PROVISIONS AS TO SPECIAL CLASSES OF INSURED PERSONS.

HC Deb 02 November 1911 vol 30 cc1017-90

(1) Where a woman who, having before marriage been an insured person, marries, and is supported by her husband, she shall unless she continues to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, be suspended from receiving any benefits under this part of this Act until the death of her husband, and if she is a member of an approved society any sums credited to the society in respect of her, calculated in the prescribed manner, shall be carried to such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed, but if at any time after such death she again becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, the period between her marriage and the expiration of one month from death of her husband shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears:

Provided that where such married woman again becomes employed within the meaning of this Act before such death contributions shall thereupon again become payable in respect of her, and she shall cease to be suspended from receiving benefits, but the period between her marriage and the time when she so again becomes employed shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears.

(2) Where a woman who was a married woman living with and supported by her husband at the commencement of this Act at any time subsequently either before or within one year after the death of her husband becomes an employed contributor and a member of an approved society, she shall be entitled to full benefits notwithstanding that at the time of so becoming she is over the age of sixteen.

(3) Where any arrears of contributions have accrued due in respect of a married woman during coverture such arrears shall, on the death of her husband, be disregarded, and she shall be thenceforth entitled to benefits as if such arrears had never accrued due.

(4) A married woman shall not be entitled to become a voluntary contributor, and if a woman is before marriage a voluntary contributor she shall on marriage not be entitled to continue to be such a contributor.

(5) Save as aforesaid, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to a woman who has been married, both during and after coverture, in like manner as if she had never been married.

(6) This Section shall apply in the case of a woman who is legally separated from her husband by divorce or otherwise as if her husband had died at the date at which such separation took effect.

Mr. FORSTER

I would like to ask what general scheme of procedure is to be adopted on this Clause, which really amounts to a new proposal. We have had very scant opportunity of considering it. Perhaps I may venture to suggest that we might have some general discussion on the Amendments, but I am very anxious if we have the general discussion that that should not preclude any Member of the Committee from moving and discussing Amendments which he may wish to make. The reason is, speaking for myself, I am so imperfectly acquainted with the full bearing of the Amendments which the Chancellor has intimated his willingness to accept that until the matter has been explained more fully I cannot say whether or not I think Amendments ought to be made. That is the sole reason I do not want to obstruct in the slightest.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

I need hardly say that no one who has followed the way in which the hon. Gentleman has conducted the proceedings on the part of the Opposition will ever suspect him of desiring to obstruct. I agree with him it would be desirable to have a general discussion upon the Clause as it is practically now proposed by the Government. The only part of the suggestion with which I do not quite agree is that in which he rather suggests that we should have the same discussion twice over.

Mr. FORSTER

indicated dissent.

Mr LLOYD GEORGE

That would probably be the effect. If we are to have a Debate on all the Amendments of the Government taken collectively, and a second Debate upon each individual Amendment, then I think that would be taking it twice over. I certainly support the suggestion that we should have a Debate practically on the same terms as the Debate we had on Clauses 32 and 33. It would be really in the nature of a Second Reading Debate on the whole of the Government's proposals. If that is acceptable to you, Sir, I propose to make a general statement as to the effect of the proposals.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I desire to ask whether a general discussion would interfere with the opportunity to have Divisions on Amendments on which hon. Members might wish to have Divisions. It is obvious we do not want to have the discussion twice over, but it may be that the House may desire to express an opinion on a given question.

The CHAIRMAN

As a general rule in Committee I do not think it is desirable to have Motions to leave out Sub-section (1), for instance, and then begin to discuss the whole Clause. Of course that is a rule which cannot be applied universally. There was a clear exception to that on the Clause as to Post Office contributors, and I think in some degree this Clause dealing with married women has a similar plea. It is rather an exception from the main framework of the Bill, and therefore I think the request which has been made to me is a very reasonable one. It is for the Members of the Committee itself to say whether the discussion, if I allow the Motion to leave out Sub-section (1) is merely of an explanatory character or argumentative. If it is merely explanatory then clearly subsequent Amendments can be argued on their merits, but if, on the other hand, it travels over the whole field of argument, I should have to exercise my discretion later in order to prevent the repetition of arguments already used. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) that, of course, will not prevent hon. Members subsequently moving Amendments and taking the decision of the Committee upon them. The only thing which I cannot allow when we get to the consideration of Amendments is Amendments which are practically destructive of the whole Clause, whose object is more properly arrived at by negativing the Clause and the bringing on of a new Clause at a subsequent stage.

Mr. FORSTER (for Mr. Bridgeman)

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).

4.0 P.M.

I confess I fell very ill-equipped for the purpose of throwing any light upon the proposals on the Paper which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to circulate. May I make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In the Actuaries' Report which the Government have circulated, there are indications of half-a-dozen further points of great importance in reference to which the Government have Amendments or alterations to make in the Bill, but the terms of which are not yet on the Notice Paper. I appeal to the Chancellor to put those Amendments down at the earliest possible moment, because it is almost impossible for anyone fully to grasp the differences that may be involved. It is a matter of extreme difficulty to put out of one's mind the general bearing of these various questions one upon another, and to become acquainted with a wholly new outlook or a wholly new relation between various parts of the Bill as they affect each other. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us as long notice as he can of the proposals he has still to make. I think the Committee generally will congratulate itself upon the fact that the proceedings upon which we are engaged at the moment show that we were fully justified in the criticism that we made upon the Bill as it was introduced, namely, that the proposals as they related to women were not fair. I think we were also right, and the Report of the Actuaries bears me out, in contending that the amount of money provided by the women's contributions was in reality greater than was required to pay the benefits they were to receive. Anyone who studies the present Report of the Actuaries cannot fail to reach that conclusion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the proposals which he is to make or is willing to accept, will reconsider the observation that he made with reference to the danger of malingering on the part of married women. I hope that as the result of the further investigation and inquiries which he has no doubt made, he has been led to correct the impression which he had previously gathered, that there was greater risk of malingering on the part of married women than on the part of any other class affected by the Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I never said that there was more malingering among married women. I have corrected that repeatedly. What I said was that there was much greater difficulty in checking malingering among married women, because employment is such a check upon malingering. That is the only thing that I have ever said, and it is rather different from what is suggested.

Mr. FORSTER

I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. I am bound to say, now he has called my recollection to it, that I think he is perfectly right, and that that is what he did say. I hope he will accept that correction on my part. As far as I understand the proposal at present, it seems to me that the scheme of insurance which we are creating for women is really speculative. Unless my understanding in the matter is wrong, I am rather afraid that there will be difficulty in finding societies willing to accept women as members under this proposal. I am rather driven to that conclu- sion by the Report of the Government Actuaries. Anyone who reads the Report of Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt will see that they are proceeding upon assumptions which almost appear to have been forced upon them. There seems to be an element of reluctance in regard to the basis of their calculation. They do not seem to have approached the calculation with the degree of willingness with which they approached the original calculation. If you read between the lines of the Actuaries' Report you will see, I think, that they entertain very considerable apprehension that it may be difficult for women to find entrance into approved societies. I will refer to details in a moment. I hope the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will to a very large extent remove my apprehension on that and other heads.

I should like to ask why it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently finds himself unable to include in his proposals married women who are not insured before marriage? Further, whether he has considered the case of the young woman who works at home up to the time of her marriage and does not come into insurance at all, because she is not an employed person? There is a further class which does not appear to be affected by these proposals, although it is, I think, a comparatively numerous class. Take the case of a domestic servant who leaves service in order to take care of her father or mother or some other relative, whom she looks after for so long that she drops out of insurance altogether. Eventually she goes back into domestic service and has to resume her insurance. There is nothing to protect her re-entry into insurance. For her, as I understand, there is no reserve value, and she will have to pay the rate equivalent to her age. That, I think, represents a comparative numerous class of persons to whom we ought to pay attention. The last three lines in the printed Clause as circulated by the right hon. Gentleman introduce a limitation which was not originally in the Bill. I should like to ask what is the real effect of that limitation, and whether it means that in the case of women affected by it they are to undergo a new qualifying period before they get the benefits. Under the Bill as it stood the Government proposed that during marriage and up to the death of the husband, arrears should be disregarded. It appears to me that this proposal means that arrears are not to be disregarded. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt explain how that matter stands. I am putting my questions very badly, because I do not want to take up time. Another question with regard to the reprint. It states that where a married woman who was at the date of her marriage a deposit contributor is suspended from the ordinary benefits under this part of the Act, two-thirds of the sum standing to her credit in the Post Office fund shall be applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III. of Schedule IV. until the same is exhausted. Why is only two-thirds of the sum to be applied in the case of a deposit contributor? In the case of a member of an approved society two-thirds is all that you can apply, because you must keep the remaining third to provide the reserve value when she re-enters insurance. But there is no reserve value in the case of a deposit contributor.

Then I come to the question of the transfer and reserve value for a person re-entering insurance. I speak on this question with great diffidence, because it is a matter of extreme difficulty. I suppose it is a matter of difficulty even for anyone who has a very acute and clear financial mind. I am sorry to say that I have neither an acute nor a clear financial mind, and to me these are matters of extreme difficulty. Sub-section (10) states that the transfer value for the purpose of this Section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners prescribe. I take it that these transfer values will have to be subject to periodic reconsideration, because it may very well happen that the scale of transfer values in the first instance may, in the light of subsequent experience, prove to be at fault. In this matter we are proceeding wholly in the dark.

We have not got enough experience upon which we can base anything like accurate calculations. I suppose that the Insurance Commissioners will be bound to review their table of transfer values periodically, if they are to make membership in this matter in any way attractive to the approved societies. From what fund are the transfer values to be derived? What is the fund out of which the transfer values are going to be paid? Is it the ordinary fund, or is it only to be a fund relating to married women, and exclusively for them? I suppose the latter. I suppose the fund into which transfer values will be paid, and from which transfer values will be paid, is one relating exclusively to married women? This is a very important point that requires to be brought out. I think it would have a very distinct bearing on this insurance to spinsters and unemployed women. Then if this fund from which the transfer values are to be paid shows a deficit the deficit is to be made good under Clause 40. I think the effect of that will be still further to postpone the date at which the fund created under Clause 40 will be liquidated. That is the only way in which it can be done, unless you create a new paper debt. Even if we were to create a new paper debt, that in itself would mean that the debt which we meant to liquidate would have to be larger. That again would mean that the time during which the liquidation takes place would have to be extended for the due reduction of the debt so created. It is difficult to explain quite clearly, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has got the point I desire to make quite rightly?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes.

