ian
Beale, W. P.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	M'Callum, John M.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hackett, J.	M'Laren, H, D. (Leics.)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Hancock, John George	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Bentham, G. J.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Manfield, Harry
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Booth, Frederick Handel	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Boyle, D. (Mayo N.)	Harwood, George	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Brady, P. J.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Meagher, Michael
Brunner, John F. L.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Bryce, John Annan	Hayden, John Patrick	Molteno, Percy Alport
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hayward, Evan	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Helme, Norval Watson	Morgan, George Hay
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Munro, R.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor	Needham, Christopher T.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Higham, John Sharp	Neilson, Francis
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Hinds, John	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Chancellor, H. G.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Nolan, Joseph
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Holt, Richard Durning	Norman, Sir Henry
Clough, William	Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nuttall, Harry
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Hughes, S. L.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cotton, William Francis	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Dowd, John
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	John, Edward Thomas	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crumley, Patrick	Johnson, W.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Dawes, J. A.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Delany, William	Joyce, Michael	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Doris, W.	Keating, Matthew	Pringle, William M. R.
Duffy, William J.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Radford, George Heynes
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Kelly, Edward	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Reddy, Michael
Richards, Thomas,	Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Webb, H.
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Sheehy, David	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Sherwell, Arthur James	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Whyte, A. F. Perth
Robinson, Sydney	Sutherland, John E.	Wiles, Thomas
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wiliams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Tennant, Harold John	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Toulmin, Sir George	Winfrey, Richard
Rose, Sir Charles Day	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Rowntree, Arnold	Walton, Sir Joseph
Samuel, J. (Stockton)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Watt, Henry A.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Gardner, Ernest	Parker, James (Halifax)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Gill, A. H.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Ashley, W. W.	Goldstone, Frank	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Pointer, Joseph
Baird, J. L.	Gretton, John	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Balcarres, Lord	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barnes, George N.	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Rolleston, Sir John
Barnston, Harry	Hardie, J. Keir	Rowlands, James
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Hillier, Dr. A. P.	Sanders, Robert A.
Beresford, Lord Charles	Hodge, John	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bigland, Alfred	Hohler, G. Fitzroy	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Bird, A.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Houston, Robert Paterson	Snowden, Philip
Bowerman, C. W.	Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Starkey, John Ralph
Boyton, J.	Ingleby, Holcombe	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Jowett, Frederick William	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)
Bull, Sir William James	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.	Swift, Rigby
Butcher, J. G.	Keswick, William	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Kirkwood, John H. M.	Talbot, Lord E.
Cassel, Felix	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cator, John	Lansbury, George	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Cave, George	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Touche, George Alexander
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)	Valentia, Viscount
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Walker, Colonel William Hall
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Macmaster, Donald	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Craik, Sir Henry	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine.)	Wardle, George J.
Croft, H. P.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Crooks, William	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Wilkie, Alexander
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Mount, William Arthur	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Duke, Henry Edward	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Wolmer, Viscount
Fell, Arthur	Nield, Herbert	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Forster, Henry William	Ormsby-Gore, Hon, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Hills.
Foster, Philip Staveley	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Lord HENRY BENTINCK
I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (6), and to insert instead thereof, "(6) Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, no woman who is herself entitled to maternity benefit shall thereby be disqualified from receiving in addition such sickness, disablement, sanatorium, medical, or other benefit to which she is otherwise entitled under this Act."
800 The object of this Amendment is to give an insured woman the full benefits to which she is entitled; in other words, to place a woman in the same position as a man. An insured man gets maternity benefit for his wife, and medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, disablement benefit, and sickness benefit for himself. As far as the Bill says at present, an insured woman only gets 30s. for maternity. A further injustice is that she is paid at a lower rate for sickness.

801

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I indicated earlier in the evening the Amendment which the Government were prepared to move at this stage. We could not possibly accept this, for reasons which I have already indicated. Sanatorium benefit an insured person would be entitled to under any conditions, so the Amendment is not necessary as far as that is concerned. With regard to medical benefit the 30s. is intended to cover the medical benefit, and if it is pressed as a medical benefit you undoubtedly get into great difficulties with the medical profession. If you keep 30s. in respect of maternity you allow parties to enter into their own bargain with the medical profession. Some doctors would take their half guinea, others will insist on a guinea, and I dare say there will be other cases where the charge is heavier. I think that is the only basis upon which you can come to any arrangement with the medical profession. The only case, I think, which this class of insured person has against the Bill is that although there is a double insurance they only get a single benefit. I have already promised to provide for that case. I propose to move an Amendment in that sense, but I cannot do so unless the Noble Lord chooses to withdraw his Amendment. What I propose is that where a woman is an insured person and is also the wife of an insured person she shall be entitled to maternity benefit, and that that will be put to the man's account. That part of the Amendment I cannot move at this stage. That will come later on when we come to discriminate between the man's side and the woman's side. I propose that the woman should be entitled to maternity benefit and also to full sick pay. That means that she will get 30s. for maternity benefit, and that she will then be free to pay her own doctor or midwife or nurse and midwife. In addition to that, she will be entitled to sick pay. I thought that that on the whole met the general wish of the Committee. The hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith- Boscawen) withdrew his Amendment on condition that I would move that Amendment.

Lord HENRY BENTINCK
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,

§ Mr. FORSTER
Before the Amendment is withdrawn I wish to get further information. I am not entirely satisfied with the limited number of cases which will come under the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has 802 just sketched out to us. He says that unless this Amendment is withdrawn he cannot move his own, which comes on a later part of the Bill. I think before the Amendment is withdrawn we ought really to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be a little more elastic in the matter. I really think that when the Committee approach the consideration of the benefits to be given under the Bill we ought to keep one broad principle in mind. The broad principle is that when people have paid contributions for certain benefits they ought to get them. If we keep that principle in mind, we ought not to differentiate between the sexes. A man when he contributes gets maternity benefit as well as sickness benefit. It sounds strange, but it is perfectly true. If he is ill he draws sickness benefit, and if his wife is confined he draws maternity benefit in respect of her. I do not see why she should not get sickness benefit as well as maternity benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confines it to the cases of those women who have married insured men.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I will read the form of my Amendment. It is true that I am confining it to married women. This is the form of the Amendment: "Provided that this Sub-section shall not affect the right of such a woman, if married, to sickness benefit during such period." That covers the whole case.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
It does not cover the case of a posthumous child.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is another point. I think this ought to be confined to married women.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I think the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given entirely removes the difficulty I had.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "benefit" ["or medical benefit"], to insert the words "in respect of or consequent upon her confinement."
This is intended to cover cases of sickness which are in no way connected with the confinement and which are not provided for.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is really based upon a complete misconception. She would be entitled to medical benefit in respect of any sickness which is not strictly maternity.

803

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Not only is it not so, as expressed in the Clause, but the Government have already admitted in reply to a question that it would require amendment to make it quite clear. As the Clause is now expressed, the maternity benefit which the woman receives does not cover other sickness, although she has paid regular premiums in respect of sickness disablement other than maternity. During the four weeks to which this benefit is limited she may have any sort of sickness totally unconnected with her confinement, but in respect of that she receives no money whatever for the premiums which she has paid during the previous period. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury admitted last week in answer to a question which I asked that, as expressed, this point was not quite clear, but that the Government were quite prepared to make it clear. All I want to secure is that the woman shall receive benefit in respect of any sickness unconnected with her confinement in return for the premiums which she has been paying.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am not very satisfied with the words proposed by the hon. Member, but I am in complete agreement with him. I am not sure that I would not go further, but for the moment I accept the Amendment, subject to its being reconsidered as to form on the Report Stage.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (6) to add, Provided that this Sub-section shall not affect the right of such woman, if married, to sickness benefit during such period. That will cover the whole of the case of the hon. Member opposite.

§ Mr. HILLS
I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to charge alternative benefits on the men's fund.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. HILLS
Then you might say so.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have already explained that I cannot do that here. I have got to do that later on. I quite admit that it must be put in the Bill.

