§ Postponed proceeding on Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill 'to provide for insurance against loss of health and for the prevention and cure of sickness, and for insurance against unemployment, and for purposes incidental thereto.'"—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
§ Debate resumed.
§ Lord A. THYNNEI cannot help feeling that there is a certain irony in the fact that after all the months and years of labour that I have devoted to the London County Council that I should be interrupted in the first speech that I have made in a Debate of this character by a Bill of the London County Council with the provisions of which I do not happen to be in agreement. I was saying when the Debate was interrupted for private business, that I believed that this is a great measure, and we on this side of the House heartily welcome the Bill which has been sketched this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in rough outline. We welcome it for two reasons. In the first place we recognise that the uncertainty with regard to the future is one of the great evils of our present industrial system, and we believe that any measure which may tend to decrease and mitigate that uncertainty will open a new chapter—a new volume—in the history of the country. In the second place, we welcome this measure because we believe that it will simplify very considerably indeed the reform of our present Poor Law system. Because if you relieve the Poor Law of a very large number of unemployed who are technically known as deserving unemployed, you facilitate and increase your power of dealing under the Poor Law with those who are grouped under the term of unemployable. The same argument applies in the domain of sickness with equal force. I might say that some form of State insurance in both these respects is a condition precedent to the proper reform of our Poor Law System. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), while recognizing 701 that uncertainty which besets a large portion of the wage-earning population of the country both with regard to sickness and with regard to unemployment, suggested that that danger was being adequately met, or very largely met, by voluntary agencies at the present moment.
§ Lord A. THYNNEThen I misunderstood the hon. Member. But I would submit to the House that although friendly societies and trade unions are doing a very valuable work in this respect, and I should be the last person to disparage their work, we have to recognise that they labour under two great disadvantages. First of all, the necessity of conducting their operations on a successful actuarial basis compels them to impose a test as to character and as to health—in all cases as to health and in a great many cases as to character—and the result is that the friendly societies take within their net what I may call the good risks and they leave outside probably the had risks, which are probably the risks with regard to individuals who are in the most need of being dealt with under insurance. In the second place, we have to recognise that no voluntary agency has or could have the power of compulsion, which is an essential feature of this system. It is a feature which I personally welcome because it brings in within the scope of insurance the class who have been the most reluctant to take advantage of voluntary agencies and are the class which is most in need of being insured. I was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to place any test as regards the solvency of the friendly societies in the Bill, because I believe such a test would not only be invidious but also very difficult to impose. He laid down three conditions that there should be no distribution of the funds, that their operations should be mutual, and, in the third place, that they should have branches. Everyone will admit that even the big dividing societies could not, owing to the nature of their constitution, be included in the scheme. But there are certain societies which, I hope, will receive some consideration at a subsequent stage, societies like the National Provident and the National Mutual Provident, which do not divide their funds in the ordinary sense of the word, but which at regular intervals distribute a bonus. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with those who were not at present 702 members of friendly societies or trade unions, and he hoped they would ultimately be dealt with by the large inducements which would be held out to them to, join those bodies. Of course, everyone hopes that one of the results of this system will be to increase largely the sphere of operations of the great friendly societies. But we must also recognise that if they are to maintain that state of solvency, that satisfactory actuarial state which has been, both their pride and the cause of their efficiency up to the present time, they must continue to impose tests as to character. The result of that will be that you will be leaving your friendly societies and trade unions to deal with the better risks. You will be leaving outside the worst risks which will fall on to the other class, the class which he termed the Post Office contributor. Instead of averaging your good risks with your bad you are segregating your bad risks very much to the advantage of your good risks and very much to the advantage of those who are being dealt with inside the friendly societies. But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was compelled to confess, certainly somewhat to the detriment of the general class of Post Office contributors who would be receiving a lower benefit. But I think they are a class who are certainly entitled to equal, if not to a higher benefit.