Mr. FORSTER

It would mean prolonging the period from fifteen and a-half years onward; and, in fact, it seems to me, as long as that liability lies upon the fund created under Clause 40 you cannot lay down any period in which the debt will be liquidated. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell me how long, in view of the new proposals, he calculates the liquidation of the debt will take? In relation to the question of benefits, or rather the way in which the money is to be expended—that is the cost of the benefit—I see that the actuaries have based their calculations upon the cost of medical benefit taken at 6s. per head. Is there any reasonable prospect of being able to secure medical benefit for married women at 6s. per head? Have the medical profession been consulted upon the point? I think I remember certain speeches, or articles, or letters in which members of the medical profession made it quite clear that they were not prepared to undertake the treatment of married women for anything like so low a flat rate as 6s. per head. If they are unable to do this; if the arrangements with the medical profession are not to be carried through; and there is not to be a flat rate of 6s. per head, it seems to me that the financial part of the scheme will be seriously jeopardised.

I note that the estimate for the administration of management expenses is taken at only 3s. per head. On what is that based? I think this will not be an economical form of insurance to administer. There is a good deal of going and coming, of going into and passing out of insurance, of suspension, and so on, and we must not think that this is going to be an economical fund to administer. After all the voluntary help which is now given by those who manage our great friendly societies, the average cost of administration, or the usual cost, is 4s. per head per year. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell me on what the actuaries base their assumption that 3s. per head per annum would be enough? One further point. I see a paragraph at the bottom of page 17 of the Actuarial Report of Mr. Watson, dated 23rd October, which makes him a little apprehensive. Mr. Watson says:— Generally I regard the provisions of the Bill as to the re-entry of disabled women as very serious financially to societies, unless the sum that is to be transferred to the societies in such cases will be so calculated as to take into account the possible liability respecting each individual widow; or some other special arrangement is made. I do not know what proposal is made by the Government to meet the objection or the fear which is expressed by Mr. Watson. I quite see that the reserve value for each widow is set on one side, and that this is to be paid to the society when she resumes her insurance; but the reserve value is concerned wholly with age. There is no allowance for disablement in the reserve value which is created under the Bill, and which will be credited to the society which the woman practically rejoins on becoming a widow. Unless some provision is made to meet the expression of uneasiness and grave doubt of Mr. Watson, I think that we shall run considerable risks. On the whole, of course, I think that the scheme is a vast improvement on the original proposals of the Bill, but unless it can be shown to be financially sound, unless it can be shown that it is going to be sufficiently sound, at any rate to enable the societies to take women as their members, we shall be holding out false hopes if we include it in this Bill. I have every hope and expectation that when the Chancellor deals with all these points he will be able to satisfy us. I quite admit that the doubts which are entertained may be the result of the short examination which it has been possible to give to these most important proposals. In that hope I shall very confidently await the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a very considerable number of questions, but he has a very sure touch. He has dealt with all the material features of the scheme. Every question he has put is a question which lies at the very root of the financial soundness and efficiency of this Clause. Therefore I propose to answer categorically those questions, because I think that is the best way of explaining the new scheme. Before I take his questions, may I just answer one or two of his preliminary comments. He said our new proposals were an admission that our original scheme was not fair to women; an admission that the benefits which we proposed to give to women for the money which they paid would be lower than that money would fetch. That is equally true of the contributions of the men. I have always informed the House, and the actuarial reports have repeatedly stated, that over and above the benefits which we promised under the Bill there is a very considerable margin which will enable societies to declare additional benefits. When you come to the money paid by women, I made it clear at the start that the intention was that the women's fund should be kept quite separate from the fund of the men, and although there might have been unfairness between one section of women and another, there could not have been any unfairness to women as a whole, because every penny paid into that fund was distributed to the women.

The House as a whole was rather anxious that a proportion of those benefits which would otherwise have inured to another class of women should go to married women. The difficulty of the woman was expressed in every quarter of the House, and I undertook to consult the actuaries as to a scheme for carrying out the wish of the Members. The only difference between this scheme and the original scheme is that there is a different distribution of the surplus. That surplus is now utilised for the purpose of enabling married women, or single women contributors, to come in after marriage upon the payment of a small weekly fee. There is no difference in this scheme so far as women as a class are concerned. The hon. Gentleman made an observation about what he considered to be the reluctance displayed by the actuaries to support the present scheme. He rather imagines that he discovers traces in their reports that the scheme has been forced upon them, and that they are very reluctant to give it support. Quite the reverse! They have given that assistance with great alacrity. Not only did they assist us in the actuarial calculations, but they assisted us in framing the scheme, and some of the most valuable suggestions came from the actuaries themselves. They entered whole-heartedly into the organisation of the scheme, and they authorised me to say so. Therefore, so far from there being any reluctance on their part, it was the very reverse. They naturally called attention in their calculations to contingencies. There are some contingencies. You cannot possibly avoid that. This is quite a new scheme of insurance; there is no absolute data upon which you can build the scheme, and when I explained this scheme to the Committee some of the calculations may in some point or other be an underestimate, or even an over-estimate. It is quite impossible to reach anything approaching absolute accuracy, because there is no absolute data. But I think it will be found that the margin allowed by the actuaries will on the whole be ample to meet all these contingencies. I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the last question to paragraph 4 in Mr. Watson's report as to which he expressed some doubt. The answer to that is to be found in Table 2 on the last column of page 22, and the actuaries assure me that that margin ought to be sufficient to cover all contingencies referred to by Mr. Watson in that particular paragraph.

I come now to explain to the Committee what the difference is between the old scheme and the new, and I shall answer the questions put to me in the course of that explanation. Under the old scheme the single women paid their contribution up to the date of marriage. If they worked for an employer after marriage they still paid as employed contributors receiving full benefit. If after marriage they did not work for an employer the insurance was suspended up to the period of widowhood, and the position of a married woman was for insurance purposes on marriage wiped out, but on the death of her husband she assumed the position as if not a single day elapsed between the date of her marriage and the date of her widowhood. That involved this, that after the date of widowhood, if she was ill, she would get benefits at once, because the marriage period would not have counted. She would get her thirteen weeks' pay at 7s. 6d., and when that had expired she would get 5s. up to the date when she would get the old age pension, without having paid a penny piece in the mean- time. She would get medical and sanatorium benefit and all the other benefits of the scheme without having paid anything in the meantime. She could go on afterwards in insurance either as a voluntary contributor or as an employed contributor, with the same provision, of course, as to arrears after her husband's death. If she neither continued her insurance nor was under a condition to contribute, then her insurance would lapse, just like the insurance of anybody else so long in arrear that he or she would not obtain the benefits of the arrears Clause of the Bill, and her money would be merged in the general fund. The Committee as a whole felt that something should be done for the purpose of helping women already in the fund before marriage, after marriage. I think that was the general feeling. I took that as an instruction from the House of Commons, and I set to work to try and meet it. I want to say here I received very valuable assistance from a Committee of Members of this House and from several persons outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, my hon. Friend the Member for York, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe gave me valuable assistance. I had the opportunity of consulting them, and I must also mention Mr. J. P. Brook, of the Christian Social Union, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham, who also took a very keen interest in the matter; and amongst the ladies I must mention Mrs. Llewelyn Davies. Her suggestions were most valuable, and I think it only fair to recognise the assistance given by these ladies and gentlemen; and I should also say Mr. Watson has helped me very materially, not merely by criticism, but by suggestions as well. This scheme is made up of the labours of the officials, together with what assistance I and my colleagues have been able to render. Now what does it mean?

Instead of taking the whole of the reserve value for the purpose of insurance it is decided to take one-third of it. I do not think that is adequate, and the actuaries in their estimate say one-third is not adequate, and here comes the question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has hit on the weak as well as the strong points of the Clause. I will explain to him how that deficiency is covered. A woman pays contributions for five or ten years before marriage. She has not drawn anything like her part of the money paid in. The money is in the fund. That fund is utilised for the purpose of creating for her the right of re-entering for insurance any day at which she is a widow. It may be when she is thirty or fifty, when if she tried to enter a friendly society it would be very difficult for her to do so. Here she is able to enter on insurance at the same premium as when she was sixteen years of age. But, instead of utilising the whole of her money for that purpose we propose to utilise one-third of the whole, and I will explain what we do with the rest. There is a deficit on that one-third, and the way it is met is by placing it upon the general fund.

It was felt that, after all, both men and women had an interest in seeing that something was done for the widow. It was felt that it was not merely a liability that ought to be placed upon the women, and therefore the deficiency in that sum, whatever it is, will fall upon the general fund. Now the hon. Gentleman says to me very properly, "If there is a deficiency that must postpone the period at which the sinking fund would have come to an end and additional benefits would be declared." No, it does not necessarily mean postponing it. As a matter of fact, it means keeping it alive, because if it is a deficiency it is a continuing deficiency, and merely postponing the period would not answer the purpose. What it means is, you must keep the operation of that sinking fund alive in order to pay that deficiency. You need not postpone the period of declaring additional benefits by a single day, but it means the additional benefits declared will be proportionately less. It means not postponing, but reduction. The men and women will have to make that sacrifice for the sake of the widows, for the sake of those whose husbands have died. I hope I have answered the question put by the hon. Gentleman.

I come now to the question of what happens to the remaining two-thirds. I ought to say this. If you take the whole of that burden upon the general sinking fund you could not justify the right of re-entry at all. I think they ought to bear some proportion, at any rate, of the cost of re-entering. Now what happens to the remaining two-thirds. I propose that women within one month after marriage should exercise an option as to what they will do. It must be exercised in a month unless with the consent of the society, otherwise women might, if they felt their health giving way, would exercise an option then which would be an option against the society. They have to exercise it a month after marriage, or otherwise with the consent of their own society. That is a risk to the society. There are two options. The first is voluntary insurance at reduced terms. A married woman may say, "I should like to continue my insurance at reduced rates," so we propose she should be charged 3d. The two-third reserve value will be put into this insurance in order to eke it out, and the State will pay one-fourth of the benefit. That keeps us within the terms of the Resolution. It is not quite paying one penny; it is a little more: it is 3d. and two-thirds, with one-fourth of the whole of the benefits.