§ Mr. HILLS
My point is this: Here you have a certain fund to be set free. A certain part of the women's fund is set free, and you are obliged to apply that for the 804 benefit of the women. I do submit that the very worst way, passing it on these lines, is to pay a double maternity benefit, for though you call this sick pay in addition to maternity benefit, it is, in fact, double maternity benefit. Certain mothers will get £3, and certain mothers will get 30s. Either 30s. is enough or it-is not enough. If it is not enough, give them more. If it is enough, why give certain mothers double that amount? I want the money for quite a different purpose. The only benefit that. I think ought to be included in these benefits, and to run as well as the maternity benefit, is the medical benefit. It certainly ought to run for this reason, which I think is very important. Assume-the case of a married woman who is herself an insured person. At the beginning of each year her society will have to contract with the doctor for medical benefit, and that contract will last for the whole year. Why should she be deprived of the benefit of that contract for the four weeks of her confinement? She has paid for the whole year. No doctor will accept a smaller fee. Why should she not get the benefit for the-whole year? Of course, she will be compelled to pay rather more perhaps, but why should she be deprived of that medical benefit for which she must have paid? Here-you are now paying double benefit to certain persona. Who are those persons? They are wives of insured men. Over and above that the Chancellor's Amendment will include all married women, but the large bulk of those will be the wives of insured men. The insured man is a wage-earner, and the insured wife must be a wage-earner, because she must be a compulsory contributor or she cannot come in at all. Therefore you are helping the home that needs help least, since the husband and wife are wage-earners. That is one objection.
My real objection is this, that you are putting a premium on married women's labour. As things stand at present, the married woman, who stays at home and looks after her home gets a certain maternity benefit, while the woman who goes out and works for wages gets double maternity benefit. I submit that that is a. very bad way of using the money. I quite see that you must use this money for the benefit of the women. It is subscribed by women, and they ought to get the benefit, but do not put a premium on sending women out to earn Wages. I am surprised at a good many things in this Bill, but at 805 nothing more than the treatment of married women. All through the Bill, unless a married woman goes out and earns wages, she is absolutely excluded from benefit. [Mr. Lloyd George was understood to indicate dissent.] All that she gets as maternity benefit her husband earns. She cannot be an insured person, and cannot come in as a voluntary contributor. She is absolutely excluded by Clause 34. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of putting a double premium on married women's labour, let him spend this money on the married woman who lives at home. He has a fund set free, contributed to by women, and I do appeal to him not to spend it on sending women into the wage market, but to spend it on inducing them to stay at home. We know from the experience of the friendly societies that there is no more malingering amongst women than men. I ask the Chancellor not to be led astray by the statement that unless she contributes she ought not to benefit. A married woman cannot contribute, she has no wage out of which the contributions can be taken, and, whatever the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) may say, all contributory Bills must be unfair to her. Hare you are making the Bill still more unfair. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the matter, and use the money which he saves from the women's fund for the benefit of women, but in some way different from that which he proposes.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I cannot accept this concession as a complete satisfaction of the claims of those who are asking that mere justice should be done to women under this Bill. The concession applies only to married women; it ignores altogether that most pitiful being of all— the woman who has the misfortune to be the mother of an illegitimate child. This woman is insured, she has paid full insurance premiums, and by virtue of those payments she has a right to full sick pay, disablement pay, and medical benefit. The proposal of this Clause is now that that woman shall be deprived of all these benefits, and that in place of them she shall be given a partial and limited medical benefit, namely, 30s. towards the expenses of her lying-in. This pitiable and hopeless creature, who may have dependents, who may have other children, who may have younger brothers and sisters, who may be a widow, who may be supporting her father or mother, is to be deprived of all 806 means of support and of maintaining those dependents; she is to get nothing at all but the partial medical benefit. It is placing a terrible burden upon her. We are all desirous of preventing those cases of infanticide which so frequently occur, and which occur more frequently than from any other cause because of lack of means to support the child during this period. Under this Bill we have an opportunity of doing something to prevent such terrible cases by extending to these women the same treatment that is given to other women. Therefore, I say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not gone far enough to satisfy those who are urging the just claims of women under this Bill.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "if married."
I know no reason why unmarried women should be penalised in this respect any more than her married sister. The maternity benefit comes from the men's fund. That point has been made clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the woman be not married there is still a man somewhere who is presumably paying into the fund responsible for the child. Therefore there is nothing being lost from that point of view in paying the unmarried woman the same maternity benefit, as is paid to her married sister. Then the sickness benefit is hers by right. She has paid for that. She is entitled to receive it. And the sickness if it be due to maternity would require to be paid for in any case. Let us see how this might work out. Suppose the case of a married woman, herself an insured person, being confined. Her husband might at that very time be in receipt of sick pay. Despite that fact his wife also would be entitled, not only to maternity benefit, but to sick benefit. Therefore this married woman and her husband would be drawing double benefits from the funds. I hope the Chancellor is not going to raise the objection that to pay this to an unmarried woman is to pay a premium on immorality. That question, I submit, has got to be raised in some other way than this. Nine times out of ten the woman is a victim, and is penalised sufficiently for her indiscretion in the fact of having the child; and since the benefit is to come from the men's fund I see no reason whatever why the men's fund should shirk its responsibility and its liability because the father of the child happens to be unmarried.

807

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
The Government cannot accept this Amendment. The whole point has been met to-day by the concessions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no reason why we should take out these words "if married," which would really be giving the proviso of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very much wider application than ever was intended by him in the observations he made.

§ 11.0 P.M.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is not in error because a woman who is an insured person, whether she is married or not, is entitled to maternity benefit under Sub-section (1), paragraph (e), of Clause 8. This woman is also a wage-earner, and if her wages cease then she is entitled to her sickness benefit. Take the case of an unmarried man. The theory is that his wages are replaced by the 10s. per week. If an unmarried woman's wages stop she is entitled, upon precisely the same grounds, to her insurance of 7s. 6d. per week. She may not have dependents, but she is dependent upon herself, and she is in precisely the same position as the unmarried man. The case has been narrowed down, and we need not blink it, that the woman is the mother of an illegitimate child. I need not restate the case; these cases are the most melancholy cases we have got to deal with. The woman, in nine cases of of ten, is more to be pitied than to be blamed, certainly than to be punished. The illegitimate child is going to be subjected to all the pains and penalties of birth, pains and penalties which the Chancellor very properly and very humanely provides against in his maternity benefits. We may take it that the maternity benefit is a provision for the child for the purposes of tiding it over these very critical days or weeks of birth. Why should not the woman have her 7s. 6d. given her for the four weeks during which she is not allowed to work if she is going to get maternity benefit under paragraph (e) in order to enable her to keep the roof above her head and to give her a chance? She has paid for the whole thing. Why should she not get a fair chance to start life as fairly as possible after the period of birth is over. I appeal to the Chancellor not to take the stand he has taken, and to give this woman as fair a chance as he possibly can, and to give her what she is perfectly entitled as an insured person.

808

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I cannot accept the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend. The very essence of insurance against sickness, as understood in this country up to the present, is that maternity cannot be treated from the insurance point of view as ordinary sickness; it really stands to reason. If my hon. Friends will look at the table of statistics for sickness they will find that up to the age of forty sickness is on the average but for a week. The moment you come to maternity benefit you find that the period is not a week, but four weeks. That baffles any concern as an insurance proposition.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
This Amendment only covers a very small field.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I want first of all to answer the proposition that the woman in this case is blameless, and that the only case in which maternity is given is a case in which there is a separate insurance fund raised for it. The reason why the Government conceded that in the case of a married woman whose husband was also insured was that they are entitled to claim it because they have paid for it. There was a double payment and only a single benefit. It is true that we have got beyond that now, and we have now framed our Amendment so as to give the double benefit to a married woman whose husband is not insured. My hon. Friend said there were many cases where the married woman was the wage-earner of the family in cases where the husband was broken down or out of work. We, felt that as an insurable proposition she was not entitled to double benefits. Then there is the claim for subsistence of the family. That is not the case with a single woman with an illegitimate child, for it is very rarely that she has any other dependents, and the rule is the other way. Therefore she has not the same claim as the married woman who is the wage-earner, for unless she gets the 7s. 6d. the family have nothing to fall back upon. That is not the same case as the person who gives birth to a child outside wedlock.
Let me put another proposition. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, you may have an assured person who is responsible for this woman's fall. She has a legal claim upon him. She has a legal remedy, and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred she enforces it. She has a remedy which covers the cost of the birth, the fee of the doctor, and maintenance allowance. That is surely not the same kind of ease as the person 809 who is left without any legal remedy. My hon. Friend wants this woman, in addition to all those legal remedies, to get 30s. sickness benefit, when in most of these cases she is in the lying-in ward of a hospital where she has no expenses of maintenance at all. Therefore the case is not on the same footing as the married woman. For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that we cannot accept this Amendment. It is not as if we had unlimited funds. I must again remind the Committee of this fact. We have to decide not so much on the merits of an individual case as upon the comparative merits. You have a certain fund to dispose of among so many comparative claims for distribution of benefit, and this is not one of the most urgent. I therefore hope that the Government having really met my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and having gone further than the original benefit we put down, and having met him far more than half way, that he will be satisfied with the progress he has made, and allow this Amendment to be withdrawn.