I recognise the ingenuity with which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with the various classes of labour, such as the weekly wage earner, the daily wage earner and the independent worker who depends more on profits than on wages. But he omitted one very important class, which is the pieceworker, who is at the same time a home worker. That is a very difficult class to deal with, probably the most difficult of all, more difficult than what is commonly termed the casual labourer, and I should be very much interested to see at a subsequent stage how he proposes to deal with that class. Hon. Members who have studied the proceedings of the recent Royal Commission on the Poor Law will realise that one essential fact in any scheme of insurance, just as in any scheme of Poor Law relief is that the benefit that you give must be adequate to the circumstances of the recipient. It is almost better to give no, benefit and no relief than to give an inadequate benefit.
I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes a benefit of 10s. in the first three months and 5s. for the second 703 three months. I suggest that the decreased benefit of 5s. for the second three months, considered as a flat rate benefit dealing with all classes of labour under the Income Tax limit, is neither an adequate nor a satisfactory benefit to give, and I hope at a subsequent stage it will be found possible to rearrange this system of benefit. I cannot help feeling that the Chancellor has overlooked two disadvantages with regard to a flat rate. In the first place, if you have a flat rate in regard to contribution you are not exacting an equality of sacrifice from all contributors. In the second place, if you have a flat rate as regards benefit you are not giving equal benefit for equal standards of comfort in this country. One of the principal objects he ought to bear in mind is that you are not attempting to save this or that class from the operations of the Poor Law, but you are endeavouring by means of State insurance to prevent that standard of comfort in individual wage-earning households from deteriorating and being seriously diminished owing to the accident either of industry or of health.
I observe that a qualifying period of six months is imposed, during which a workman is compelled to contribute, but during which he will receive no benefit at all in sickness. If you have compulsion with regard to contribution you cannot, even in the interests of your actuarial basis, have a qualifying period of six months. If this system of sick insurance is to be a success it is essential that it should enjoy the approval and goodwill of the medical profession, and if it is to enjoy that goodwill it is essential that you should from the outset, in the interests of the medical service which you are asking it to render, consider the interests of the medical profession. The one thing they do not wish to see established in this country—and I agree with them in this—is a class of official doctors, and I think from all quarters of the House there would be general agreement that it is highly inexpedient from every point of view that you should divide your medical profession into official and unofficial doctors. If you agree to that proposition you have to rule out at once any proposal for an official doctor either for the societies or for the committees which you are setting up under this Bill, and you must adopt one of two alternatives. You must either give a free choice to the patient to choose any doctor he likes in the district, or you must give 704 him a choice of what I may term a panel of doctors. Then there is the question of the remuneration of the medical profession, on which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch. Is it proposed that they should be paid by salary or by fixed rates per visit, or, as in the case of most friendly societies at present, at a fixed rate per head of membership, irrespective of the amount of sickness which they are called upon to treat?
§ Lord A. THYNNEI understood that with regard to the rate of pay the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that it was to be materially increased, but I do not think he mentioned any definite figure. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it was now 4s. on the average, and that under this Bill it would be more than that—that it would be materially increased. There is a third point in connection with the medical profession which is of great importance. Those of us who have studied the subject with great care realise the difficulties which arose in Leipzic are such as might conceivably be repeated in certain portions of the United Kingdom. We recognise the great value of the medical committee which was set up in Leipzic, and we should be glad to see some similar committee set up in England. In this connection I venture to make a passing criticism of the public health committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up in each county. I notice that there are to be nominations from approved societies in the district, nominations from the local authority, and nominations from the Post Office. But surely it would be reasonable that as this question affects the medical profession so closely the local medical profession should also be represented on those committees.