Now what are the benefits? Medical attendance is the first. With regard to medical attendance I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that some members of the medical profession do not like the prospect of having to attend married women, and there have been a good many letters written and, perhaps, speeches made upon the subject, and I think there has been an article in "The Times" that the general insurance scheme was breaking down upon the married woman's side owing to the fact that medical attendance was much heavier, and that the number of day's sickness was also much heavier. It is not quite so. The remarkable thing is that sickness among married women in Germany is more prolonged, but when you come to the average number of days per member there is very little difference between sickness among married women and sickness among men, and the only explanation I can offer is this: Men give up much more readily. A woman who has got a headache sticks to it, but when a man gets the headache, he thinks he is done for, gets alarmed, runs to the doctor, and coddles himself. A woman does not give up nearly so readily, and that is a reason why, although their sickness is more prolonged, the average number is pretty much the same, because they do not go to the doctor except when they are really ill, and a man goes when he fancies he is ill. I do not think there is quite so much cause for anxiety on this point for that reason. That will be the first benefit. I do not think there is very much to complain of in regard to the medical benefits. Take the medical men who are doing very well in the mining districts and who undertake the cure of a whole family, man, wife and child, as a rule, for 3d. I know in some parts of the world they get 4d.

Mr. HILLS

In my county they get 19s. a year.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes, but that is much higher than the average. This means 3d. for doctoring a man, wife and child, including drugs. Now what is the second benefit? They get sickness, amounting to 5s. for the first thirteen weeks, 3s. until the death of the husband, and sanatorium benefit from other sources. The reason is obvious, because otherwise they might exercise their option against the society. The maternity benefit will be paid by the insurance up to that date. You cannot add to the risks, and we have been obliged to leave the maternity benefit out of that and compel them to take the maternity benefit of the husband and be satisfied with that. The sickness benefit is contributed up to the death of the husband. Now there are three alternatives. The woman at the death of her husband can become an employed contributor at full benefits of 7s. 6d. or 5s., or she can be a voluntary contributor, also at the full rate, or she can continue her insurance at the reduced rate, getting 5s. and paying her 3d. and getting medical benefits, 5s. for thirteen weeks, and 3s. for the rest of her days.

Now comes another case. Supposing she is employed during marriage or widowhood what happens to her money? The 3d. is deducted out of the wages, 3d. is paid by the employer, and she is given the option of either becoming an employed contributor with full benefits, or of paying 6d. into an account which will be used for the purpose of liquidating her 3d. a week. The reason for that is this: If the woman is likely to be continually employed she would naturally be in favour of the higher rates, but supposing she only gets an odd job now and again, then she would rather her 6d. should go into the society and be credited with 6d. as against the 3d. which she would have to pay. There are two classes of married women. There is, in the first place, the class whose work is continuous. A woman in this class would be inclined to say that she would rather be treated as an employed contributor at full rates and get 7s. 6d. than 5s. Supposing, in the second place, she was a married woman taking an odd job now and then and could not depend upon continuous employment. She would rather her 6d. should be paid to the society and not go on at the reduced 3d. rate, the money paid going in to help the fund. She would go on working, say for a month, then there is 2s. paid by the society. That is an equivalent to two months, but the following month she would not pay because she has a 1s. to her credit for the following month. I have dealt with the married woman who is in favour of continuing her insurance, and now I come to the married woman who does not insure and, in fact, does nothing. What happens to her? She still gets her surrender value, and it is placed to her credit in her society, and it can be drawn on until it is exhausted on the deposit principle. If hon. Members will look at the figures on page 18 of the White Paper they will find there some idea of what the amount will be of these reserves. A married woman fifteen years in insurance will have £4 10s. to her credit. One-third of that will be set one one side to enable her to purchase the right of re-entry, and then there is the balance of £3 to be placed to her credit in the books of her society, and she can draw upon that for two purposes. She can draw 5s. a week during confinement or she can draw the 5s. in times of unemployment or distress. She gets the whole of her money in one way or another, the society determining the period and the time. I think I have explained generally all the points put to me.

Mr. SNOWDEN

What do you mean by distress?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I mean unemployment, and times of exceptional pressure upon the household. The society will be allowed to determine what this distress means. It will include any great strain upon domestic resources, and in such cases an application could be made for permission to draw upon the fund during the period of strain and distress.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Will that power be specially given to that society?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Yes, it will.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

My hon. Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could explain the provision in Sub-section (4) relating to the deposit contributor as to why she was only to have one-third of her surrender value.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This is a question which entails a great deal of perplexity. I put to my advisers exactly the same question as the hon. Gentleman put to me, and I was satisfied with the answer I received. I will give that answer to the Committee and allow hon. Members to judge whether it is a complete one or not. You must not make it worth while for persons to become deposit contributors by this Bill. If you give the whole of the amount, then every young girl who anticipates or contemplates marriage would prefer to come in as a deposit contributor if the whole amount were available to be drawn upon after marriage. That is the reason, and in fact it is the same argument in, regard to death. In the case of death we have limited the amount the next-of-kin are entitled to draw, and in the same way we are limiting the amount which the insured woman is entitled to draw, otherwise the temptation would be for every young woman to join the Post Office fund rather than join a society. I think that would be a very great mistake for them as well, and it would be far better for them to join the society, and continue in the society at the reduced rate.

An hon. Member asked me why existing married women could not be included. May I point out that that suggestion involves millions of women, and the burden would be enormous, and even if they were put upon the men's fund, it would postpone the date of increased benefits for several years, and would take an enormous sum of money. For that reason, we thought it was much too serious a question to contemplate, and we could not see our way to do it. I think that represents all the questions which have been put to me. I agree that this is a better proposal than the one in the Bill, and I am very grateful to those who have helped me to find a better method. I appealed to hon. Members to assist me to improve this measure, and the response to my appeal have not only improved this proposal, but has improved the Bill in many other respects. For these reasons, I confidently submit this proposal to the Committee.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. HILLS

I think the Committee will agree that the scheme which is now outlined is a very large advance upon the scheme as it appeared in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the two schemes were really identical. I quite agree that the question is to whom are the benefits given and what time are they given. Our objection is not that the whole class of women was hurt, but that the married women were hurt. I welcome the scheme as a whole as a real attempt to settle a difficult problem. You have, in considering schemes of this sort, to look at them from two points of view. You have first to look at what I may call the paper scheme, the scheme in its spirit and plan, and then you have to see how far all classes of women are brought inside that scheme. It is obvious the scheme may be a good one in principle, and yet not include all the classes that ought to be included. As far as the principle of the scheme goes I believe it is a sound and wise scheme. It is the right way to say that upon the marriage of an insured contributor one-third of the amount standing to her credit shall be carried forward to give the right of re-entry to widows, and that two-thirds shall be applied for her immediate benefit.

I should like, before going further, to get quite clear the exact position of that one-third. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that one-third of the surrender value of each married woman is carried forward to give the right of re-entry for widows. As the Bill stood, it was not only widows who had the right of entry, but all the women who became employed when married. I understand they have taken away from the married woman who leaves on marriage the right of re-entry except at a rate for age. I think that is a real hard case, and I do not believe it is the intention of the Government. The new Clause says distinctly that where a woman is continuously employed after marriage she can stay on as an employed contributor at full rates, but where two or three years after marriage a woman is forced out into the labour market again and her employment is thus discontinuous, she cannot get back on to the full rate of an employed contributor unless she pays the full rate for her age. The Clause as originally drawn did not contain that; it allowed all employed women, whether employed before or after the death of their husband, to come back on the fund at full benefits. If I read the report of the actuaries aright they allowed for the re-entry of all employed women, continuous or discontinuous, to the full rate of benefits. The new Clause applies only to those who are employed continuously from the day of marriage. I think it is pretty clear from Mr. Hardy's report he intended to include all women who were in employment. Look at the absurd position. When a woman is married, unless she goes back to work immediately the honeymoon is over—I suppose the Government allow her a honeymoon—she cannot fret on to the full benefits unless she pays full rates for age. I believe that is a real flaw in the Bill. and I do not believe it is intended. I understand the right of re-entry is going to take a good deal more than one-third of the surrender value, and the deficiency is quite properly charged on the men's fund.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

On the general fund.

Mr. HILLS

Well, on the general fund. Why should not the charge take the form of extending the period of repayment of the deficiency rather than the Government plan of keeping the period of fifteen and a-half years and paying smaller additional benefits. Would it not be better to charge this deficiency by way of an increase of the period of the repayment of the loan rather than to charge it by taking it off additional benefits? The great vice of the German scheme is that they have not paid off their initial deficiency. It is the millstone round their necks. Are you not doing the same? Are you not carrying forward a deficiency you could pay? It is a very real point. I believe the deficiency on this one-third will be a great deal more than the Government think. The cost of invalidity pensions will be far more heavy than the Government imagine. It is quite right and proper they should be charged on the general fund. It is certainly good for the community that they should, but ought not that charge to be paid off in a limited period, and not carried forward and charged to posterity?

There is a further point which I think ought to be mentioned. The scheme only applies to women who join approved societies. How are you going to compel societies to take married women as members? I am rather afraid they will not be very valuable members. When you come to pay the reduced benefits, when you use the two-thirds of the surrender values to pay the lower sickness pay and so on; then you have got a watertight fund. I have reached my point in a clumsy way, but it is a very difficult subject. The two-thirds of the surrender value, plus 3d. from the women and 1d. from the State, are set aside to pay the reduced benefits. I understand that is a self-supporting fund. It is a self-contained fund, and the deficiency on that fund is not charged to the general fund. Two-thirds of the surrender values will be barely sufficient to pay the reduced benefits, because, although the Government actuaries have worked out the figures to show a margin all the calculations of sick- ness and invalidity are really based on men's lives. There are no real figures of women's invalidity. Whoever sees a domestic servant or a shop assistant or a mill hand of sixty? It is perfectly clear long before they reach the age of sixty or seventy, they will be entitled to physical or mental incapacity benefit in the terms of Clause 8. They will be entitled to their invalidity pension. The Government have reckoned that out of five women only one will come on the invalidity fund. It is the opinion of a great many that is very grossly underestimated. Assuming that is so, these two-thirds of the surrender values have to pay certain benefits which no approved society can afford to pay. Will they take women as members at all? Will not the effect be to segregate women into their own societies, and will not those societies be insolvent? This is a very important point, because it cuts at the root of the whole plan of reduced benefits.