§ Mr. WALTER M'LAREN
I feel sure that the vast majority of Members on this side will be deeply disappointed with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is such a thing as mercy as well as justice, and if there is one class who are deserving of mercy as well as of pity and justice it is this unfortunate class of women. Even if somebody has to go a little bit short I think we should strain a point in favour of these victims of men. It is idle to say that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred they get affiliation orders. I do not believe five per cent, of them get affiliation orders. I do not wish to dispute the precise fraction, but to say ninety-nine per cent, get affiliation orders, and therefore have a legal remedy, is not to represent the facts. I believe it is the duty of this House to grant these unhappy women the maternity benefits in addition to their sickness pay. I greatly doubt whether it is accurate to say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that the great majority go into the lying-in hospitals. I do not think they could possibly hold anything like the majority of these unfortunate women. Therefore, whether the funds are adequate or not, I do appeal to the House to support the Amendment, and protest that we ought not to withhold this great act of mercy and justice from the most wronged class of the community 810 simply because there is a little financial difficulty. I think we should stretch a point. I certainly hope we shall go to a Division. This is not a party question, and we are not fighting this Bill on party lines. I do appeal to those anxious to do justice in this great and beneficent measure to take, the advantage of doing the Government a good turn by, if I may say so, putting them in a minority on this question. The Government have based their objections on financial grounds only. Our duty is to do mercy and justice, and I appeal to hon. Members to vote according to the dictates of their manhood, and to do that which they know in their hearts to be right and just and as honourable men to support the Amendment.

§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
Supposing an insured man dies a week or a month before the confinement of his wife —

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
An Amendment is going to be moved dealing with that point.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I hope the Committee will vote for this Amendment irrespective of the question of money. I have heard a good many criticisms from the point of view that the Bill helps people who can help themselves, and to a large extent leaves out of account the most helpless of the community, and if this Amendment is defeated it will mean this British Parliament believes with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a woman who is the victim of some man is in a better position than the married woman who has a husband at her side, even if her husband is not physically capable of earning the whole of his living. I do not think it reflects very much credit on hon. Members to treat this subject in a jocular manner. It is a very serious matter. When a man treats this kind of offence against the moral code with the same severity on man as on woman it will not be laughed at on the next occasion that it is discussed in the British House of Commons. We ask that a woman who has paid the money which if her husband was by her side she would get a return for should equally have a return in these circumstances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us she must not have it because she might be in an institution and be getting her treatment practically for nothing. You have provided in the Bill that if a woman is being treated in that kind of way the benefits are to go to her dependents: if there are no dependents it will of course remain in the fund. It is 811 said that a single woman has no dependents. I should like to ask the House whether the fact that a woman has got an illegitimate child to provide for does not mean much more to her. How many people are there who are willing to stand by a woman under these conditions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says she has her remedy in the court. Many of us have been Poor Law guardians and they will bear me out in this that if there is one section of the people who come before us who are victimised it is the woman. They come in their thousands. Now we are proposing to compel them to contribute something week by week the very least we can do is to assure them the fullest benefits in return for their money. Let us do our best for these women and prevent them slipping still further: let us give them a chance to start in life again. These women are the victims of men: they are treated as outcasts because of a crime committed by man. The penalty and odium attaches to the woman: let us, at the least, do them justice and give it to them ungrudgingly.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I should like to support the protest of my hon. Friend. This is no attempt to subsidise illegitimacy. I notice the blank silence of the Opposition, but they are now being compelled to discuss this question at street corners. I should like very much to hear their views relating to this subject in the only place where those views can be given effect. I am not dealing only with the cases that have been referred to, but there are other cases which have not been mentioned. It is perfectly well known that I was an officer of a particular trade union, and the men engaged in that branch of public work are not so very particular about the marriage laws. But I could take hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House into the homes of some of these men, who have not submitted to either your civil or religious code, relating to marriage, and I could prove that they are living lives as decent as any of those who will come under the Bill. I will venture to suggest that some of them are really a credit as compared with those who have gone through the form and forgotten the realities. It is for them as much as for the single woman that I appeal to you. The House and the country have had their conscience begun to be educated upon matters of this description. There was a time when if the father of a family begotten outside the marriage code was killed or injured not 812 one of the children whom he had brought into being could claim one cent of compensation or assistance from the State. But after the overwhelming sweep of democratic opinion in 1906 we for the first time got it recognised in an industrial code that these people had their rights as well as others, and we established in the Workmen's Compensation Act the right of illegitimate children to have the same protection from the law as those who were begotten under the marriage code.
I do not think anyone has seen anything to complain of as the result of that. I have never heard it suggested by the judges who administer that law that it was not right in principle, and I dare say that when the proposition which is now before us is properly considered there can only be one decision we can come to. After all, these people have paid their money and are really in accordance with the other conditions of the Bill entitled to certain benefits, and the mere fact that they are not married should not be sufficient to deprive them of those benefits. I am not putting this forward from the feminist point of view, that the man is the villain, and that we, as representing men, should try to do justice by way of retaliation. I am putting it forward on the question of right and of right alone. We have no right in fashioning a Bill of this description to introduce principles relating to marriage and make them the excuse for disqualifications under the Bill. It has nothing to do with those principles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already got all the odium he will ever get relating to the alleged subsidising of illegitimacy. That is being worked in the constituencies for every ha'porth it is worth, and the damage is done. He may oppose this proposition as much as he likes, but he will get no credit for that opposition from his opponents opposite. It is much better to face the question, and, having decided the principle in the Acts relating to workmen's compensation, that these cases were entitled to protection and assistance like any others, it ill-behaves us to go back upon that at the eleventh hour.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
The hon. Member is no more entitled to cast reflections upon the Government in connection with this point than upon hon. Members on this side of the House. Are he and his friends the only persons who do not sympathise from the bottom of their hearts with the poor women who are placed in the unfortunate position that has been referred 813 to? It is idle twaddle. Moreover it is assuming a position of sympathy and compassion for these unfortunate people on their part and a want of sympathy and of regard for the amenities of humanity on the part of some hon. Members on this side which is utterly uncalled for. I am afraid hon. Members who have supported this Amendment have not realised what the proposition really is. I gather that they have not followed the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General. It is that when a man is insured and his wife brings forth a child ho gets the maternity benefit and not the wife. When his wife is also a wage-earner, and when she is insured as well the Chancellor looks forward and very properly says, "We have to insure the persons, and we not only give the maternity benefit to the husband who has paid his money in respect of it, but we will give the sickness benefit as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At all events I have tried to follow the Chancellor. There is nothing to prevent her from receiving the sickness benefit because she happens to be a married woman. The Chancellor has gone further and said he would accept an Amendment of mine to add after the word "married, or being a widow, she is confined of a posthumous child." I take it we have really covered all the cases that ought to be covered. Take the case of a single woman who has a child and who is insured. There is nothing in the Bill to stop her from getting her benefits. What is sought to be proposed here is that she shall get the benefit as though she had a husband who was insured as well-a double benefit. There are no two insurance premiums being paid. There is only one. It is not because there is anybody on this side of the House that is wanting in sympathy with the unfortunate class of persons to whom the hon. Members have referred, or that there is the slightest foundation in the suggestions which have been made that anyone is trying to take some credit at street corners-a disgraceful and unfounded insinuation. We appreciate the attempt to meet the exact case in point which is met by the Chancellor's Amendment, and it is for these reasons only that we do not see our way to sympathise with the remarks made from the opposite side.