I have only one more point to bring before the House, and that is in connection with the machinery to be set up in connection with the scheme. I have already referred to the public health committee with respect to which I understand the county has been taken as the unit. I hope that special consideration will be given to the larger municipalities, such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take into consideration the desirability of having special public health committees to deal with the subject in the large municipalities. There is one important 705 point in connection with the public committees to which I wish to direct attention. The work will be continuous and arduous. Are we to understand that that work is to be given gratuitously, or is it proposed that there should be payment made to the members of the public health committee out of the general fund? The same question might also be asked about the benefit societies. I wish to know whether or not in addition to the share they receive of the fund, they are going to receive any subsidy to cover the heavy cost of administration. I venture to offer these criticisms not in any spirit of antagonism at all, but more in the hope that I may elicit some statement on the points I have raised from the President of the Board of Trade. I hope he will bear in mind the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening statement that he will welcome suggestions from all quarters of the House.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PENRY WILLIAMSIn rising to address the House for the first time, I would ask its indulgence, and I will undertake to be very brief. Speaking as an employer of labour in the North, I believe this scheme of industrial insurance will be received with a great welcome in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill one question. Is it intended that those benefits which accrue to the assured worker under this Bill shall be immune from seizure for debt? If that is so, then I venture to think that you must extend that a little farther, and that you must look to America for your examples. In most of the States of the United States you have what is called the Homestead Law. I shall take the State of Maryland, which will form a fitting example to mention here to-night. There the money benefit derived from insurance, or for relief in the event of sickness, injury, or death, is exempt from seizure, and also a hundred dollars' worth of personal goods which form the home of the insolvent debtor. That law was passed because it was found that it was not to the advantage of the State that an insolvent debtor should become a burden on the community. If you take the case of England, you will find that the unemployed workman is registered at the Labour Exchange, and by registering that man you admit that he is genuinely an unemployed workman. By allowing his name to continue on the 706 books of the Labour Exchange you admit that the State, with all its resources, cannot find him employment, and yet you fail to protect that man's home in his dire necessity. I would venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to insert some provision of that nature in this Bill. It is, I believe, a detraction from the merits of the Labour Exchanges and the Old Age Pensions that such a Clause is not in. I venture to say, in conclusion, that if you guarantee to the workman a place where he could rest free from all his worries and free from all molestation, the very possession even of the remnant of a home, would give him fresh courage to renew the struggle, and perhaps to emerge victorious from it.
§ Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERI wish to protest as strongly as I possibly can against the procedure of the Government in allowing the County Council Bill to be introduced on this occasion when a measure of the greatest importance comes up for discussion. Surely, when day after day is given to unimportant Amendments on the Parliament Bill, it is extremely incongruous that this day should be chosen for the discussion of a Bill of so little importance that it has to be withdrawn after two hours' debate. There are many friends of the Bill on this side of the House who have much to say, who have studied the question, and who probably would have added very valuable contributions to the Debate. Let me say at once that I am a -friend of this Bill. I do not approach the discussion of it in any party or petty spirit. I look upon it as a great national problem in which the future welfare of probably millions—I am talking the future—is, involved. I wish to express, if I may modestly, my congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having introduced a Bill which is clever, human, sound, and statesmanlike, and which I believe will go far to alleviate much of the misery which all of us deplore to-day. Of course there is always a weak part in any Bill. I do not at this late hour wish to discuss details, but if there is one part weaker than another it is the part which I hold to be the most important and to which I have given most study. That is the part which deals with insurance against unemployment.
Surely the Government have lost sight of their objective. I take it that the objective of any scheme of insurance against 707 unemployment must be to prevent destitution among hundreds of thousands of able-bodied working men who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. And when I talk of that class I am talking of the unorganised bodies in this country. The Government scheme of insurance against unemployment only touches a tiny fraction of this class. That is admitted by the Chancellor himself, and I hope he will consider whether, even at this late hour it may not be possible to make this scheme not only compulsory, but universal. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who has a marvellous capacity, even at a time of peace, of being somewhat pugnacious, taunted us with being what he called Socialist Unionists. I would have expected that criticism to come from a crank individualist, but I would not have expected it to come from the hon. Member opposite. May I set his mind at rest immediately and tell him that State insurance against unemployment is the very antithesis of Socialism, that State insurance against unemployment and Socialism are the North and South Poles. State insurance is as different from Socialism as the medicine of a skilled practitioner is different from the poison of a skilled assassin. It breathes freedom and not slavery. It would free the individual from the trammels and the meshes of poverty. It would inspire him with hope rather than fill him with despair, and help him instead of being a useless member of society to become a wealth producer.
Socialism, on the contrary, makes no distinction whatever. It would make the thrifty and the thriftless, the idle and the diligent, the rich and the poor, alike the slaves of the State. I received numerous letters in my capacity as chairman of the Anti-Socialist Union from people of a school of thought which has to be reckoned with. I call them individualists—crankindividualists—asking me to use my influence to get the organisation of which I have the honour to be chairman to oppose tooth and nail the measure which is introduced on this occasion. But although I oppose Socialism almost daily in all its forms and phases, I do recognise that the crank-individualist is as dangerous a member of society as is the crank Socialist. After all, he would have allowed our factories to remain as fever dens and our workers to have been stunted by excessive toil. What would the crank Socialist have done? He would 708 have compulsorily brigaded the workers in State-owned factories.