I quite agree the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an excellent one, but do let us see it is watertight. Do not let us find in two years' time we have allowed women's societies to be formed for the purpose of paying these benefits and that, through no fault of their own, they are bankrupt and cannot, on the money allowed, pay the benefit. I turn now from the scheme itself to the door and passage of the scheme to see who you are going to get into it. At the very beginning of your Clause you exclude all women who are not insured at marriage. I should like the Committee to realise what that means. Take two concrete cases. Take one where a girl is living at home, a comfortable home, but with a father who does not care to spend 6d. a week to insure her voluntarily. She marries at 25, and is absolutely out of your plan. She does not get the reduced benefits, and cannot get the full benefits without paying a rate for age, and that is prohibitive.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

All the other women have got a reserve value which they themselves have created. This woman has paid nothing. Is she to come in at the expense of the other women?

Mr. HILLS

I should say at the expense of the general fund. She will be a married woman, and you have got to insure her. You cannot leave things as they are. It is not a thing that will spot after the Bill has been in operation a few years. It is a blot that will remain, and a very large number of women who were not insured at marriage will not get the benefit of this Clause. The second case is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster). Take the case of a domestic servant who leaves service to look after the household of her brother who supports her. She is to all economic purposes a married woman. She has left the labour market and gone to her brother's home. Assuming that after a few years her brother marries, or she marries, she will not come into the scheme at all, for it may well be that her brother has not paid the 6d. a week to insure her voluntarily. These are very large classes which are left outside the Bill. I do not believe the cost of bringing them in would be very great, and it is surely a perfectly fair charge to place on the men's fund.

I have mentioned the case of women who are not continuously employed during marriage. I will just repeat my point in two words. As the Bill was drawn you allowed the women to come back in full benefit if they were employed before or after the husband's death. In your new Clause a woman can only come back as a widow unless she was continuously employed from the date of her marriage onwards. That seems to me to be a most unreasonable distinction. In addition to that, it does not correspond with the facts. I believe it is a mistake owing to the late time at which the report was received. I believe the failure is due to the draftsman who did not understand the meaning of Clause 11 of the report of Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, which provided for the continuance of full insurance to all married women who, whilst married, are employed persons. There is no suggestion that the employment must be continuous. It is not part of the actual scheme, and I do suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is very hard to make a married woman who stays at home for two or three years after marriage come back at the rate per age. She can only come back at the full rate for her age, she may be thirty-five or forty years old, and might therefore be charged a prohibitive amount.

There are some smaller points I must trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer with. A woman besides being continuously employed after marriage must have been employed before marriage. Why do you only allow women to come on the full benefit if they are employed before marriage? What you want to do is to give that woman her surrender value. What you want to know is whether a woman is insured by marriage, and if you restrict the Clause in this way, you will cut out a very large class of women. Lastly, I come to the case of women who are now married. It is, I admit, a vanishing class, and as times go on the hardship will be very great, but I am afraid the women who are now married, unless they come on as fully employed contributors, will not really get any benefit. At any rate it is a diminishing benefit. Another point I must mention is both important and intricate. It is a point on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed his mind. He has abandoned his earlier and better intention. The Committee will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme for the married woman's benefit provided for a payment of 3d. per week from each married woman, but he has not provided for the fact that this woman may desire to move into another scale. In fact she might go to work for an employer who pays 3d. per week in respect of her, and the scheme as placed on the Paper does not cover her case. The employer has to pay 3d. per week and she was to pay nothing. That has been changed. She is now to pay 3d., and the employer is also to pay 3d., and the whole 6d. is to be carried to the account of the society. Part of it is to be devoted to paying her 3d., and the balance can go in payment of arrears or in extra benefits for her. The first scheme whereby she was absolutely excluded from all payment and came in on a non-contributory basis was submitted, but, in spite of strong protest in certain quarters, it was rejected. I quite agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to look at the opinion of the Committee on that point, but I ask this Committee to see what has been done. A great many of us who have considered this woman's case have been convinced that the arrangement is unfair to her. The Government has said in certain cases that where a married woman has been in reduced benefits, and then goes out to work, she is to pay 2d. or 3d. per week on her employment. Undoubtedly the reasons for charging that woman the 3d. were strong. A married woman might be working alongside an unmarried woman, and it was unfair that an unmarried woman should have 3d. taken out of her wages while nothing should be deducted from the married woman's wages. It was also felt that the woman working at home could throw the 3d. on the employer. You were encouraging the work of married women outside their homes, and the result was that an employer could draw on a class of work people not subject to a deduction of 3d. per week from their wages, and the effect would be to give the whole benefit of the exemption to the employer. These are objections which can be met by legislation. I believe if we are to have a real scheme for the women, it must be a solely non-contributory scheme, and I hope that in the time that elapses between now and the Report stage, the Government will reconsider the whole question. I think on the lines I have indicated it will be possible to find a real insurance for these women, but that outside those lines you cannot do so.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I have had some opportunity of discussing this question with the representatives of the women's organisations who have been consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to be allowed to say something on this Amendment from the point of view of those who were dissatisfied with the Clause as it orignally stood. The Clause as it stood gave women a real and just cause for protest. The first point is that out of the whole working class, married women were picked out, prohibited by a voluntary contribution, and forbidden to receive their share of the State Grant. Girls were compelled to insure at the age of sixteen when they got very little benefit from the Bill. They were young and strong, but year by year their contributions grew greater. Simultaneously the transfer value of the girl grew larger and larger, but when she was married she was prohibited from going on with that transfer value except at a loss. I know that in reply to this the actuaries of the Government say that these transfer values are not lost and that the woman if she became a widow had the right of re-entering the scheme during the whole period of her married life. The transfer values were put aside in order that the reserve value should be given to the society, so that it might not collect her arrears during married life. I regard these special provisions on behalf of widows as one of the most beneficent features of this Bill, and none of the women's organisations which have followed up this question are, I believe, willing to abandon them. The question is this, What is the right source from which money ought to be provided for making special provisions for widows? Is it right that the money for the special provision should come out of the savings of unmarried girls? Surely the answer is that the duty of making provision for the widow, if it rested upon anybody, rested upon the husband. It was a joint family charge which should come out of the joint family purse, and it ought to be spread over men and women alike. Take the case of a professional man, a doctor, who is going to get married. He has to make provision against the contingency of his death. He probably insures his life, but he does not say to the lady whom he proposes to marry, "I am going to insure my life. I get nothing out of it; it is for your benefit, and, therefore, in order to pay my premiums, I propose to take the savings which you made before we were engaged." That would be a novel proposal, yet it was the original proposal in the Bill. Therefore, we welcome the suggestion that in future one-third of this transfer value shall be taken for this purpose and that the remaining two-thirds should be given to the woman for her own benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the two options which the Bill allows. This two-thirds is calculated by the actuaries to produce a sum between 30s. and £3, according to the age. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that the woman could use that money either to take her into the voluntary insurance or for special benefits.

One special feature of this scheme of voluntary insurance for married women is that it will be found that the benefits which have been provided do not allow for any payment by the woman to the general sinking fund. By this scheme married women will be the only section of the population—outside the deposit contributors—who will be receiving a State Grant and who will not be paying anything week by week to wipe out the initial deficiency with which the scheme starts. We recognise that that is a special privilege. It is a special privilege really founded on justice. In the case of the other voluntary contributors, or the compulsory contributors, although they pay to the sinking fund, each of them, on the passing of the Act, receives from the sinking fund a reserve value appropriate to his age, which he takes to the society. Although, therefore, they pay to the sinking fund they get their share out of the sinking fund. But in the case of these married women the reserve value which they take into the married women's insurance is provided not by the sinking fund, not by the State, but by the two-thirds of their own surrender value which they themselves have contributed. All that the Amendment says is, that as they got nothing out of the sinking fund, they need pay nothing into it. I should like to point out to the Committee that this special privilege will not impose any charge at all upon the general finances of the scheme. When the actuaries made their original calculation that the payments of contributors under the Bill would pay off the sinking fund in fifteen and a-half years, they, of course, considered the contributors who were in the Bill at the time they made that calculation. But this special class of married women contributor was not permitted to come into the Bill at that time. The actuaries made no estimate whatever of that; their calculations are not based upon any expectation of payments by this class of women to the sinking fund.

There is another special thing in this married women's insurance I should like to explain to the Committee. They will have noticed when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the benefits they were to receive, that these benefits were all at the flat rate; that is to say, a woman at whatever age she entered, a young age or an old age, received the same benefit. It is clear that the women who entered in at the older ages, if they were to receive the same benefits as the rest, must take with them into the societies a higher reserve value than the rest. This higher reserve value is not to be provided by the State. The thing works out quite simply. She marries at a later age and has a higher reserve value, but because she marries at a later age she has for a longer period been accumulating her transfer values. The flat rate system, therefore, works out quite equitably without any contribution from the State and without any injustice as between one woman and another. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) put a question with regard to what he said was a new provision in the Amendment. I do not know whether his question referred to this, at any rate, it is a point which is new. In drawing up this scheme, a certain difficulty revealed itself. That difficulty is not created by the Amendments; it is already adherent in the Bill. The difficulty is this, the Bill says that when a married woman returns to employment she shall go back to full benefits, and the society to which she belongs shall have a reserve value appropriate to her age. Sup pose she returns for only one week, the State has to pay the society her reserve value. At the end of the week she leaves her employment, but for the next thirteen weeks she is in benefit. She does not fall into arrears or out of benefit for thirteen weeks. That benefit will include her maternity benefit of 30s. Of course, it would be very well worth while, especially just before the period of maternity arrives. Therefore it has been essential to introduce a waiting period into this Clause, and to lay down that the benefits shall not begin to run until six months have elapsed. I would point out to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that he was right in saying that this introduced a new penalty into the Bill, or made the provision a little harder. If he will look into the matter again, he will see that the Amendments allow a woman to avoid that penalty. These Amendments say that if she is a voluntary contributor she can claim a right of exemption. She can be exempted from the necessity of entering as an employed contributor, and from the necessity of going through this waiting period. She can simply say, "I will go straight on in my voluntary fund," and in that case the 3d. which is deducted from her wages will pay her 3d. contribution to the voluntary fund, and the employer's contribution will be put to special benefit on her behalf, to be administered by the society. The Amendment does really overcome the difficulty without any great hardship.

