§ Further considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
§ Postponed proceeding on consideration of Clause 12. [See Cols. 37–38.]
§ Amendment proposed in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "in whole or in part."—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]
§ Debate resumed.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYWhen I was interrupted I was endeavouring to persuade the Government and the Committee to omit the words "in whole or in part." I do not think we ought to make any differentiation between the payment of sickness benefit, in serious cases and in trivial cases. When a man is only slightly ill we pay the sicknes, benefit to his dependents. How then can it be defended that when a man is seriously ill and is taken to a hospital we should give power to an approved society to pay only part of the sickness benefit to his dependents? After all, the sickness benefit at its highest is only 10s. a week, and there is not very much in 10s. to divide between the dependents and the general fund of the approved society. I earnestly hope the Government will reconsider the wording of this particular Sub-section, and will consent to the omission of these particular words, thereby conferring the whole of the sickness benefit, without any deductions whatever, on the dependents of the indisposed persons in serious cases. If the Amendment is accepted it will be necessary to omit the latter part of the paragraph after the word "any."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think my hon. Friend has omitted to take note of certain considerations. There may be a case in 142 which a man may have been contributing 2s. 6d. or 3s. for the support of some relative, say, a grandmother. There can be no object whatever in saying that the whole of the 10s. shall be devoted to the support of that relative, yet that would be the result of this Amendment.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYHas the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the fact that we do not attempt to sit in judgment on what is done with the 10s. in the case of an ordinary trivial illness? We pay the whole amount without question as to how many dependents a man has. Why should we in the case of a man seriously ill empower an approved society to sit in judgment and divide up the 10s.? After all, it is a very small amount of money.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) is, I think, consequential or is ruled out by a decision already come to.
§ Mr. CASSELNo. I think not. I wish to move in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "for" ["for the relief"], to insert the words, "for the benefit of such person or."
The object of this amendment is that where part only of the sick benefit is applied for the benefit of the dependent there should be at least power to apply the remainder either wholly or in part for the benefit of the man himself under the Clause as it stands, as the Attorney-General has said there may be a case where the insured has a grandmother who is dependent on him and has been allowing her 5s. a week. In such a case there is no reason why the grandmother should get the whole 10s,. because the man is in hospital. On the other hand there is no justification for depriving the committee of the approved society of the opportunity of applying the balance of 5s. for the benefit of the man himself. He has paid for the full benefit, and surely the difference between the total and what is required for the dependent might well be used in providing him with additional comforts in hospital. There is no necessity for it to go into the General Insurance Fund. You must treat this as a business matter and not as a charity, and so long as the man's dependents are fully provided for he should be entitled, having paid his full subscriptions, to the benefit of the 143 balance, which would provide him with books or other comforts. There can be no justification, legal or moral, for depriving him of the balance. The fact that he is in hospital is not a justification for depriving him of benefit—in fact it is rather a reason why you should use it for such purpose as he directs, either to give him some additional benefits in hospital or enable him to save it up to meet his contributions as they arise in future. He has given his quid pro quo, and he ought to have his rights. There is no reason why the fund should benefit because he is in hospital. He has paid for that right, and there ought at least to be an opportunity for applying the balance not wanted for the dependents for the benefit of the man himself.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think it would be better for hon. and learned Gentlemen to delay dealing with this particular question until we come to consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I do not think properly the words come exactly at the point at which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to insert them. I quite agree that there is ground for consideration as to what should happen with regard to this balance.
§ Mr. CASSELI am quite willing to take the Amendment at any point, though I have had some experience with the First Lord of the Admiralty in that connection. I am sure the Attorney-General will see that I have some opportunity at a later stage of raising it because it is a point on which I feel strongly.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I suggest that there is a case to consider, the man who, having had an operation in a hospital, is ordered a surgical appliance for which there are no funds except from charity. In that case it might be a good thing to have a latitude such as my hon. and learned Friend proposes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move, after the word "administered" ["by which the benefit is administered"], to insert the words "after consultation whenever possible with such person."
The object of the Amendment is simply that a society or a committee should consult the man himself as to how he wishes it to be disposed of amongst his dependents. He is the man, after all, who is entitled to the 10s., and there may be a 144 question as to how it is to be distributed amongst them. It is only right that he himself should be, wherever possible, consulted as to the mode of disposing of it. It may be when he is in hospital he is so ill that it is impossible to consult him, therefore I have inserted the words "whenever possible."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think this is a. reasonable Amendment. It is desirable that there should be an opportunity to ascertain what the wishes are of the inmate of the hospital or institution, and I shall accept the Amendment in the form proposed.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert instead thereof the words:—
(b) subject thereto any balance remaining shall, in the case of a deposit contribution, be carried to the credit of his account in the Post Office Fund, and in the case of a member of an approved society be carried to a special fund applicable for any of the purposes referred to in Clause 17."