§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
I should like very much if I could to support the Amendment, but I am very doubtful about one point. I had the unfortunate and sad duty -a few years ago of administering a fund 814 which brought to light a large number of these irregular cases. My experience of administering that fund leads me to believe that there is an objection which, I am very much afraid, applies to this particular Amendment. I refer to the protests of honest, decent women who felt that some unfair advantage was being given to those who have not kept straight. I am very much afraid that married women with legitimate children would feel a certain amount of grievance if this Amendment were accepted. However much one may sympathise with the desire to be merciful towards these unfortunate people, I think we should make a very great mistake if we in any way at all gave a sense of injustice to the others.
As I understand there are three classes of women we have to consider in this connection. First of all there is the married woman who is not an insured person. We have to look at her case in this way. She in the struggle to bring up the family pays through the husband for certain benefits. She gets maternity benefit alone as her share of the common yield to the family in the insurance scheme. In the second place you have the married woman who gets maternity benefit and also sickness benefit because she contributes herself to this special fund. Then there is the third class, of unmarried women who make the one contribution that comes from the married man and the married woman. To that woman you give not only 7s. 6d. a week, but you propose to pay her also maternity benefit out of the men's fund as a gift to which there is no financial claim, whatever claim there may be in sentiment. I do not understand where the justice of that comes in. What I wish to know is whether other women would not feel aggrieved if these women received that benefit. I have listened to the Debates on this Bill, and what occurs to me is that if we are to go on the lines that it is a charitable measure for doing all the things our hearts would desire, then the Bill is going to meet with inevitable disaster. If we are going to deal with all the unfortunate cases in this country to which we should like to dispense charity, I say it will be impossible to get the Bill through. On these considerations of pure financial fairness I must say the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to stand as he has stood.

§ Mr. T. RICHARDSON
I wish to associate myself with hon. Members on both sides of the House who are in sympathy with the Amendment. The 815 hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson. Rutherford) intimated to the Committee that he was going to give to the Members of the Labour party in particular some instruction as to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject now before us.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I did nothing of the sort.

§ Mr. T. RICHARDSON
The hon. Member informed us that we did not understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated. I respectfully suggest that the one person in this assembly who has not been able intelligently to understand the right hon. Gentleman is the hon. Gentleman himself. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer will the 30s. provided in the Bill be paid to the father of the illegitimate child? This question has an important relationship to the question under discussion. My hon.

816

§ Friend the senior Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) has made a pathetic appeal to hon. Members to differentiate between sympathy and the just claims of the people that we are putting forward. In every speech from these benches we have made clear that we are not asking for charity. What we are asking for is justice for these unfortunate women. It is a perfectly legitimate appeal to make to hon. Members opposite. They have endeavoured to make party capital out of what was undoubtedly a weakness in the Bill, and when they proclaim their sympathy with these unfortunate women I would suggest that the only practical effective way in which they can give proof of that sympathy is to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr.

§ Question put, "That the words 'if married' stand part of the proposed. Amendment."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 207 Noes, 95.

817

Division No. 276.]	AYES.	[11.40 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Crumley, Patrick	Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Addison, Dr. C.	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Delany, William	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Armitage, Robert	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Doris, William	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Astor, Waldorf	Duffy, William J.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Duke, Henry Edward	Joyce, Michael
Baker, Josph Alien (Finsbury, E.)	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Keating, Matthew
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Elverston, Sir Harold	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Kelly, Edward
Barnston, H.	Ferens, Thomas Robinson	King, Joseph (Somerset, North)
Barry. Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Barton, William	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Levy, Sir Maurice
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Lewis, John Herbert
Beale, W. P.	Forster, Henry William	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Furness, Stephen	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col, A. R.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Lundon, Thomas
Bentham, G. J.	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Gibbs, George Abraham	Macmaster, Donald
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Greig, Colonel James William	Macpherson, James Ian
Boyton, James	Gretton, John	M'Callum, John M.
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hackett, John	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding).
Brocklehurst, William B.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)
Brunner, John F. L.	Hamersley. Alfred St George	Magnus, Sir Philip
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Manfield, Harry
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Harwood, George	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Meagher, Michael
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cave, George	Hayden, John Patrick	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Chancellor, Henry George	Hayward, Evan	Morgan, George Hay
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Helme, Norval Watson	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Henry, Sir Charles	Mount, William Arthur
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Higham, John Sharp	Munro, Robert
Clough, William	Hinds, John	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Newdegate, F. A.
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Holt, Richard turning	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	Nolan, Joseph
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norman, Sir Henry
Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Roche, John (Galway, E.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nuttall, Harry	Roe, Sir Thomas	Tryon, Captain George Clement
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Rowntree, Arnold	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)	Watt, Henry A.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Samuel, S. H. (Whitechapel)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	Sanders, Robert Arthur	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Pollock, Ernest Murray	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)	Whyte, A. F.
Power, Patrick Joseph	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Wiles, Thomas
Quilter, W. E. C.	Sheehy, David	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Radford, George Heynes	Sherwell, Arthur James	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Rawson, Colonel Richard H.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Williamson, Sir A.
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarborough)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Reddy, Michael	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Winfrey, Richard
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Stewart, Gershom	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Swift, Rigby	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Talbot, Lord Edmund	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Talyor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Robinson, Sidney	Tennant, Harold John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Toulmin, Sir George
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	O'Grady, James
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Parker, James (Halifax)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Hancock, J. G.	Pointer, Joseph
Barnes, Gorge N.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pringle, William M. R.
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Beresford, Lord Charles	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Richards, Thomas
Bigland, Alfred	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Bowerman, C. W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Bryce, J. Annan	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Rolleston, Sir John
Butcher, John George	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Rowlands, James
Cassel, Felix	Hills, John Waller	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hodge, John	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cator, John	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Hunt, Rowland	Sutherland, John E.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	John, Edward Thomas	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Johnson, W.	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Cotton, William Francis	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Jowett, Frederick William	Touche, George Alexander
Crooks, William	Kemp, Sir George	Walker, Col. William Hall
Dawes, J. A.	Keswick, William	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Doughty, Sir George	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lansbury, George	Wardle, George J.
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)	Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)	Wilkie, Alexander
Fell, Arthur	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gill, A. H.	MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Wolmer, Viscount
Goldsmith, Frank	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Goldstone, Frank	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Walter M'Laren and Mr. George Roberts
Grant, J. A.	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Greene, Walter Raymond	Newman, John R. P.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the word "married" the words "or if the child is posthumous or is born whilst the husband is out of benefit under any provisions of this Act." There are two sets of circumstances during which the husband may be out of benefit. Or he may be out of work through being unemployed and unable to pay his contribution. In both cases there is even greater need to pay the extra 20s. than when the husband is fully employed and in benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The last words of the Amendment are not necessary, 818 because if the woman is married she gets the additional benefit under the concession-made earlier in the evening. As to the first part I think the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has a more satisfactory form of words.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
It was my intention when I was forestalled to move the insertion of the words "or if being a widow she is confined of a posthumous child." This would cover the case where the husband died shortly before the child was born. It would be a very hard case if where the husband had been an insured person and the woman was also insured, she should be deprived 819 of the benefit. The Government have agreed to accept the words, therefore I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment in order that these words may be moved.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
After the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have no hesitation in withdrawing the Amendment, but I resent the idea that I tried to forestall the hon. Member.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I did not intend to suggest that.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: After the word "married," insert the words "or, if being a widow, she is confined of a posthumous child."— [Mr. Watson Rutherford.]