Mr. FORSTER

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. He has made his explanation exceedingly clear. Can he tell me what effect the alternative would have upon the societies? Which will pay the societies better? I should like to know whether he has considered that point.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I think the societies will probably be paid better by the employed contributor system. In that they get a 2d. State Grant. Under the voluntary system there would be a 1d. State Grant. May I say a few words in regard to the position in which this Amendment leaves widows. The Committee knows that the Bill as it stands lays down that if after the death of her husband a widow re-enters employment then her whole married life is for this purpose wiped out. She re-enters insurance without any arrears, for full benefits, and the society gets the whole reserve value appropriate to her age. That right is maintained by the Amendments, but the Committee will notice that the Amendments at the same time provide more important rights still. She can come back if she is employed, but if she is not employed she can come back as a voluntary contributor, either at the ordinary 6d. rate or she can enter the special married women's fund at the 3d. rate. A very important feature in the proposal is that whether or not she has been a voluntary contributor during her husband's lifetime she comes back as a voluntary contributor at full benefits. She comes back giving her society the reserve value appropriate to her age. The one-third which was taken from her transfer value when she got married, pays for her re-entry whether she has continued as a voluntary contributor during marriage or not.

One very difficult question in connection with deposit contributors is solved by these Amendments. It is a difficulty not created by the Amendments, but inherent in the Bill. As the Bill stood, when a woman deposit contributor got married she lost her savings. It was impossible to justify this. In the case of the ordinary contributor, a member of a society, there was a justification, because you said, "Yes, you take her transfer value, but you use it in order to bring her back into insurance if ever she becomes a widow, to provide the large sum of money necessary to give the society the reserve value appropriate to her age." For the deposit contributor, if she became a widow, no reserve value was necessary. She merely returned to the Post Office. It was impossible to justify it. I think these Amendments provide a solution. As the Chancellor pointed out, every girl would know that if she became a deposit contributor she got a dowry on her marriage and if she belonged to a society she got nothing. This would have made the Post Office a very dangerous competitor for the societies and would have defeated the intentions of the Bill. Now, by these Amendments, any woman who is a member of a society gets on marriage two-thirds of her transfer value without any danger to the deposit contributor. The other third will be distributed amongst the depositors as a class, so that the girls will get their share of that before their marriage.

There is one further point to which I wish to call attention. I would very strongly indeed support the appeal which was made by the hon. Member (Mr. Hills). The Bill as it stands, without the Amendments, gives a woman when she is married, if her husband gets ill or breaks down and she has to go out to work, the right of coming back into the scheme with full benefits, and it wipes out the period between her marriage and the time of her re-entering into employment, and it gives her society the reserve value necessary for the purpose. The Amendments first of all introduce a waiting period of six months. That is inevitable. Under an Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer she has not only to pass through a waiting period, but she has to go back at the rate appropriate to her age. She comes back without any reserve value. She comes back just as if she had been in arrears all the time of her marriage. In this respect the Amendments leave her worse off than she was under the Bill. It means that in reality it will be impossible for her to come back because the rate appropriate for her age will in practice be prohibitive. My own view of the matter is this. The Amendments take one-third of her transfer value. I think it is very much open to question whether in order to make provision for widows you ought to take anything at all from the savings of unmarried girls. Still the Amendment does take one-third, and in my view that third ought to cover the right of re-entry with full benefits, not only of a widow but during marriage. It would not be right to sit down without saying that Members who have taken a special interest in this question, and the representatives of women's industrial organisations, wish to express their very high appreciation of the cordial and generous manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met their proposals. It is worth while to point out that he has achieved this with an extraordinarily modest demand upon his finances. Apart from the 1d. which he gave to the special married woman's insurance, the only charge is the contingent liability on the sinking fund in case the one-third of the transfer value is not enough to put the widows back into the scheme. It is my own personal view that if the Committee will accept these Amendments the agitation which has been conducted against this Clause as it originally stood will no longer have any material for just continuance.

Mr. AMERY

I think all those who took any part in the discussions of the Committee over which the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) presided will readily recognise the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met their claims. It is undoubtedly a great improvement on the original Clause. The narrow, hard and fast regulations have been superseded by a varying scale of benefits more in accordance with the needs of different classes of the community. I might express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into the further case mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Hills) of women who were not in insurance before marriage. There is a still wider case which my hon. Friend touched upon, but did not enlarge upon, and that is the question of invalidity. The Committee knows quite well that what is called disablement benefit is not an invalidity benefit, but is a benefit for complete disablement—a bedridden benefit. It is the difference between the bedridden benefit and the invalidity benefit which, I think, accounts for the extraordinary difference between the actuarial estimate of disablement—one in five—and the very much higher figure of women who will, in practice, be invalided and unable to maintain themselves after a certain time. I should like to suggest that an option in some way or other of insuring against real invalidity on the part of women is a thing that they need more than anything else. An enormous number of women who enter this scheme will not really require sickness benefit. If they are domestic servants they get it in any case. If they are wives living with their husbands, though they may suffer by illness, the earnings of the family do not disappear with the husband's wage. A real invalidity benefit would be of far greater value than any of the benefits conferred under the present Clause.

The hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) while acknowledging the conciliatory spirit shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointed out that he was not over generous. He said the only case in which he had given somewhat more was in the matter of contingent liability in case the one-third of the reserve value was not sufficient to meet the liability put upon him. I submit that even in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to spend anything. In so far as the period of the loan is extended, there will be less money available in the men's fund for extra benefits, for which they pay 2s. 9d. The thing is as broad as it is long. The Chancellor is giving a little more to the women and a little less to the men. He is not showing any substantial generosity in the matter at all. I think, too, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite correct in saying that the liability did not protract the term of the loan. It is quite true that, being a continuous liability, after the loan is wiped out there will be a small liability left to be drawn from the men's fund, but meanwhile, inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to increase the 1 5–9d. by some small fraction, undoubtedly this money, by reducing the 1 5–9d., must extend the term of the loan. It may be only for a few months if the liability is not very heavy, but the Chancellor was not accurate in saying the term of the loan would not be prolonged by a single day. I should say it would be prolonged by some months, perhaps a year or a little more. I feel very considerable sympathy with the closing argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Hills). That is, that you must consider the case of women on a different financial basis from that of men. I do not go as far as he does. I would not advocate a purely non contributory scheme, but I think the principle which the Government have already recognised in giving the women two-eights instead of two-ninths, might with great advantage be carried further. They might be given as much as three-eighths in the way of State help. The case of women is more difficult, and from the national point of view is more, in a sense, a national asset than a man—she represents the continuity of the nation where the man represents individual effort—and there is a very strong case on general grounds for giving women a somewhat larger benefit. I might suggest that if the finance of the scheme had been somewhat differently arranged, if you had a flat rate of State contribution instead of this two-ninths, if you would alter the period of the repayment of the loan, you would have had a good deal more in hand, and you could have increased the amount which will be given to women sufficiently to meet the needs suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Hills), and even have a real invalidity benefit.

Mr. ROBERT PEARCE

The most admirably clear statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the further explanation given by the hon. Members (Mr. Hills, and Mr. Lees Smith), have made the advantages of the new proposal clear to anyone who has gone into them carefully, but there is a point at which the Clause might be amended with benefit, and that is in reference to the two options which,

6.0 P.M.

the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, were to be given in the Bill for married women. I put my Amendments first of all on the Paper, and I thought the wedding benefit ought to come before the furniture benefit, but the Chairman put the furniture benefit first, and this proposition of mine comes now in a somewhat different form. I suggest that, in addition to the two options given by the Chancellor, there should be a third option by which a married woman, within a month of her marriage, should be at liberty to take a small sum by way of solatium for her not having to make any further contribution and not having to receive any benefits during her time of marriage. My impression is that that would make the Bill vastly more acceptable to all those who come under its operations. If you look at the position of married women it makes one feel one can in candour say how hardly they are used and how patiently they bear it in the general long run. When you tell them that there is to be a deduction from their wages they will be greatly astonished. The employers will tell them they have to submit to a similar burden, and the two will moan together over the fact that it is inflicted upon them. There will be something said, no doubt, about the 2d. or the 1d., but where that is coming from or whom it is going to neither the woman nor the employer will know at all. Those who have to explain this Clause to the persons whose interests are involved will find themselves in extreme difficulty. We have already experienced considerable difficulty with reference to the contributions which make up the 8d.—the 3d. from the woman worker, 3d. from the employer, and 2d. from the State. But when you come to read this Clause itself to a committee or meeting of persons concerned, and to explain the advantages under the Bill, they will find that a third of the insured woman's value is to go to somebody or other, or to some fund. If anyone asks an employer, or a canvasser, or a committee of women, what is the meaning of the third of the transfer value of a woman, I am sure there will be no possibility of making clear what is meant by the Clause, or the scheme formulated in the Clause. I say it would be an advantage if you could put something in the Act which would be tangible, concrete and clear, and which would enable an employer to say to a woman: "I must deduct 3d. from your wages, and I will be mulcted myself in 3d., and you will be able to get the benefits under the Act some day or other." You would make the scheme more attractive if a woman could say, "There will be benefit for me if I happen to be sick or disabled," and, as she would be able to say if my proposition were adopted, "The Government are going to give me a small sum on the occasion of my wedding." I put it at two guineas. I believe that sum is well within the margin provided by the Bill. I am not in the least bound by two guineas, and if either more or less could be given as a minimum I would naturally expect the Government to yield to that extent. If you put the women who are affected by the Clause in the position of knowing that they will have a small definite sum given to them, you will do away with an enormous amount of prejudice against the Bill. It would be well worth while paying something to get rid of that prejudice.