As the Clause now stands the Amendment does not quite carry out what I intended, but the point is this. After all, in the case where you are dealing with a Post Office contributor it is extremely hard that you should take any balance away from him and carry it to the credit of the general fund. He has got a special fund of his own, and it is the only fund he has to draw upon. In his case, wherever the money is not required for his dependents, I submit you ought not to take it away from his own fund. You ought not in the case of a Post Office contributor to take 5s. for a dependent and put 5s. in the general fund. It would be a hardship in his case, and, therefore, I submit the money ought to be left standing to his credit at the Post Office. My Amendment does not quite carry out what I want. It now applies to the case of a man in a. sanatorium or similar institution in which he is receiving treatment in accordance with the provisions of this part of this Act. That is the case where it is least necessary.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to move his Amendment?
§ Mr. CASSELYes, I am going to move it in the form in which it appears on the Paper in order to get an expression of the 145 view of the Government on the point I am raising, though in its present form it does not fully carry out the point I intended. The point I intended was that not only in a case where a man is in a sanatorium, but even in a case where he is in a hospital, infirmary, or workhouse. In the case of a deposit contributor it is hardship and an injustice that you should take the 10s. standing in his own name merely for the purpose of transferring it to the general fund. While the Amendment is limited in the way I have described, I would ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to the general point—the case where a man is not in a sanatorium, but in a hospital, infirmary or workhouse.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not think the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be a satisfactory way of carrying out what he desires. The question to which he has referred will arise on the Amendment to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would suggest that it would be better to defer the consideration of the point until we come to deal with that Amendment.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI hope my hon. and learned Friend will press his Amendment if the Attorney-General cannot give a better assurance that it will be considered and put in its proper place at a later stage. But it may be possible to put in a proviso that this shall not apply to any insured person who is a deposit contributor. There are many ways in which the Attorney-General can put this in order. It is not sufficient for him to say that the Government will consider it when dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. Obviously it is unfair to treat the deposit contributor in this way. Under the Clause as it stands the credit of the deposit contributor is a personal credit. No subscriptions made by him or on his behalf go to his individual credit, and not to the credit of his society. If Mr. Jones pays in 30s., that stands to Jones's credit. It does not stand to the credit of the friendly society or trade union of which he is a member. Under the Clause as it stands if Jones is not entitled to draw his 10s; because he is the inmate of an hospital or convalescent home, but is only entitled to draw 5s., then the other 5s. is not left to his credit but goes to the local health committee with which ha has only the remotest possible connection. It is taken from the man who can least afford 146 it, and to whose credit it is standing, and is put to the general purposes of the health committee for the benefit of everybody. That obviously is not fair, and cannot really have been intended. I quite agree that my hon. Friend's Amendment, having regard to the alterations that have been made in the Clause, is not in the best possible words, but the Government can surely give us a better undertaking than they have given. They can assure us that they will put down an Amendment or will allow an Amendment to be put down in the proper place so that the person who is now an insured person under this Clause shall be turned into a member of an approved society, so that the deposit contributor shall not be excluded altogether.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am sorry that my hon. Friend did not understand the effect of what I said. There will certainly be an opportunity for considering this matter, so that it must be dealt with. It arises upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion.
§ Mr. CASSELHaving regard to what the Attorney-General says, I am content to leave it in his hands to find me an opportunity for raising the point. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment raises the same point in any sense, but if the Attorney-General thinks it more convenient for the purposes of Debate to raise it later and will afford me an opportunity I shall be content to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am not quite certain whether the Attorney-General really appreciates the point contained in the first part of this Amendment. I think my hon. Friend did some injustice to his own Amendment. It does not appear to me that his Amendment, even after the changes we have made in the Section, will be limited at all to cases in which a man happens to be in a sanatorium. But the point to which my hon. Friend has spoken is not the second half of the Amendment, which deals with what is to become of any balance left over on the part of a member of an approved society. It is what is to happen to any balance over and above the immediate needs of a man who is a deposit contributor.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDBoth propositions are dealt with in the Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDid I say anything to the contrary?