§ Mr. CASSEL
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the word "benefit" the words "or disablement benefit."
The main provision says that where a woman is entitled to maternity benefit she shall not be entitled to sickness or disablement benefit during a period of four weeks; but the proviso is applicable only to sickness benefit. There seems to be no reason why the proviso should not apply to disablement benefit in the same way as the main provision.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

§ Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."

§ Mr. HOHLER
I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the use of the word "sickness" in this proviso is quite clear. Sickness benefit is defined in Sub-section (1) (c) as "weekly payments whilst rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement," etc. What I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do in proposing this Amendment was to give to the woman in addition to the maternity benefit an additional payment for the four weeks. It does seem to me that the word "sickness" is not quite appropriate.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I should not have thought that there was the faintest doubt about it. These words are simply 820 to maintain the disqualification—the disqualification confined entirely to the sickness benefit as such.

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALL
I beg to move in Sub-section (7) after the word "person" ["no insured person"] to insert the words, "unless he be a member entitled to benefit in an approved society at the date of the commencement of this Act." It seems to me that people who already belong to an approved society, and have been insured for some time, suffer a disability in this direction. They have already paid insurance money for a considerable time. If they are compulsorily obliged to join the Government scheme they have to suffer the disability of the interregnum which is stated in this Clause, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot see his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment.

§ 12.0 M.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The members of friendly societies will not be deprived of benefits they here hitherto had. The reason why six months is required is that it is quite impossible in the vast majority of cases to make the medical arrangements under six months. Therefore a waiting period of at least six months is absolutely necessary. The hon. Member's suggestion of a privileged class of beneficiaries would, if carried out, give them a very unfair advantage over the rest who have paid exactly the same premium. The hon. Gentle- man says quite fairly that during this six months the members of the friendly societies should not be deprived of their medical benefits. They would not be deprived of them. Under this Bill there would be a gift of £10,000,000 to the friendly societies of this country. Mr. Watson, the actuary of the Manchester Unity, has reckoned that there is a gift of £3,500,000 to the Odd Fellows alone. These medical benefits would cost £300,000 or £400,000 at the very most to the Manchester Unity I am advised it would cost about £250,000; they get £3,500,000 under the Bill. Out of that fund it is suggested they should pay their medical benefit during this six months. So there is a financial provision in respect of every friendly society for the payment of benefits during the six months. It would not make anything like one-tenth of the benefits they receive. I suggest that under Clause 55 it would be possible for them to make arrangements to liberate 821 funds to cover the period in respect of existing members. They would get exactly the same advantage as every one else with the additional benefit that the funds liberated at the expense of this scheme would only be to cover benefits and would still leave a balance of millions to their credit. I think that is perfectly fair. Otherwise what would happen is this: If this medical treatment is given to them and them alone it would be at the expense of that section of the community which is worse off, because it all cornea out of the same fund, and would be postponing the date when you could accelerate the increased benefits. Therefore I suggest that would not be fair. We are giving quite equal terms to all the 15,000,000 of insured people, and I trust, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I have an Amendment in similar terms except that mine makes it apply only to those who are members of friendly societies at the date of the introduction of this Bill so that no members of friendly societies should get undue advantage by coming in when they saw the provisions of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to accept the Amendment on the ground, apparently, that it refers only to medical benefits. He says it would cost only £300,000 or £400,000, and that friendly societies could make it good under existing conditions. That is not at all the limit of this Amendment. It proposes to exempt friendly societies not only in the waiting period as regards medical benefits, but all the allowance arising from the two years' period.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree it would cover them as well.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Yes, but the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave only referred to medical benefits.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I understand that I did not make it quite clear. As a matter of fact they cover medical benefit and sickness benefit; but at the outside it would not amount to one-tenth of what the Government is giving to the friendly societies under this Bill.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made any estimate of what the cost would be under Sub-section (d) as to illnesses which may arise from causes occurring during the first two years. This is an extremely important question, in fact 822 it is one of the most important we have discussed to-day. To throw this liability on friendly societies is practically to destroy the value of the funds which the right hon. Gentleman says he is going to leave undisturbed, and he is putting upon those societies an unknown liability which no actuary can estimate. If they bring in a scheme under Clause 55 they will have to provide for all their existing members a reserve which will be sufficient to cover those members in case they become permanently disabled from a disease which may arise two years after the passing of the Bill.

§ Mr. BOOTH
They are not treated worse than anybody else.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
It is true that they are all treated alike, but it will not do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say as he did at Birmingham that the funds at their disposal will be sufficient to give friendly societies extra benefits, for in saying that he takes no account of restrictions under this Clause.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes I did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech very carefully, and I repeat that he took no account of those restrictions. The members of friendly societies will, under any scheme they may bring in, have to provide for their members in illness or disablement, no matter how long it lasts, which may arise two years after the passing of this Bill. The effect of that will be that it will be impossible for them to devote any of their existing funds to extra benefits until they have relieved themselves of their liability. That is a liability which, in the ordinary course of continuing business would be set against another, and dealt with year by year as they come up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is drawing a sharp line which existing members are entitled to get the benefit of under this Bill. Those benefits differ entirely, because under this Bill there is a longer interregnum of two years. It may be much more, because it is for the whole period of an illness arising during two years. There may be a threatening of appendicitis although the actual illness may not take place for some time. That is what the Bill says. Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that view?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I was referring to paragraph (d).

823

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to meet us on paragraphs (a) (b) and (c). If not I must press this Amendment. I am not taking up this matter out of my own head, so to speak. There are others who have considered this question as well. Every one of the big friendly societies desire to see their own members exempted. The annual moveable conference of the Manchester Oddfellows passed a special resolution in regard to this matter.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Why not?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not complain. On the contrary, I think it is reasonable of them. The hon. Member for Pontefract should address his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is an extremely serious matter, and I doubt whether the Committee fully appreciates the point. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the resolution passed at the annual moveable conference of the Oddfellows at Manchester. The resolution passed by them is as follows:— This meeting emphatically protests against the exclusion from benefit of any contributor, either voluntary or insured, as contained in Clause 8. Sub-section (7), paragraph (d), and demand the complete excision of this Sub-section from the Bill. Persons who have paid premiums under the scheme should be insured by it, and, if permanent incapacity set in at any time during the first two years the liability might run for ten or twenty years. That is the point I wish to make. It is quite impossible for any friendly society to calculate what is the extent of the liability. It is quite impossible for any scheme to be settled under Clause 55, taking into account the unknown liabilities put upon friendly societies; and, unless this Clause is modified, it will mean that all the existing funds of friendly societies will be tied up and will not be available for the additional benefits the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out. I am not entitled to quote Mr. Watson on this subject. I am entitled to quote the moveable conference at which he happened to be present, and at which I was present, and I am entitled to quote their considered opinion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any private information with regard to Mr. Watson's views, of course he is entitled to give it. I have not seen any figures of Mr. Watson on this point. It was not in his Report to the Manchester Unity, and for a very good reason: neither he nor any other actuary could calculate the liability which is thrown upon the friendly society. I shall heartily support this Amendment. It is very similar to one 824 standing in my name, and I shall press it to a Division, because I believe, unless this is granted, the effect will be that all the existing funds of the friendly societies will be tied up, and they will not be able for many years, if at all, to apply those funds to any of the additional benefits which are held out as one of the great reasons why they should support this Bill.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I was somewhat surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester. Up to the present I have always assumed his attitude to be one of desiring to be fair all round, but here apparently he has thrown off that role and has taken up another. I must say I heard his speech with very great regret. There is no doubt this Amendment is distinctly framed to give preferential treatment. There is no use in disguising that fact. I am speaking for some very great concerns in this country, and I know some hon. Members on this side of the House are clearly concerned with myself to see justice done, and I must protest against this attitude. I would like to see the friendly societies benefited under the Bill, and they will benefit. The Bill teams with benefits to the friendly societies, but the point is: are all the new approved societies to start fair in the race? The hon. Member says, "No." The friendly societies are already admittedly the biggest participators in the benefits under the Act, and they are to have another privilege denied to every-body else. They have five or six millions, but the other teaming millions which this Bill brings into the scope of the scheme are to be included and treated in a different way. I did not wish to do so, but I must remind hon. Members of the petition they signed at the last election— members on both sides of the House up to a majority—saying they would not vote for preferential treatment under this Bill. I do not see how any Member who pledged himself at the last election can vote for this proposal. I say quite frankly that this will damage friendly societies, for they will go about the country claiming that they have given superior benefits to any one of the rest of the industrial insurance organisations. I am not speaking of the greater groups of societies: it is the smaller societies that will be affected and will be behind in the race: they will not be able to afford to give their members these superior benefits. Every society will have to try and make up its leeway, and this will lead to confusion, quarrelling, strife, and contention all over the country. It will make them run the danger of becom- 825 ing insolvent; it will bring them into disgrace. I appeal to hon. Members that in this matter they are not doing good service to the friendly societies, and unless they get the benefit in the first few years the trouble will recur with doubled force. I am very much concerned whether these financial provisions are for the benefit of the societies. If we go on the lines of increasing benefits we are heading for financial disaster. I therefore oppose this Amendment very strongly, because it introduces inequality of treatment at the onset, and instead of benefiting the friendly societies it will bring about their destruction.