§ Mr. LANSBURYYour compulsory insurance is another voluntary scheme.
§ Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERAnd I suppose he would have made short shrift of the employers by hanging them up to the nearest lamp-post. Surely the margin between Socialism and Social Reform is broad enough. The touchstone to be applied to all questions of Social Reform is this: Will they promote self-help and develop individuality, or will they strange self-help, stunt thrift, and destroy independence? It is impossible to set arbitrary limits to the functions of the State. Nobody can deny that increased civilisation has entailed increased responsibilities. I say that it is not only within the province, but it is the duty of the State to deal with the problem of poverty, and not only to deal with the problem of poverty, but to discover the causes which engender it, and to prevent them if they can. I think the House will agree that the economic insecurity of a great proportion of the population constitutes at any rate a danger and a menace to society which must be compulsorily dealt with in the same way that an epidemic is dealt with. If it is not Socialism for the State to compel the individual to protect himself against the terrible scourge of smallpox by means of vaccination, surely it cannot be called Socialism for the State to compel the individual to defend himself from another dread disease—the dread disease of poverty—by means of insurance.
I am aware that the heavy expenditure which a national scheme will necessarily involve will be objected to by all those who fear to embark upon a new and big venture without any precedent, and still more by those who fear to even consider a scheme, the cost of which cannot be reckoned upon an actuarial basis. But although I admit that the question does bristle with difficulties, the arguments, both ethical and economic, are overwhelming in its favour. Even to-day, hon. Members will agree, with Poor Laws which are chaotic, and which breed paupers instead of checking pauperism, the State recognises its moral obligations to the destitute. No man in this country is allowed to starve. The State acknowledges itself morally bound to give not only food but lodging and shelter to those who cannot find them for themselves. So far and no farther does the State go. But instead of attempting to rehabilitate the 709 individual, instead of helping him to re-find his lost manhood and lost dignity, the State brands him with a stigma of disgrace which often causes the honest working man, out of work through no fault of his own, to sink deeper and deeper into the morass of pauperism and despair. Surely these are false economics. If the worker were helped to tide over his temporary difficulty, if he received unemployed benefits, not as a charitable dole but as a reward for good citizenship, if he were assured of medical supervision and freedom from despair, he would in time become again a useful member of the community and cease to be a burden upon the nation.
Again I say I hope the Chancellor will see his way to introduce a universal scheme. Although the cost actuarily may be great, yet the approximate cost can be arrived at. Mr. Rosenbaum, who is one of the most competent statisticians in England to-day, and a member of the Royal Statistical Society, has given an estimate of the cost of a compulsory scheme. [An. HON. MEMBER "Tariff Reform League."] Do hon. Members below the Gangway opposite think less of his statistical ability because of the fact that he has been engaged in doing excellent work for the Tariff Reform League. Mr. Rosenbaum estimates that the cost of compulsory insurance against unemployment, equally divided between the employer, the employé, and the State, would mean to the latter a contribution of approximately £5,000,000 a year. Hon. Members may say that is a very large sum to put upon the people already overburdened by taxation. But if this scheme went side by side with reform of the Poor Laws, as surely it ought, a distinct saving would be effected, and you would have a scientific and humane scheme superseding an inhumane, unproductive and deteriorating system. There are certain uninsurable risks which demand that certain conditions should be applied. One is the segregation of the wastrels from the genuine unemployed, and that also entails some sort of punitive system such as they have in Germany. A far more important point, but one which I shall not labour, is the decasualisation of labour. Although I do not wish to speak in any party spirit, still there do seem to loom two almost insurmountable obstacles in the way of a solution of this question of unemployment. One is our ineffective Aliens Act. The other is 710 the stubborn refusal of the Government to consider for a moment the protection of British markets and British enterprise. Is it not a little grotesque to insure our people against unemployment when we allows aliens from all over the world to come in shoals into this country Does it not seem a little ridiculous that you should insure against unemployment and yet allow the surplus products of foreign labour to come into this country without restriction? Surely the time and labour the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to this important question points to the obvious necessity of removing those obstacles. I, for one, am glad that this great question of Social Reform, perhaps the most important that has been introduced into this House during the last century, has been the means of making the two great parties of the State drop their differences for the moment and deal with this question in a generous, national, and universal way.
Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has endeavoured to show us what is true Socialism and what is false Socialism. As far as I am concerned I do not care how an hon. Member may label himself so long as he is prepared to support this Bill. I am glad to recognise —as I do very fully and very frankly on behalf of the Government—the extremely generous way in which in all quarters of the House the main principles of this Bill have been received. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) were here I should like to have thanked him on behalf of the Government for the way in which, immediately following the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he received the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to the House. May I say that as far as I have listened to the speeches that have been made I do not think any hon. Member, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I do not think even he, objected to the principle on which this Bill is laid. We have had some criticisms of details, which, in a Bill of this kind is very natural. I can say, on behalf of the Government, that we desire to place before the House the fullest possible information with regard to the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract seemed to think we had based the finances of this Bill on certain actuarial calculations, which we were endeavouring to withhold. I can assure him 711 that there is nothing of the sort; but it could not have been expected that we should have put in the actuarial calculations before we had introduced the Bill. We desire to give the fullest possible information both in regard to the purpose and objects of the Bill, and its finances, in order that the House may be in a position both on the Second Reading and in Committee to discuss it with the fullest information and with the greatest possible detail. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, and the Government will not for a moment contend that this Bill is of the nature of a sort of verbal inspiration. On the contrary, speaking on his behalf and that of tile Government, we shall welcome criticisms in regard to details, especially as the principle has been generally accepted.
In regard to various criticisms, I think hon. Members will find when they have studied the Bill that they have been very largely anticipated. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Penry Williams) wanted to know whether the contributions paid by the workman or the employer would be immune from seizure. I think he will feel quite satisfied when he sees the Bill that his point is fully met. I think the same answer applies to a good many of the criticisms in regard to the methods in which the payments will be made, and I think hon. Members when they see the details will be quite satisfied as to that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester desired to know as to another point, which I think he will find to be met by a Clause dealing with the case of a workman who has recurrent unemployment and securing that there shall be opportunities for improvement. There are many other details I do not think I need touch on, and I think a good number will be found to be anticipated by the Bill. I can assure the House that the greatest possible trouble has been taken in regard to all the various points in connection with the Bill. Some points have been discussed and rejected, and such points as have been rejected are, I can assure the House, open to reconsideration if good cause can be shown. I am sure the whole House recognises that in a Bill of this sort, of this far-reaching importance, and of this character, it is quite essential we should have behind us the general feeling and general support of all Members of the 712 House if we are to bring it to an effective conclusion. Most of the questions asked this evening have been in reference to that part dealing with unemployment, partly, no doubt, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the same opportunity of expounding it in detail at the end of his exhaustive speech. Therefore, as the Board of Trade is especially interested in that portion of the Bill, I should like to give a little further information in regard to some of the points that have been mentioned. The Bill is founded on the principle of insurance. What we desire is to distribute the remuneration of labour more regularly over the time of unemployment as well as of employment, so as to mitigate the hardship to individuals which the present system entails. We believe that the system that we are introducing, with the safeguards provided in the Bill, will not only mitigate the hardship during the period of unemployment, but will do a good deal to regularise employment, and, therefore, to diminish unemployment itself. Hence this, as well as other portions of the Bill, will not only be an assistance at the time, but also a preventive of the evil which we desire to mitigate.