We all live under compulsions. We came into the world by compulsion; we pay taxes by compulsion; and in all the affairs of life the atmosphere and the pressure of compulsions press upon us in some way. If to that you add the new compulsion of having 3d. a week kept off your wages, there will be created an amount of discontent far disproportionate to the sum itself. Therefore let us have a little solatium, particularly in the case of women, let them know that when they are married they will have a small sum paid to them, and give them that concrete proof of the benefits of the Bill, and that they will not be cut off until widowhood, which they do not wish, is reached, until sickness or disablement, which they do not expect, is reached, or until they enter sanatoria or asylums, which they hope they will never get into. Although in this magnificent scheme something must be done by compulsion in the new development of society which we are going through, I think if you can make it possible in some small way to give women some justification for joining the scheme you will do something beyond the mere dull routine which is as dull as the speeches of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith). I was astonished at the wonderful power these speeches contained, but there was no inducement in them for anyone to belong to an insurance society. I do not wish to press the point beyond saying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should remember the old maxim:— A bird in the hand is better far Than two that in the bushes are. If he will give a sovereign or two sovereigns to every young woman on being married, I am sure he would make the scheme popular in the country.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after he had finished with his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), went on to blame the Unionist party in general for not having assisted him in moulding this Bill. But I think this afternoon we have had a very good instance of how impossible it is, however good the intention may be, for any of us to assist really in the moulding of certain parts of this Bill. We are dealing at the present time with an intricate Clause. The speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Durham, and others, showed that the matter is really one of extreme complication. Undoubtedly by these new Amendments the effect of the Clause is entirely altered, and not only have none of us had any opportunity of considering what these alterations will mean, but we have not had an opportunity of consulting with our Constituents and those who are particularly interested in the Clauses. To those of us who are against woman suffrage this has been a very difficult Clause, because undoubtedly you are going to compel women to come into this fund, and you are going to take away their money from them after they marry. It does seem that there is in this a considerable argument which has not hitherto existed in favour of giving women some chance of protesting against this treatment. It is sometimes difficult to say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in favour of or against woman suffrage. I do think there could not be a more flagrant instance of rushing things through than there has been with respect to this Clause. There has been no time whatever for considering it, and the very fact that so few are able to get up and discuss the Clause at the present time shows that it is impossible to do so on account of hon. Members not having had further time to consider it. I certainly agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery). If, as in the case of this Clause, which has been thoroughly gone into by a small Committee and entirely altered, a similar sympathetic attitude had been adopted with regard to the deposit contributors, we might have had an opportunity of passing something more satisfactory than the Clause that was forced through yesterday. Although I cannot vote against this Clause, I am not able to regard it with the favour which might have been possible if more time had been allowed to consider it and to see what the effect of it will be.

Mr. LEWIS HASLAM

I find that under the amended Clause married women who have been members of approved societies will have the right of continuing as voluntary members on payment of 3d. per week. That, no doubt, is a considerable advantage, and I believe it will be generally approved throughout the country. But I think I am right in saying that it will leave out of consideration a very large number, perhaps the larger proportion, of married women. I mean those women who are not members of friendly societies or approved societies, and who ought to receive, if possible, benefit and other help during their married life. I have been wondering whether the Government could by any means introduce an alteration in the scheme by which married women could be voluntary deposit contributors. If that were done it would introduce an element of help which would be very acceptable to a very large number of married women. It would mean that they would be able to accumulate a certain amount of reserve, and they would have a considerable sum given to them in case of sickness. It would mean also that they would have the advantage of sanatorium treatment and medical benefit. I hope the Government will take this point into consideration and see whether some means cannot be devised whereby married women could be deposit contributors under a voluntary system.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I certainly am not going to introduce a discordant note in the discussion we have had this afternoon, or to take up any other attitude than that taken by hon. Members who have spoken in congratulating the Government on having produced the new proposals now before us, embodying a very much more satisfactory scheme than that which was embodied in the original Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown very considerable readiness to accept criticism and to welcome suggestions, and I do not know that anywhere has greater improvement in the original proposals resulted than in the Clause we are discussing to-day. Of course, I feel that, the Bill as regards women is practically settled, so far as we are concerned, by the decision to which the Government has already come outside the House. The proposals of the Government were only before us in a consecutive form, I think, forty-eight hours ago, and the report of the actuaries on the women's side of the scheme was not available until the same time. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that in the short time available for its consideration no material alteration can be made in the Clause as presented to us with the Government's Amendments. I do not therefore propose to traverse some of the wider questions that might have arisen, and which I think would very usefully have arisen, if we had been working under circumstances where any considerable modification of change could be introduced. I am going to deal with the proposals of the Government as they stand, and in doing so, from the necessities of the case, I must regard them as in the form in which they will ultimately pass. I wish to ask for an explanation of one or two points which arise out of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was part of the original Bill, and it was part of the new proposals of the Government, that every penny of women's money should go to women, and that the difference between the original proposal and the present was not that formerly the sums which women contributed went to men and women and that now they are wholly reserved to women, but was in the distribution of the women's money among the different classes of women.

I have no doubt the intentions of the Government in that respect are the same now as they were when the Chancellor made his declaration much earlier in our discussion. But what I want the Government to tell us is where is it in the Bill as originally presented? Is there any Amendment they have put down on the Paper, is there one single word which would give effect to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far back as a speech in which he followed me on the Second Reading, declared that from the start it had been the intention of the Government? I cannot trace a line in the Bill or a word in the Amendments in reference to the separate pooling of women's funds as apart from men. I have felt myself met with great difficulty in trying to deal with this question at all, because there is not in the Bill any provision to carry out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says has always been his intention; but after all that is all a form of criticism. We know the answer. It does not occur. What we really want is an indication from the Government of the steps which they are going to take to carry out that decision. I am not quite certain myself that it is in the best interests of women that the fund should be separated, and I think it is certainly very undesirable that at the last moment some new Clause should be put in the Bill or some Amendment introduced to carry that out at a moment when nobody has time to consider it, in either the friendly societies or in women's organisations, or in this House, and that it should go in automatically without any discussion of the consequences that may possibly follow. In the next place, I want to make a suggestion to the Government which I think they will readily accept, and which will, I think, commend itself to the House. Women are to have an option as to what is to be done with the surrender value, but they have got to make use of the option within a month.

Mr. LEES SMITH

Longer if the society allows.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It is very important that every woman should clearly understand when she has got to make an option, and what the options are. What I suggest is that it should be obligatory on the society to serve the woman with a notice—I think it must be done by the society—but that care should be taken that the woman is served with a notice, that a case has arisen that she must within a certain time—that time being a month if the society does not otherwise determine—exercise this option. It should be explained to her what are the different alternatives she has, because many of us who try to understand this Clause know that it is not a simple or an easy matter, or one that a woman unaccustomed to Parliamentary Clauses and public Bills would readily understand or even easily ascertain for herself. That is a practical suggestion which I hope the Government will accept. If they accept the idea, words to carry it out had better be drafted by their advisers and proposed by them, and I shall be quite satisfied if it is done on the Report stage. I would not think it fair to ask them to draft words before we leave the Committee stage of this clause. There are two thirds of the surrender which are not specially transferred to reserve. As to the one-third, which is that, as I understand, from the Government, goes to the credit of reserve value. But will it give a sufficient reserve value, as the deficit must be made good out of the general fund?

Mr. LEES SMITH

There are absolutely no figures available at the present moment to give an answer to that question.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member says that there are no data from which it is possible to tell whether that one-third would be sufficient for the purpose for which it is set aside or not.

Mr. BOOTH

It is a rough estimate.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think that probably, on the whole, it will be found to be not sufficient, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself clearly felt that it probably would not. In that case I understand the deficiency has got to be met out of what he calls the general fund. It is the fund created to meet the reserve values which are brought into being at the commencement of the Act, and if this one-third of which I am talking is not sufficient then not only on the commencement of the Act but in perpetuity you will create, as it were, fresh reserve values, and you cannot close the account, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) suggested, because the deficit will be a recurring and repeating deficit. That fund was a fund, perhaps not entirely, but almost entirely formed by paying in, in the original form of the Bill, for sixteen and a-half years. Under the new form of the Bill there is a recognition of a fact which, I think, has been present forcibly to the minds of all of us, that you must treat a married woman as having some claim upon the man. You cannot say that the man has no responsibility for the wife, who is not technically employed, but in fact gives her life to keeping his home as long as he is there. I am glad that the Government make that recognition, and I for one would not criticise if, in attempting to face some of the cases thrust upon them, they drew upon the joint contributions of men and women a little further for the assistance of these women. Coming to the deposit contributors, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us very frankly that when the scheme was propounded by his advisers he wanted to know why one-third of the surrender value of the deposit contributor was to be forfeited, and he gave us the reasons which had been given to him, and he said it was for the Committee to judge whether they were satisfactory or not. I speak with great hesitation and diffidence when I offer an opinion on such short consideration, but they do not seem to me a sufficient reason for depriving the deposit contributor of that one-third.

He is an unhappy individual for whom we cannot, do very much, but for whom we should do as much as we can. If you say that the Chancellor's objection to giving the deposit contributor the full benefit of her surrender value—for we are talking of women—is that that would be an inducement to women to become deposit contributors rather than to join societies, I really do not think that the inducement is sufficient to become a danger, if you allow them to withdraw on marriage the whole of their surrender value in a lump sum, and you might even guard against their doing, or being allowed to do, a thing of that kind by taking out as it were a policy of endowment upon marriage instead of other benefits contemplated under the Act. But if you do not allow that, then I do not think the fact that the benefits which are pooled will continue for a longer period than would otherwise be the case, would be a sufficient consideration to deter a young woman or girl from joining an approved society. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's fear is exaggerated, and I believe that with the limitations which are, I think, contemplated by the scheme of the Chancellor's Clause, which, in any case, I admit would be necessary as she must not have the whole sum as an endowment on her marriage, it would be safer to allow the deposit contributor the full benefit of any amount standing to her credit as surrender value at the time she ceases to be an employé. I do not want to enter into the controversy of yesterday, but I do myself see great difficulty. The deposit contributor is not in the real sense of the word an insured person under the Bill, and I feel, when you make a contract of insurance with people, their money may properly be forfeited, as far as they are concerned, if the contingencies for which they insure do not arise; but when you insist upon people forfeiting a compulsory thrift account, that is what the position of the deposit contributor is.

He is obliged to save money by compulsion when you force him to save money by compulsion, and do not give him the benefits of general insurance and a return for it. I think he ought to have the full benefit of the money he has saved. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right to consider that matter, and to hear the views of this Committee about it. I hope the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. Masterman) will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes into the House what I have said on this subject, and that we shall have favourable consideration from the Government for it. There is one other matter I want to deal with—one of some importance to the success of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster), in his opening observations, expressed the fear that women desiring to come back might not be found acceptable to a friendly society, that they might not be desirable lives for the society, because, though there would be compensation for age, there would be no compensation for weaker health or any injury they might sustain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based himself on a paragraph in Mr. Watson's report, on page 17. He says:— Generally, I regard the provisions of the Bill as to re-entry of disabled women as very serious financially to the societies, unless the sums to be transferred to the society in such cases will be so calculated as to take into account that probable liability respecting each individual widow, or some other special arrangement is made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred for the answer to the second table on page 24 of the report, as showing that the margin in the last column of that table is quite sufficient to make those lives eligible to the society and to compensate the society for the greater risk they run in taking them. Is that really so? If you look at the figures the margin is very small in many cases, and it is non-existent in others. In the main, women of this class would be women of a certain age from the necessities of the case. Some may come back quite young, but the majority, from the necessities of the case, will be women of a certain age. The margin is less than 1 per cent., and that seems to me a very small margin. That is after forty. When you reach forty-nine it is not merely a very small margin, but it is a margin on the wrong side. In the Actuary's Report it is shown that the deficit increases as the age increases—forty-nine, fifty-two, and fifty-five in each case with the rise of age the deficit grows. I cannot feel any great security that that margin is sufficient in the cases where it will be most needed, and if the margin is not sufficient, or if the provision is not sufficient to induce societies to wel- come these women, what is going to happen? They will be driven into forming some kind of little pool of their own, or society of their own, and that society, I think, will inevitably become bankrupt. It will not be able to meet the charges that will fall upon it. I confess I do not think that under the circumstances a private Member could really put forward an alternative proposal on a matter of this kind. I think the Government ought to seriously and carefully consider this question about the sufficiency of the margin which is provided.