§ Captain CLIVE
The phrase "medical benefits" has been used. But are we to understand that the figures quoted are supposed to cover everything. I do not think that that can be so: it is not feasible. This Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman sees, covers the whole of Subsection (7), and the result will be this: that a man who has done his best from the beginning to insure his life will find, after the passing of this Bill into law, that his efforts in the past will not be productive of any benefits at all unless the reserve fund of his society is able to provide him with a benefit. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case of the Manchester Unity, but I know that that society has passed a resolution declaring that without further funds the society cannot be expected to take over any other liabilities; and that in fact there are no funds available for the purpose. There is one other point. I should like to amend the Amendment standing in my name. The benefit should be payable from the date of the commencement of the Act, and the date of commencement should be the 1st May next year. Of course it is not the intention that people should be given an opportunity of joining the societies just before the commencement of the Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is now on the Treasury Bench will have something conciliatory to say.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I should like to support what my hon. Friend has just said with reference to Mr. Watson of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows. I had an interview with Mr. Watson and discussed this question, and I can say that he is in absolute sympathy with this Amendment, and the resolution passed by the Manchester Unity at their meeting puts the case exactly as he would have put it. All the great friendly societies are interested in this point, the Manchester 826 Unity of Oddfellows, the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Hearts of Oak, and the National Conference of Friendly Societies, and they have all passed resolutions with a view to the expunging of the waiting period from the Bill.

§ Mr. CAVE
I do not see how we can pass this Amendment without knowing what the Government propose with regard to paragraph (d). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he intended to offer some concession, and if we could hear now what that will be it might have an effect upon the vote on this Amendment. We are not raising this point with a view to any unfair preference to members of friendly societies, but it is obvious when you are taking over the work of these societies, their members, and their funds, to some extent you must consider the position of the existing benefits and the position of their members. They have been told that the Bill will leave on their hands a considerable fund to be distributed by them. Under this Sub-section there is a liability upon that fund which it is probably impossible to estimate. We have had a partial estimate only, the effect of a particular paragraph and the effect on one society, but I should like to know whether there is any estimate of the total burden thrown by the Sub-section upon the funds of the approved societies?

Mr. PEEL
There will, of course, be a considerable number of members of frendly societies who apart from the Act would come into certain benefits within the next year or so. I understand they will not come into benefit, but that these benefits might be supplied to them under schemes which will deal with funds set free by this Act. But after all these schemes may not be agreed to for some considerable time and there may be some interregnum between the passing of the Act and the time when the schemes come into operation. I should be very glad to know from the Government how they propose to deal with these people. There may be a difficulty about giving a preference to friendly societies, but that is no reason why a special hardship should be placed on members of friendly societies.

§ Mr. McKENNA
My right hon. Friend quoted the figures of a particular society which is a large one and whose experience affords a very fair test of what the general cost would be. It appears from the report of the actuary of the society that the 827 benefit which they will receive under the Bill is upwards of £3,000,000, and that the cost of paragraphs (a) and (b) which are the material parts, would not come to one-tenth of the sum which the society would receive as a gift. It is quite true that if no scheme were made members of friendly societies who had been accustomed to receiving benefits would, immediately after the passing of the Bill, no longer receive sick benefit for a period of six months, but the Bill proposes to deal with that difficulty. Therefore power is given to societies to deal with those funds which the Government gives them forthwith. They have ample time to propose their schemes, they have an ample margin of funds, they have ten times the necessary amount of money for medical benefit and sick benefit, and they must have an earnest desire to satisfy their members, so that they have every security that the Bill can give them to enable the friendly societies to meet what might be the special difficulty of their own case. They will have their total reserves set free, and in the case of the particular society that is equal to a gift of a capital sum of £3,250,000. To meet this liability they will only have to expend less than one-tenth of that sum and they can spend it on these objects. So far as the special difficulty of friendly societies is concerned the Bill gives them the money and empowers them to use the money to get rid of the difficulty so that part of the case is disposed of. Now the Amendment before us is to give members of friendly societies a benefit which is not given to other insurance offices. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) quite frankly admitted that it is not fair to give an advantage to one set of insured persons against another and I should have thought that was quite sufficient to satisfy the Committee that the Amendment should not be accepted. What else there is in paragraph (c) is very small benefit. Paragraph (d) I admit opens up a widely different set of things. My right hon. Friend has said that when we come to (d) he is prepared to give a concession. Then all insured persons will be treated alike. Why should only one set of persons—those who are included in benefit societeis—have benefits which are not given to others? My right hon. Friend is going to propose to omit paragraph (d). I think I have sufficiently shown that the present proposal is untenable.

828

§ Mr. FORSTER
The First Lord of the Admiralty has really not dealt with the cases which were dealt with by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). It is very true that power is given to the friendly societies to deal with cases, and that their own money will be set free to deal with them. If the Amendment is carried you are going to give considerable preference to the members of friendly societies. The point which the hon. Member for Colchester dwelt upon specially was that under (d) there is what may be a very heavy liability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going to introduce an Amendment in paragraph (d). My hon. and learned Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an indication of his proposal as it might have the effect of modifying the objection we have to the paragraph. The friendly societies fear that they may be called upon to undertake a liability under paragraph (d) which they cannot undertake.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think my proposal is sufficiently drastic to satisfy the hon. Member for Colchester. It is difficult to calculate what the cost would be from year to year. What I propose is to cut out paragraph (d) altogether. Having made that very substantial concession we might dispose of the other three sections. I should like to get the whole of the Clause to-night. The cutting out of paragraph (d) is an enormous concession. I think we ought to be encouraged to deal with our opponents in that manner, but if we get opposition whether we concede or not, there is little inducement to make concessions. I thought we were covering the whole ground with this discussion. The concessions the Government have made are not merely with reference to (a) but also to (b) and (c).

§ Mr. FORSTER
There is, of course, a very substantial Amendment which the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) desires to move.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Although I do not say it is out of order at this particular place, I understand that when it was moved on a previous Clause it was agreed that it should be taken on Clause 14.

§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUS
I should be very sorry to impede the negotiations that are taking place, and am quite prepared not to move this Amendment now if it is dis- 829 tinctly understood that I shall have an opportunity of moving it on Clause 14, either as it stands or in an amended form.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The medical association are to meet on Friday to consider the matter. I must decline to express any opinion at this stage, and must resist everything until I see what their proposals are. But if the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to move the Amendment I think it would come in much more legitimately under Clause 14 than now.

§ Mr. CAVE
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not go beyond (d) to-night. There is a very important point on (e).