The unemployment portion of the Bill is based on a two-fold position. Not only does it apply to the particular scheduled trades, in which there will be compulsory contributions and minimum benefits, but we are extremely anxious in a Bill of this sort to encourage as far as possible voluntary effort in other directions, in other trades, and in the insured trades themselves. Therefore, apart from the minimum benefits which will be met by contributions from the workmen, the employers and the State, the House will find in the Bill provisions under which, both in the insured trades themselves and in other trades, the associations—trade unions and others—which already provide unemployed benefits, or will do so in the future, will receive a direct State subsidy in aid of their voluntary efforts. They will receive a State grant of one-sixth of the benefits they pay. In the insured trades the direct State subsidy will be made, in addition to the contribution, which I shall explain in a moment. Outside the insured trades any association which gives unemployed benefits will receive an equivalent State subsidy to encourage it in that excellent work. Therefore, the object of the Bill is not only to introduce compulsory insurance against unem- 713 ployment in the insured trades, but as far as possible to encourage the voluntary efforts of associations. The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire asked how the question of State contribution stood. Perhaps I may explain the proposals of the Government in regard to the amount of the State contribution and the reasons why it was given. What is proposed in regard to the insurance scheme is that there shall be a contribution from workmen and from employers of 2½d. each. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his speech to one feature of the contributions of the employers. That is that we have thought it would be a very distinct encouragement towards regularity of employment if we gave the employers something in the nature of a pecuniary advantage in respect of their regular men. We therefore propose that the employer shall be able to compound—if he desires to insure his men over the year—at a lesser rate than if he paid week by week. We hope this commutation proposal will be largely taken advantage of by employers, and will assist towards the attainment of regularity of employment. The employer's contribution then is 2½.—so far as this particular Act is concerned—the workman's contribution is 2½d., and the contribution of the State added to these will be one-third. If these contributions are added together, the State, the employers, and the workmen—the contribution of the State will be quarter of the whole. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire seemed to be afraid that under certain conditions the contributions of the State might be of an unlimited extent. The State contribution is fixed proportionately to that of the other two parties to the transaction.
It may be interesting to the House to give the total of these contributions. The workmen will contribute £1,100,000, the employers £900,000, and the State one-third of the combined contributions of employers and workmen. From this Fund 10 per cent. will be deducted for the expenses of administration. The point has been raised as to whether this system of insurance ought, in the first instance, to be confined to certain specified trades. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the trades we were proposing to take in the first instance were in the one group, the engineering, shipbuilding, and vehicle-making trades, and in the second the building 714 and construction trades. The answer is really very simple. The reason we in the first instance have confined ourselves to certain specified groups of trades rather than endeavour to extend the operations of this new proposal over the whole sphere of labour is that unemployment insurance is a novelty and in the nature of an experiment. We have no experience of it elsewhere, although there has been considerable experience of sickness insurance in Germany. But we have no experience of compulsory unemployment insurance in any part of the world. This is the first instance of an actual compulsory system of unemployment insurance. And it was thought that a matter of this great importance was better worked rather slowly. The trades taken were those in which the fluctuations were marked, in which the wages were time wages, trades which were somewhat self-contained and which could be grouped together, and in which the unions had provided some measure of unemployed benefits, and therefore could show some experience in the matter. Although we have confined our operations for the time being to the particular trades that I have mentioned, the scheme as it stands is bold and comprehensive. It includes from the very beginning no less than 2,400,000 industrial workers out of a population of something like 10,000,000 or 12,000,000, which is a fair proportion. Hon. Members will find when they see the Bill that we take provision under a Clause whereby if it is found this experiment is a success the parturition system will be applicable to other trades. Subject to certain financial conditions it can be extended to them from time to t line, and we may bring other sections of trade under the insurance system. We desire, however, to get experience before extending it too widely. A good deal also was said in reference to the question of the benefits to be received. My right hon. Friend pointed out that we divided the insured trades into two groups—the building trade and the engineering and the benefit is to be 6s. a week minimum for a period of fifteen weeks in the building trade, and in regard to the shipbuilding and engineering trades the benefit will be 7s.Of course, there is a cerain amount of difference and elasticity due to the fact that so far as our data goes in the building and constructional trades, the percentage of unemployment is rather greater than in the engineering trade. Therefore, although we 715 have the same contributions we vary the benefits. Hon. Members will see we have allowed a certain amount of elasticity in this matter, and that the Board of Trade will have power within limits to revise from time to time the benefits to be paid.