Another point, which is really connected with my opening observation, is as to the separate pooling of women's funds. We do not know what the Government proposal is. It is very important that we should know it, and know it well. Does it mean that the women's funds in a particular branch of the society must stand by themselves, and be solvent or insolvent in themselves, or are they part of the funds of the whole branch or society? Is the society as a whole, with its funds, wholly responsible for the solvency of its women's branches, or does the idea of the Government of pooling the women's contributions and to keep them separate from the men's exclude the women from the general solvency of this society? I really do not know the answer, and I do not raise the question in a hostile spirit, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that the matter is of great consequence, and the Committee should know at the earliest possible moment what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this matter. That is all I desire to trouble the Government with. I will only say again, in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I said in his absence, that I think he has greatly improved the scheme, and I think under the circumstances in which we now stand, we must regard it as being the scheme which is in substance to be accepted, and the observations I have made only apply to points of detail.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very favourable reception he has given to this scheme, and perhaps I may also be allowed to thank the Committee for what I think has been one of the most amicable and important Debates that have been held, certainly during any afternoon in which I have been engaged in connection with this Bill. I think in all quarters of the Committee, as to this, and also in reference to another Clause, it is recognised that we have tried to do our best to meet the various criticisms in connection with this women's problem, and I think I can say that the criticisms which have been made this afternoon have been in the main criticisms which have accepted the Government work as satisfactory work. There has been no suggestion that we should have proceeded on different lines, as far as married women are concerned. My object in rising is to answer certain specific questions put to me from various parts of the House, especially one or two questions which I think arise from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the actual new Clause as it is issued. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a suggestion which I may say is a very satisfactory suggestion, and which I think without consultation with my right hon. Friend I may promise he will consider, and it is this: The alternatives we now offer to women from which to choose on marriage, he said, should be very fully placed before them in some form or other. Either they have got to choose what is voluntary insurance, or they have to choose practically to come out of the insurance scheme sooner or later. Therefore, I think we quite agree that it is important that some of those suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman should be carried out, and that there should be some words inserted which would enforce that the choice to be made should be fully and clearly laid before the women during the month in which she has to make her choice.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not at present put down any Clause dealing with the separation of the men and the women's fund. I think he said, though I am not quite sure, that that separation was desirable in the interests of women. All the demand of those who speak for the women has been for the separation of those funds; and it was in response to that demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that the separation should be clearly placed in the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said, the provision or supplement of one-third the reserve value paid under this scheme, has the general approval of the Committee, and that widowhood should be a burden on the men of the country and not merely a burden on the women of the country, as far as insurance is concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) asked whether this scheme is designed to separate the new voluntary insurance fund at a reduced rate from the ordinary funds of the women's branch of the friendly society or the women's trade union. There is nothing in the Bill at the present time to provide that. That is a subject to be raised in connection with the valuation. Of course, if it were provided that there was to be a complete separation, we should have to frame some means of restoring solvency to the reduced benefit, even if it happened to be insolvent, and that would have to be done by a scale of reduced benefits.

Mr. HILLS

I assume from that last statement of the hon. Gentleman that the two-thirds which is assigned to meet those reduced benefits is not charged upon the general fund—any deficiency is not charged upon the general fund—but must be met by reduced benefits. It is a self-contained fund, and there is no charge on the general fund.

Mr. MASTERMAN

There is nothing to make it a self-contained fund. The alternatives are either to make it a self-contained fund or leave it to the friendly societies to establish the two funds separately. Either of these alternatives really involves the further question of the hon. Member, whether friendly societies would be inclined to take up this work, considering the risk involved.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not quite understand the position yet of the hon. Member. I want to know whether the separation of the women's fund from the men's which the Government have in mind involves the separation of liabilities for solvency; whether, in fact, women and men in one branch jointly are responsible for the solvency of benefits offered to the men and women, or whether you will have to make two branches, one for men and one for women, the men being responsible only for the solvency of the benefits payable to men, and the women responsible only for the benefits payable to women.

Mr. MASTERMAN

That was not the question I was trying to answer.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It was the question I put.

Mr. MASTERMAN

The question I was trying to deal with was that of the hon. Member for Durham, as to whether these new voluntary women with reduced benefits should be kept separate from the general women's fund. The right hon. Gentleman asks if the women's fund is to be separated from the men's fund, or whether solvency should be regarded in each branch separately and a separate levy made.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

My question in the simples form is, Does the separation between the two funds contemplated by the Government make it necessary that a branch should be wholly a male branch or wholly a women's branch, or can you have a joint men's and women's branch under the scheme on which the Government have embarked?

Mr. MASTERMAN

That question did arise in one of the earlier discussions, and to have a wholly male branch or a wholly woman's branch is not necessarily involved in the complete separation of the fund. They may belong to the same branch, but at the same time the separation of the men from the women does involve a separate declaration of solvency or insolvency, and therefore separate arrangements to make good deficiencies on insolvency. There was one other point raised by the hon. Member for Durham, I think under a misconception. He said we were not allowing all insured persons to come in under the new scheme. That is not so. Under the Bill as it stands, not only can all employed persons come in, but all insured persons can come in too.

Mr. HILLS

My point was this, that it only allows employed women to obtain the full employed benefit after marriage, and that an Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the original Clause limited the right to full employed benefit of women employed before marriage. I never said the whole Clause would limit it.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I want to make clear that any women who are not employed, but who are insured from the age of sixteen upwards, and then married, will get in one form or another the full suspense or surrender value of what they paid. That ought to be made clear even if it were not the point put by the hon. Member. Another point that has been largely discussed is that of which the hon. Member for Durham complained, that one of the changes which had been made resulted in the fact that the women who went to work sometimes after they were married no longer received the full reserve value, whereas under the old Bill they did so. I must point out to him this fact. Under the old Bill there was no provision that any surrender value should be given to married women at all. Married women will now draw their full surrender value, and that makes a profound difference. Under the old Bill there was no provision that a woman could continue to be voluntarily insured after marriage with reduced benefits and receiving a State contribution to those benefits. There is now an arrangement, which I think has been recognised as satisfactory, by which there is a provision in Sub-section (8) whereby a married woman who is a voluntary insurer, but who is compelled to go into work for a short time, can obtain the employer's contribution in order to be used for such benefit and in such manner as the society may determine. The best use of it we think would be in order to frank her for some future voluntary contribution at a reduced rate.

Another point that was very strongly impressed on us before the new scheme was formulated was not only the unsatisfactory nature of the scheme which made no provision for women, after they were married, at all in benefits, but also the unsatisfactory nature of the scheme which would result, as it were, in the squeezing out of women from the friendly societies and from the trade unions on their marriage, when before they had been active members of those societies. That has been one of the substantial reasons why all parties in various Committees outside this House and in the House itself have so strongly welcomed a scheme by which you keep a very considerable portion of the married women on voluntary conditions. It is not quite true, as the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) said, that the only additional financial advantage we are giving married women was by the application of a possible deficiency in the one-third reserve value to the general central fund. We are also giving one-quarter of all the benefits which are being given under our reduced insurance scheme. That will mean an increase at present, and as the numbers of married women increase there will be a substantial increase in the amount of the money given to the women.

Perhaps I may sum up the chief advantages which we are now offering by this scheme. The first, as I have said, is that we keep married women in the friendly societies and trade unions, and if they go on paying 3d. per week we give them very substantial benefits of a kind suitable to their condition. We have taken the best actuarial advice we could. We have had the good fortune of a report by Mr. Watson, and to have the report which has been presented to the Committee of our men. They all come to the conclusion that this scheme is well within actuarial possibilities, considering the sums involved. The second new feature meets a criticism which, I must confess, was a very strong one, immediately this Bill was produced, namely, that married women who either could not afford to keep on paying the extra threepence as a voluntary contribution, or did not do so under the original scheme, lost every halfpenny they put in except the money they had drawn out in early life on sickness. We have devised a scheme which, I believe, is a better scheme than that of a dowry, so enthusiastically advocated by some. Although it was difficult to find the best benefits under which that money could be shared, a great wish was expressed that part of it might go towards increased maternity benefits, whereby the child would have the advantage as well as the woman, and that the other part of it should be given to the women's trade unions or women's friendly societies. The third advantage is that we keep women at widowhood, and we have improved upon the original scheme, and we now give her instead of one choice three alternatives. She can either come back with the whole of her married career wiped out as a full contributor, with no loss as to her age, and receive full benefits. She can, on the other hand, continue at reduced benefits. That, I think, is the great advantage of the alteration. If she wishes to continue to pay threepence and is not employed and is supported, for instance, by her children, as many women are, she can continue to receive reduced benefits, and as a third alternative she can pay the full sixpence per week and receive full benefits as if she was employed. Those are all three satisfactory alternatives, which, I think, will be very largely used, and the threepence per week for the woman who does not work is a new feature.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Will the hon. Member point out where is the first alternative?