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Very well; if that is the opinion of the Committee I do not want to press them too hard.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
The Amendment now before the Committee is one on which all the friendly societies are practically agreed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The big ones."] All the big ones; and they have asked Members of this House to support this Amendment. Why? The reason is that to-day those who stand insured in these great friendly societies, if this Amendment is not passed, will be deprived altogether of medical benefit for six months, of sickness benefit during the period of twenty-six contributions, and of disablement benefit for 104 weeks. Those men who have been insured for years, and have paid their premiums, if this Bill were not put forward, would still remain insured in those first-class societies; but something is to be done which puts these men out of benefit for those periods of interregnum. There is no necessity for that. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) thought he had got a complete answer to this proposal, and he proceeded to defend the Government Clause. He said that in the first place this proposal would give members of friendly societies a preference. Nothing of the sort. What we are asking for is continuity of insurance for members of existing friendly societies. If this Amendment is not, accepted those members will, for the first time for years, since they began to be insured, be compulsorily left out of insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
The First Lord of the Admiralty referred to Clause 55, and said we would find there immense funds that are going to be made a present of to friendly societies, 830 and that they will have power to make schemes. In the first place, there is nothing here to insist upon friendly societies doing anything of the kind. The friendly societies will not be receiving the contributions. They will simply be receiving, or supposed to be receiving at some remote period, in some manner which is not perfectly clear to the lay mind, the present of some reserve funds, and they are expected under Clause 55 to step in, and out of this ultimate reserve to make some provision for six months' medical benefit, six months' sickness benefit, and two years' disablement benefit. If you refer to Clause 55 it does not enable friendly societies to do anything of the kind. It enables them, in the first place, "if they think fit." There is no obligation upon them to apply the accumulated funds to the payment of other benefits. Secondly, to the reduction of the contributions of members; and, thirdly, in payment of the contributions payable by members. There is not a word in the Clause which would enable the friendly society to anticipate the benefits all round and abolish those periods of interregnum. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be prepared to make it clear under Clause 55 that the friendly societies would be expressly empowered to do this, or will he give legislative facilities to bridge over those periods of interregnum?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Would the hon. Gentlemen tell me what he wants us to do?

§ Mr. W. RUTHERFORD
To make it clear that under Clause 55 the friendly societies are not only to have the power but to have facilities given to them to provide for their own members the medical and sickness and disablement benefits which under this very Clause it is provided shall not be given to the insured persons.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. Gentleman need not give reasons. Of course it is a very reasonable request and therefore so far as the Government are concerned he need not enlarge upon it. I shall certainly, if there is any doubt about Clause 55, put in words to make it amply clear that the friendly societies will have the power to provide for them out of the released funds.

§ Mr. W. RUTHERFORD
I think that is reasonable as far as it goes, but supposing they do not avail themselves of the power why should the insured people be kept out for the first time for years. I consider the suggestion is most unfair.

831

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I promised the Amendment the hon. Gentleman asked.

§ Mr. W. RUTHERFORD
This is a point on which great misgivings have arisen. I hope the societies will avail themselves of the powers they are to get under Clause 55, but there is no pecuniary inducement to do so. At the same time it is very hard on people to be put out of benefit for the first time in their lives whilst at the same time they have to pay their contributions. I did hope the Government would have seen their way to accept the Amendment which is not proposed as a party matter. Everybody knows there is nothing of the sort in it. This is the Amendment which has been unanimously resolved upon by the whole body of friendly societies, and I feel that at this hour of the morning to be forced to deal with such an important point upon such imperfect premises is exceedingly rough upon the insured men and also upon Members of the House of Commons.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
Clause 55 deals with the position of friendly societies and their schemes for persons "who come insured under this part of the Act." There are a certain number of persons at present in receipt of sick benefit, whose money is paid in respect of benefits they receive under (a), (b), and (c), and who would not come within "persons insured under this part of the Act," and therefore not within Clause 55. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees that Clause 55 should be so altered that the schemes should not only relate to the persons who become insured under this Act, but also meet the existing contracts and liabilities of friendly societies under (a), (b), and (c), the difficulty would be met.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Obviously they would not be affected at all by the Bill; they would go on paying their contributions under the ordinary provisions of the Friendly Societies Act.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
They have to provide a scheme under Clause 55 to deal with "persons who become insured under this part of the Act." Actuarily they have a certain number of liabilities which cannot form any part of any actuarial scheme, because they have existing sick benefits and so on to provide for persons already dependent upon them. For the purpose of meeting their contracts they must reserve a very considerable sum which cannot be a matter for any actuarial calculation at all. If they are entitled to do that, and 832 then, when they have set aside a sufficient sum for that purpose, they are to deal with the rest of their funds under Clause 55, I think the difficulty will be met. But unless that is made clear, the difficulty is not simply met by a reference to Clause 55.

§ Mr. GUINNESS
I feel in a difficulty as to which way to vote. I quite see that it is very difficult to justify giving a preference to friendly societies if their funds are ear-marked for the benefit of those who contributed them. At the same time I think friendly societies would have a grievance unless it were made abundantly clear that they will be empowered in Clause 55 not only to bring forward a scheme, but to get their scheme approved in time. I have consulted friendly society leaders in. my own district, and they are in great anxiety on the point. They feel that many of their members cannot afford both kinds of insurance; they cannot pay for their present benefits and also the State benefits; and they think the only way out, unless they get a preference, which they most of them agree is impracticable, is to be enabled out of their accumulated funds to pay during the six months or the two years the benefits to which their present members are entitled.
But assuming that they want to do this they have not the possibility under Clause 55 owing to the difficulty of the time. They have got to get the approval of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and he has got to consider, not the case of the large order separately, but the case of each lodge separately. He has to consider the protection of the reserve funds, the reserve values, and the old men who cannot come into the State scheme of insurance. He has also got to see that adequate protection is afforded to those who continue to insure for their old benefits, and for those who insure for burial benefits. All this must take an enormous amount of calculation and must demand a far longer time than would be possible under the Bill if the Registrar of Friendly Societies is not only to consider these points, but also the additional benefits under Clause 55. Our course would be made much easier if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how he will meet that case; whether he will bring forward a sweeping proposal to give these benefits out of the reserve funds, and to provide that these be considered by the Registrar before he goes into the question of giving the ordinary additional benefits, or whether he is going to lump them together.

833

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I suggest that the benefit societies should formulate a complete scheme dealing with such particular application of their funds, I suggest that there should be a provisional scheme which allows the payment of the benefits referred to during the interregnum. That perhaps will meet the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
That would be a prior lien really upon the funds.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that a provisional scheme is going to take up less time than a definite scheme. I do not think so. As to giving a prior lien upon these particular benefits, I do not know whether he has considered that the funds are equally responsible for other benefits—for death benefits and other benefits not taken by this Bill. If they are liable for the one they are liable for the other. They cannot give a prior benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. Member referred to particular benefits.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
As I understand it they would have a prior lien for these waiting period benefits. I would suggest that it is quite impossible to give a prior lien on several benefits. A certain number of liabilities have to be met. With regard to the points that seemed to worry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds I want to reassure him that this is not going to give any preference to members of friendly societies. On the contrary, it is not a question of giving a preference, but of continuing to a number of friendly societies the benefits which they got when they had their own insurance.

§ 1.0 A.M.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I do not think the reply of the Chancellor is satisfactory. What is really the position? The Government always over- looks the fact that they are substituting an entirely new system—which is practically a system of State insurance—for what has up to now been done voluntarily through the friendly societies. After this Bill is passed nobody supposes that the working men will insure against sickness in friendly societies as they do at the present time. They cannot possibly afford to do what they are 834 compelled to do under the Bill, and also what they have done previously. The result will be that a large number of people who have been insured for many years past will find a sudden break in their insurance. This is a point on which the friendly societies are most determined. If there is one blot on the Bill which they are most anxious to remove it is this waiting period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the Government are ready to make a concession. What has the right hon. Gentleman promised? Simply to omit paragraph (d). He asks us to skip over paragraph (a), (b), and (c). But there are benefits insured for in those paragraphs, and he can hardly expect us to be satisfied if he only meets us in regard to paragraph (d). He says we can get over the whole difficulty by a scheme under Clause 55. But time is the essence of the whole matter. The Bill comes into force at once. Immediately you will find a large number of people will have this break in their insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"] But it is so. It is absurd to say that they should wait until a scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. There are a great many friendly societies, and in the case of the large societies there will have to be a scheme for each separate lodge or court, and it will take an enormous time for the Registrar to approve of these schemes.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That has already been stated.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
Yes, but it has not been answered. The right hon. Gentleman says there is to be a sort of priority scheme. I venture to say that these priority schemes will take a great deal of time to prepare, and in the meantime the break will occur in the insurance of these people. Those who have been paying for years to various courts and lodges will find their benefits taken from them. In the circumstances, we on this side cannot accept the proposals put forward by the Government. I think they must take a stronger step to meet the difficulty. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no point the friendly societies are more keen about than this one, and if he wishes to carry the friendly societies with him in this Bill—and the Bill will be a complete failure unless he does so—he is absolutely bound to meet them in regard to this waiting period