Mr. BUXTONOn that point I want to point out that the great danger to be guarded against in this scheme is malingering. We believe both in regard to sickness and in regard to unemployment we have regulations that will meet that difficulty, and I can assure hon. Members if in the course of the Committee they can suggest further means for the prevention of malingering we shall consider them. The reason that a week is inserted in the State scheme instead of two or three days, is because of the greater difficulty in the first few days in preventing malingering which the State would have than trades unions or trade societies, and therefore it is in the interests of the trades themselves that the first week should be a waiting week. We shall have a certain amount of discretion in regard to benefits as experience shows us what is the true financial position. We are starting with two or three trades in the first instance as an experiment. We are doing this because the data before us in regard to the financial position is not sufficient. We must find out first whether the contribution will be sufficient to meet the benefits, and only experience will show us that. But we start with a good surplus. One point put by the hon. Member for Leicester was in regard to trade unions, and he asked how far are you going to interfere with what he called the machinery of trade unions. I can assure him that both in regard to sickness and unemployment there is certainly no intention of any interference with the general machinery of trade unions. On the contrary we hope to utilise their machinery for the purposes of this Bill. If a particular trade union desires to receive the unemployed benefits to be paid over to them for distribution among their members as part of the existing system of distribution they will be handed over in this sense. Where they have spent a certain amount on benefits, subject, of course, to proper safeguards, they would be reimbursed that amount from the insurance fund. The money they so spend will be repaid them subject to certain guarantees.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDDoes that mean the difference over and above their own payment?
Mr. BUXTONThe idea is that there will be a certain minimum benefit. In order to encourage further provision they will receive also one-sixth of the benefits they have to pay over and above that amount.
Mr. BUXTONAs far as the contribution is concerned the only possible method is by means of stamps affixed by the employer. When he fixes these stamps for his own contribution and that of the workman, it will not matter, and he will not, know, whether that particular workman is a trade unionist or not. I was only speaking of benefits. As far as their own members are concerned we thought it was an advantage that they should be able to utilise their own organisation for the distribution of benefits amongst their members.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWill the trade unionists pay the trade union subscriptions as well as the stamps to the Government fund?
Mr. BUXTONThere are certain payments and certain minimum benefits. Whether the trade unionist continues to pay his contribution to the trade union or reduces it by 2½d., as far as the trade union is concerned, it is as broad as it is long. They either get the benefit on the one hand or they do not pay so much on the other. I think those are the main points in connection with the matter. I am sure the House recognises this is a great step forward in social reform. We are now dealing with a gigantic problem. I think it was the hon. Member for Leicester who said we shall have almost to reconsider the position in regard to social matters. My right hon. Friend in this Bill is proposing to deal with no less than 15,000,000 of persons and £24,000,000 of money annually. That is a great reform in itself, and it will give the greatest possible satisfaction to every Member of the House that it is going to be considered entirely on a non-party basis. We put this proposal before the House as a sound business proposition, but it has the additional inestimable advantage that it will also, if carried through, greatly tend to mitigate the enormous hardship and suffering of so many thousands of workmen and women.
§ Dr. J. ESMONDEI regret the time is so short, and that I shall be unable to say all I wanted. I think the Debate ought not to close without some medical man who has had some experience of the working of friendly societies saying a word or two. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, I think, realises the fact that, if it is going to be a success and a real measure of benefit to the mass of the people of this country, it can only be so if he has the whole-hearted sympathy of the medical profession. Up to this the medical profession have been in a very different position than that they will occupy in the future. Doctors who live in rural districts have accepted positions as medical officers to the benefit societies, such as the Oddfellows and Foresters, simply and solely because they recognised they were philanthropic societies, and it was the duty of a profession with high ideals and noble aspirations to help them in their object. Everyone must realise—if they do not they ought—that when this Act passes the duties which are at present being exercised by these societies are being taken over by the State. We have no strict trade union principles in connection with our profession, but I think the House will realise, if you are going to have the best medical attendance and the best medicine for the people whom this Bill is going to bring under its wing, the profession must be studied and paid a fair trade union rate of wages. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said the amount of fees varied from 2s. 6d. up to as much as 6s. I was not aware it went so low as 2s. 6d., but I quite admit the average is 4s. That 4s., however, never paid any medical man for doing his duty to the society which he attended. I notice he intends to divide the question of medical advice and medicine. I hope that will not be carried out. There is a great deal to be said in favour of allowing the doctors to prescribe and the chemist to make up the medicine. That is all right in London and in large towns, but in numbers of villages and small towns throughout the country there is no chemist. What is the distance to be recognised as the correct one for a person who gets a prescription from the doctor to have to go to get it made up by a chemist? In nine cases out of ten a patient who is seen by a doctor is at work; he gets his advice and medicine in the evening, and goes to work again the next day. But if he is to be given a prescription and to have to travel two miles to get it made up, I doubt very 718 much if he will think it fair to have to do that. Then there is the question whether the doctor who is called in to a case is to be paid for the hypodermic medicine he uses, although there may be a chemist in the village or town. The serum treatment is the treatment of the future. It is an expensive treatment, and diphtheric serum is especially so. Who is to be paid for that? If the doctor is called in such a case, is he to wait until the serum can be fetched from the nearest chemist I After an experience of twenty-five years with two or three friendly societies I have the greatest doubt if this is going to lead to better management. I am certain it is not going to be more economical, and inasmuch as the chemist may be a friend of the patient, it may lead to considerably additional expense. I think this is a matter which should be carefully thought out before you divide up this question of prescribing by one person and having the prescription made up by another.