§ Mr. J. WARDI understood you to say that it only applied to the deposit contributor.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member apparently was not listening. I said the former part. What my hon. Friend below the Gangway dwelt upon was not the second but the first part. That is the important question, and I do not know how, in connection with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, the Attorney-General thinks the two cases can be separated. I confess that I have not myself thought out this difficulty, but I am much interested by what was said by my hon. Friend in regard to the case of the deposit contributor. There you are dealing with a man who is not insured. You are dealing with a man who has no insurance, but only a deposit account in the bank. He can draw to the extent of the deposit standing to his credit. That is all he can get, no matter what his needs. That is totally different from the case of a member of an approved society, who has full pay the moment he needs it. If he has another illness immediately afterwards his insurance becomes effective again. He is in the full sense of the word an insured person. Whenever the contingency arises against which he is insured his insurance takes effect and protects him against the worst consequences of accident or illness. That is not the case with the deposit contributor. He has only such money as is placed to his credit, and I do not think you ought to take away his money. I do not know whether I make the point clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am sure he will see that the two classes of contributors in this Bill stand on a wholly different footing. One is not limited by the amount standing to his credit, and his benefits are dependent only upon his needs and the solvency of his society and you may fairly use the money which he does not need, and his dependents do not need, for a hospital or another person. But if there is one thing which is probable about any Post Office contributor it is that he will need all the money that stands to his credit, and more. I think my hon. Friends are right, that under these circumstances you ought not to take away from the deposit contributor's account any sum of money standing to his credit when you have no assurance, and he has no assurance, in regard to his benefits. The right hon. Gentleman says that you take nothing away from his account. Surely 148 that is a mistake. You do say that the money which is payable to him if he were not in hospital shall be payable wholly or in part to his dependents. Supposing it is only payable in part, and that though he is entitled to 10s. you pay only 5s., do you not withdraw the other 5s. for the general purposes of the fund instead of leaving it to the credit of the man's account? The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment would have to be recast in order to meet that point.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says on this point, but I do not think this is quite the way to deal with it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, that the best place to deal with it is on the Amendment, of which I have given notice, and I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment will have to be recast. In order to meet this point, if the hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to withdraw this, and I do say there is a grievance here which has got to be met; it will give me a little more time to consider the matter.
§ Mr. CASSELOn that assurance I beg to withdraw.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI hope my right hon. Friend has given no countenance to the latter part of the suggestion that the balance shall be carried to a special fund for purposes of Clause 17, which is for subscriptions to hospitals. Surely that part of the proposition could not be entertained, and I should be glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to that part of it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo. What I have said is that I think there ought to be some disposition of that balance. I do not think, on reconsideration, that the Bill as it stands quite disposes of that balance. I would asked the hon. and learned Gen-man for the moment to withdraw, and I will consider the point as to the best way. I may add I am rather impressed with the first part as to the deposit contributor.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that this shall be applied directly for the benefit of the deposit contributor or left to his credit. After all that is the point. As the Bill now stands it is proposed to take away from the deposit contributor something which stands to his personal credit. If the Chancellor 149 of the Exchequer will say that he does not intend to take away from the deposit contributor something which stands to his credit, I have no more to say.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI really had rather not give an answer now. I think the hon. Gentleman certainly made a case for further mitigation. I would rather not commit myself at this point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words:—
"(c) if such person is an inmate of a hospital or infirmary supported by charity and has no dependents, shall, if an agreement for the purpose has been made with the hospital or infirmary, be paid in whole or in part according to such agreement towards the maintenance of such person in the hospital or infirmary.
Provided that in the case of a married woman or widow who is entitled to sickness benefit in addition to maternity benefit no part of the maternity benefit shall be paid or applied for the relief or maintenance of her dependents, but may be paid to the hospital or infirmary of which she is an inmate as aforesaid in like manner as if she had no dependents."
I should like to add that a case was put by the hon. Gentleman opposite this afternoon, and I am sorry I was not here to deal with the matter. It was one for a little more consideration, and I should like to reconsider the point. I suggest that we now report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. CASSELWill the right hon. Gentleman also consider the other point which was referred to by the Attorney-General?
§ Mr. POLLOCKWill the right hon. Gentleman be able to circulate the form of the Amendment early to-morrow morning so that we may see it before the House sits?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman is not cognisant of the machinery by which we prepare our Amendments, or he would realise that it is quite impossible to do that. We shall have our usual conference in the morning to consider these points. I have to consult those with whom I am acting, and it is only then we make up our minds.
150 It may be one o'clock or half-past one o'clock, and we could not then circulate it. I would not be in a position to do that.
§ Mr. POLLOCKCould the right hon. Gentleman get it in print?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will do my best.
§ An HON. MEMBER: Or give us a typewritten copy?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, I will do my best.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI quite recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do his best. But he might desire to have other words inserted, or we might desire to move Amendments that could not be moved now. If the Amendment is put in these words that may not be open to us. I am sure that if necessary he will withdraw his present Amendment, and move it in a different way, so as to preserve to the House the rights we have been promised.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will reconsider the position, and if it has to be moved in some other form I will consider it carefully.