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

835

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move in Sub-section (7), paragraph (6), to leave out the words "twenty-six" ["to sickness benefit unless and until twenty-six weeks have elapsed"] and to insert instead thereof the word "thirteen."
This applies to sickness benefit which is now made to apply to members of friendly societies. Under this paragraph they are to be obliged to wait for twenty-six weeks, and pay twenty-six weeks' contributions, before they are entitled to sickness benefit. The right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to meet us by withdrawing paragraph (d) altogether. I ask him to meet us at any rate halfway by reducing the waiting period for sickness benefit from twenty-six weeks to thirteen weeks. There is no particular reason why twenty-six weeks should be inserted as the waiting period. It is entirely a financial matter and there is no question of principle involved in it. Having regard to the fact that undoubted hardship will arise to existing members of friendly societies if this long period is insisted upon I strongly urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet us half way, and make it thirteen weeks.

836

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
This is really the same point that we just discussed over again. We have actually debated both, this Amendment and a similar Amendment to paragraph (c) on the proposed Amendment to paragraph (a). It is all the same question. There must be a waiting period. A waiting period is enforced by members of friendly societies themselves. They insist that members should contribute at least something before they receive benefits. The hon. Member says the period is a long one. As a matter of fact the waiting period in Germany is much greater than it is in this country. I do hope that having had this discussion fully upon the other Amendment we will be able to get a decision.

§ Mr. CAVE
We may be right or wrong; in discussing this until now. All I want to point out is that the only discussion we have had was as to the position of members of special friendly societies. This Amendment relates to members of all friendly societies.

§ Question put, "That the words 'twenty-six' stand part of the Clause."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 52.

837

Division No. 277.]	AYES.	[1.15 a.m.
Addison, Dr. C.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Manfield, Harry
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Markham, sir Arthur Basil
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Greig, Colonel James William	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Armitage, Robert	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Meagher, Michael
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Hackett, John	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Hancock, John George	Morgan, George Hay
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Munro, Robert
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Neilson, Francis
Bentham, G. J.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Nolan, Joseph
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Norman, sir Henry
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hayward, Evan	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Higham, John Sharp	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Brunner, John F. L.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Bryce, J. Annan	Holt, Richard Durning	Pointer, Joseph
Burke, E. Haviland-	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Pringle, William M. R.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)	Reddy, Michael
Chapple, Dr William Allen	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Richards, Thomas
Clough, William	John, Edward Thomas	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)	Johnson, William	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Crumley, Patrick	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Robinson, Sidney
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rowntree, Arnold
Dawes, James Arthur	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Delany, William	Joyce, Michael	Scott, A. M'Callum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Keating, Matthew	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Doris, William	Kelly, Edward	Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J.	Kemp, Sir George	Sherwell, Arthur James
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r'ld, Cockerm'th)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Ferens, Thomas Robinson	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lundon, Thomas	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Tennant, Harold John
Furness, Stephen	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J,	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Macpherson, James Ian	Toulmin, Sir George
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gill, Alfred Henry	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay	Wilkie, Alexander	Winfrey, Richard
Watt, Henry A.	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Webb, H.	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Whyte, A. F. (Perth)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Foster, Philip Staveley	Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Balcarres, Lord	Goldsmith, Frank	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry	Grant, J. A.	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Greene, W. R	Quilter, W. E. C.
Bigland, Alfred	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bridgeman, William Clive	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hills, J. W.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cator, John	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cave, George	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Thynne Lord Alexander
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Hunt, Rowland	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Lansbury, George	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Mills. Hon. Charles Thomas	Worthington-Evans, L.
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Doughty, Sir George	Mount, William Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. D. Hall and Mr. Kebty-Fletcher,
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Fell, Arthur

Captain MORRISON-BELL
I beg to move in Sub-section 7 (c) to leave out the words "one hundred and four" ["to disablement benefit unless and until one hundred and four weeks have elapsed after his entry into insurance"], and to insert instead thereof the words "fifty-two." I do not think there is any necessity to labour the point. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me that two years is a very long time indeed. I do not think there is any reason for it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
We feel there must be a substantial waiting period. I do not think there is any real complaint as to the waiting time in Germany. After all there is a very serious liability incurred in regard to paying a man a pension

838

§ of five shillings for his life. I do not think the method adopted is unreasonable. I think it commends itself to most friendly societies. It is quite impossible for us to accept a liability under two years.

Captain MORRISON-BELL
The waiting period does not commend itself to all friendly societies.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I did not say to all.

Captain MORRISON-BELL
Or even to the great majority of them.

§ Question put, "That the words 'one hundred and four' stand part of the Clause."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 52.

839

Division No. 278.]	AYES.	[1.22 a.m.
Addison, Dr. C.	Dawes, J. A.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Delany, William	Hayden, John Patrick
Armitage, Robert	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hayward, Evan
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Doris, W.	Henry, Sir Charles S.
Balfour Sir Robert (Lanark)	Duffy, William J.	Higham, John Sharp
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Elverston, Sir Harold	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Benn, W. W, (T. H'mts., St. George)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Holt, Richard Durning
Bentham, George Jackson	Ferens, Thomas Robinson	Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Illingworth, Percy H.
Bowerman, C. W.	Furness, Stephen	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Gelder, Sir William Alfred	John, Edward Thomas
Brady, Patrick Joseph	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Johnson, W.
Brunner, John F. L.	Gill, Alfred Henry	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bryce, John Annan	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Greig, Col. J. W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Gulland, John W.	Joyce, Michael (Limerick)
Clough, William	Hackett, John	Keating, Matthew
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Hancock, John George	Kelly, Edward
Crumley, Patrick	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Kemp, Sir George
Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Levy, Sir Maurice
Lewis, John Herbert	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Lundon, T.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Macdonald, J. Ramsey (Leicester)	Pointer, Joseph	Tennant, Harold John
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T.J.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Macpherson, James Ian	Pringle, William M. R.	Toulmin, Sir George
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Reddy, M.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Richards, Thomas	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Manfield, Harry	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Watt, Henry A.
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Webb, H.
Marshall, Arthur Harold	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Meagher, Michael	Robinson, Sidney	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wilkie, Alexander
Morgan, George Hay	Rowntree, Arnold	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Munro, Robert	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Williams. P. (Middlesbrough)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Nolan, Joseph	Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Norman, Sir Henry	Sheehy, David	Winfrey, Richard
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sherwell, Arthur James
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Howard.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Forster, Henry William	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Goldsmith, Frank	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord	Grant, James Augustus	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Barnston, H.	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bigland, Alfred	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Quilter, William Eley C.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Sanders, Robert A.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cator, John	Hills, John Waller	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cave, George	Hohler, G. F.	Thynne, Lord A.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Hunt, Rowland	Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Jowett, Frederick William	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.
Dixon, C. H.	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Worthington-Evans and Captain Morrison-Bell.
Doughty, Sir George	Lansbury, George
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Fell, Arthur	Mount, William Arthur

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg to move in Sub-section (7) to leave out paragraph (d). I understand from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he will agree to this.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree. Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I beg to move in Sub-section (7) to leave out Paragraph (e).

§ Question proposed, "That the words of the Clause down to the word 'or' in Subsection (7). paragraph (e) ["to sickness benefit or"] stand part of the Clause."

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

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
On that Motion, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider the desirability of having the Bill reprinted up to the part we have reached. A good many Amendments have been made, and it would be a great convenience to have an amended reprint.

840

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I will consult the authorities of the House upon the subject. I suggest that the Bill should be reprinted up to the end of Clause 8.

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

§ ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gulland.]

§ Adjourned accordingly at half after One a.m., Tuesday, l8th July.