Then the question of Ireland comes in. This Act, like all other Acts, though suitable for England, is totally unsuitable for Ireland. In the majority of villages and small towns in Ireland there are no chemist shops, and if this Act is going to he a success it must be worked in conjunction with the medical profession and they cannot be expected to work under it unless they get reasonable remuneration. A suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman—it was not a definite statement—to the effect that he was going to take into consideration the present societies and consult with them as to what the medical men should be paid. I am absolutely certain the Act will be a failure if the medical men are put in such a position as that they will be bound in self-defence to refuse to have anything to do with it unless they are paid a fair and reasonable sum for their duties.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERI can assure the right hon. Gentleman that no one on this side of the House wishes to prevent the effective introduction of the Bill to-night, but during the few minutes that remain I should like to make one or two observations. In the first place we congratulate—we all congratulate—the right hon. Gentleman on his performance this afternoon, and we congratulate the Government on their Bill, but I should like to say that we on this side of the House wish to enter a protest as to the circumstances under which the Debate was entered into. It is little short of monstrous that on an 719 occasion of this kind, when the Government is embarking upon what everybody must admit is the greatest experiment in legislation which has ever been introduced in any assembly in the world, their proceedings should have been interrupted by one of these private Bills which take up so much time. I do not blame the Government, but I wish to call attention to the matter, because there are a large number of my hon. Friends who have made a special study of this question and taken special pains to collect information bearing upon it, who would otherwise have wished to have laid their views before the House, but have been deprived of the opportunity of doing so by this incident. The experiment—I think the Government will admit that it is an experiment—is, as I said a moment ago, the greatest that any Legislature has undertaken. In some respects it is a leap in the dark; in others we are able to profit by the experience of other countries. But no country in the world has ever attempted to deal with the two cognate though separate branches of industrial insurance in one measure in the way in which the Government proposes to do. The cost is great, but most of the cost falls upon the employer and the employed. The cost that falls upon the State compared with the sums that you exact from those two partners in the tripartite co-partnership is insignificant. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer may base his claim, perhaps, upon this, that the State controls the organisation, and without the organisation of the State the system which he proposes to create would be impossible. This is not a scheme of charity. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) advanced it as a business proposition. If you advance it as a business proposition, and such a proposition it undoubtedly is, it lies with you to justify the claims you make upon each constituent party in the tripartite partnership, the workman, the employer, and the State. As you are able to justify the contribution that you invoke, so shall you receive the support of all classes of the community. Speaking, if I may, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I will say that, believing as we do that you are animated by the sole desire to confer a lasting benefit upon all classes of the community, so we will aid you in the perfection of the details of your scheme with all the zeal and all the ability and all the goodwill that we can give to it.
§ Question put, and agreed to, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for insurance against loss of health, and for the prevention and cure of sickness, and for insurance against unemployment, and for purposes incidental there to."
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Burns, Mr. Herbert Samuel, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Masterman and Mr. Hob-house. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, 8th May, and to be printed.—[Bill 198.]
Adjourned at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.