Mr. MASTERMAN

The first alternative is created, I think, under Sub-section (5), which provides that the whole time she has been married shall not count. I am not sure whether those are new words, or whether they were in the old Bill, but, anyhow, the provision is there now. The fourth great advantage, which I think has also been recognised, is the special provision for married women only employed for a short time. The right hon. Gentleman made some criticism as to our scheme with regard to Post Office contributors. He will recognise that that criticism is much less important now than it would have been before the Amendment we accepted yesterday, because the question of the number of women who will become Post Office contributors and marry in the two and a-half years before the Post Office scheme is reconsidered is a very small question indeed. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government agree that there was a good deal of cogency in the criticism of our answer if the Post Office scheme was to continue permanently. An hon. Member below the Gangway rather contrasted what he considered the friendly and reasonable attitude towards criticism on this Clause with what he termed the cast-iron and defiant attitude of the Government with respect to the Post Office contributor. I can assure him, as one who has had the pleasure of being associated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the start in this matter, that we have been as anxious during all these months to obtain suggestions as to the treatment of Post Office contributors as we have been to obtain suggestions as to the treatment of the women. If we have been unable to satisfy the House in connection with the Post Office contributors, as we have been able to satisfy them in connection with the women, it is because the problem is a question of far greater intricacy. I can assure the House the Government will continue to preserve the same open mind in connection with the one as with the other, and I hope before the two and a-half years expire that we can, in such a friendly Debate as this, solve the one question as satisfactorily as we have solved the other.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I am very much in the position of some other hon. Members who have admitted that they do not clearly understand the text of this amending Clause. I only saw the White Paper since I came to the House this afternoon, and I confess it is very much of a puzzle to me. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire raised the question of women's separate societies, because I have often wondered, when reading the references which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to that matter, where he derived his authority from the Bill in its original form. I understand that he admits now that there is nothing in the Bill but that he intends to bring forward some Amendment by which that idea will be incorporated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated this afternoon that the average rate of sickness amongst married women was much about the same as the rate amongst men. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman obtained his figures, but from general observation I doubt the statement very much indeed. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, true, namely, that it is not that women have less sickness, but that the doctor is called in less frequently than in the case of men. But will it not follow, when women are insured, that they will stop work and call in the doctor much more frequently than at present? I was very much surprised to hear the Under-Secretary for the Home Department say that it was the wish of the women and those who are looking after their interests under this Bill that the women should be incorporated in separate societies. I heard that for the first time, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any real foundation for the statement. So far as I know he has been grossly misinformed. I object to this separation of men and women, for this reason, amongst others I believe that if women were confined to separate societies not one of the societies would be able to maintain itself in a solvent condition under the Bill. The excessive sickness amongst women arises from causes for which the women themselves ought not to be made responsible. There are natural reasons why women are more disposed to suffer from sickness than men. I think that that should be a social responsibility, and that the State should shoulder the burden of the excessive sickness amongst women to a greater extent than is proposed.

I asked the Under-Secretary just now for his authority for the statement that the provision in the Bill as it stands was incorporated in the suggested Amendments—that is, that a woman who had been an insured person before marriage and became unemployed on marriage, and remained unemployed and, therefore, uninsured during a more or less lengthy period of married life was entitled to re-enter as though she had never been suspended from membership of the society. There is some reference in the first Section which possibly might bear that construction; but if it is intended to do so it wants to be made more clear than it is. The hon. Gentleman referred me to a Clause which does not touch the point at all. It says that a woman who was a married woman living with and supported by her husband at the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to full benefits. That is a very different thing. That applies not to women who are single now and employed, and therefore insured, but to women who are married at the time the Act comes into operation. If the statement of the Under-Secretary is correct, I do not understand that long argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon on the subject, because, so far as I understood, he was giving reasons for the excision of that part of the original Bill which entitled married women who had previously been insured to come back on the fund, and he was pointing out how unreasonable it would be for a woman who had become disabled during married life to come on disablement benefit within a month of the death of her husband. That is a most important point and requires to be cleared up.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that I said it was unreasonable for a married woman to come on the fund if disabled?

Mr. SNOWDEN

No. When giving reasons for the alteration of that part of the original Bill which entitled a woman who became a widow to come back on the fund provided she had been insured before marriage, the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understood, that it would be—"unreasonable" was not the word; at any rate he pointed out the unfairness, or shall I say the financial danger, of taking the responsibility of a woman who might be an invalid when she became a widow, and therefore entitled at once to disablement benefit.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is a complete misunderstanding. The first scheme provided that. Under the present scheme provision is made for carrying one-third of her reserve to value. If it involves a deficiency I propose to put it on the general fund, on the ground that it is the duty of the men to bear their share.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that that is covered by the first Sub-section of his amended Clause? That is my point. I am not a lawyer, and the matter is not clear. It certainly is not covered by Sub-section (5). On the whole, though I accept no responsibility for the Clause, either in its amended or in its unamended form, because I believe it is based upon the fundamental heresy of making the poor pay for working out their own social salvation, I am inclined to think that the amended Clause is an improvement upon the Clause as it stands in the Bill. I would point out how unfairly, even in its amended form, the Clause is likely to act. If a woman becomes a voluntary contributor, paying 3d. a week, she will be entitled to certain benefits, including sickness benefit of 5s. a week for thirteen weeks and 3s. a week for the second thirteen weeks, and disablement benefit of 3s. a week. An unmarried woman earning less than 9s. a week under the amended proposal will pay nothing at all, but will, be entitled to 7s. 6d. a week sick pay and 5s. a week permanent disablement pay. This woman will pay nothing, but will receive 50 per cent. more benefit than the woman who pays 3d. a week. The Bill will really benefit but a very small section of the married women of the working classes, because they cannot afford to pay 3d. a week. At present a man will pay 4d., and probably 2½d. under the unemployment part; and the woman is expected to pay 3d. That makes 9½d. a week. It is an utter impossibility for a large mass of the working people to pay an additional weekly contribution of that amount.

I wish to refer also to the prohibition of women to become voluntary contributors. I very much regret that in making these drastic Amendments the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not removed that objectionable provision. I understand that the reason he refuses to make that concession is his fear of malingering. If that be his only reason for preventing married women who can afford it from becoming voluntary contributors—and I believe they would be very few—it applies equally to all three alternatives under the Bill. Therefore I see no reason at all why in one case he should consider it to be of sufficient importance to deprive married women of that right and not in the others. Another very grave injustice in my opinion is that a woman if she accepts one of these alternatives is to be called upon to pay 3d. per week. I understand that by an Amendment to be moved by the Government the State contribution will be 1d. Take, again, the case of a woman earning less than 9s. a week. She will pay nothing, but the State will pay 2d. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify the difference? The State contribution is altogether inadequate and cannot possibly be justified. In the second line of the amended Clause are these words, "Where a woman who having before marriage been an insured person marries and is supported by her husband." I intended to put down an Amendment to omit those words, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already done so. How the words came into a Parliamentary Bill I do not know, but the person responsible sadly needs education about the economics of women's labour. He certainly had never studied the modern women's movement. As a matter of fact, the husband in the case of the working classes at any rate, does not support his wife. The wife supports herself, and is contributing by her labour to the economic upkeep of the home. I am glad, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed the words which not only are untrue, but would have been distinctly offensive to the women of the country.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I think the new Clause is a very great improvement on the Bill, but I think the Committee have a grievance in that it was not circulated earlier, so that we could have studied it better. Several points have been raised about the difference in the positions of some of those who come back at the age rate, and some who come back as if they were sixteen. It is almost impossible to follow, without very close study, to which of the classes the one provision or the other applies. Nevertheless, I think we may welcome the proposal as a distinct improvement on the Bill, and better than the suggestion of a dowry of which I and others have been guilty. I shall not move my Amendment in regard to a dowry, because I recognise that this proposal is a great deal better. On the other hand, if we had not put down our Amendments with regard to a dowry, and got the actuaries to see that there was a considerable margin which could be applied for the benefit of women, I am not at all sure that the new Clause would have been as comprehensive as it now is. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department has improved upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman claims to be rejuvenating people, but the Under-Secretary is wiping out the effect of marriage. What is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to mixed lodges? I understand the idea to be that a society may in future take both male and female members, and that the funds will not necessarily have to be separated in the lodge itself. I want to know whether there are going to be any regulations of the Insurance Commissioners, or otherwise, to deal with the question of voting, because the women's part in such a lodge as that will be, in my opinion, constantly in difficulties. Are men to vote in that lodge as to whether the women's benefits are to be reduced, or a levy made? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to think that position over carefully. I do not believe it is possible to have a mixed lodge with a mixed fund. I believe even if the same society is male and female in its membership there will have to be separate funds, and a separate male and female section. In such a case they might as well be treated as separate societies—under one management if you like—but with a separate vote for the male and female sections of the lodge. It is a relatively small point, but there is nothing in the Bill at present, even with these Amendments, to give any guidance to the Committee upon it.

There is a much more important point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) raised. Although I have listened to the answers given I regret to say I do not understand the position. Is there going to be a women's fund, a central fund for the women, or is it to be left to the societies to say whether or not there shall be a men's fund and a woman's fund? Because I am going to urge very strongly upon the Government not to make the mistake which they have made with the other portion of the Bill, what I call the general or male portion. Here with the women there are very few friendly society lodges. They are few indeed. Relatively you are opening new ground altogether in providing insurance for the women. It is quite possible, therefore, without any trouble, as it seems to me, to set up a woman's central fund. By that you will do an enormous amount to protect the various friendly societies who are desirous to take up the administration of women's benefit. You will do much to protect those individual societies from insolvency if you will keep at least a large portion, of the contributions and the subsidies for benefits in the central fund. In that way you will prevent one small society by the selection of lives getting very good risks and another society getting very bad risks. You have not done it for the men, but you may do it for the women, because certainly you have not got anything like the same difficulties you would have to encounter. I do not understand the Government is pledged in any way at present with regard to the method of the separation of the women's fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it was his intention to keep the fund separate. Notwithstanding the questioning that he has submitted to on these points he has not made me understand what he intends to do.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Let me fully understand what the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is. Does he propose that the whole of the women's contributions throughout the country should be pooled in one general fund, and that you should not allow the separate societies to run their own contributions and benefits?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I would like very much to answer that. I do not propose that all contributions by and on behalf of women should go into one central fund. I do suggest that a large part should go into one central fund. I will take half and half. That will do for my purpose. I will explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how I believed it would work out. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes one half of the contributions by and for women into one central fund, and lets the local society take the other half of the contributions in respect of their own particular members, there would be in effect a reinsurance against half the risks of the small societies by the administrators of the central fund. You would protect the fund. You would give much greater stability to each separate fund by having it reinsured in the central fund. At the same time you can arrange these proportions in such a way that the better management the more profits. They would make out the proportions which they themselves paid. It seems to me that there is much less difficulty in establishing this in regard to women, and—if I may say so—much more necessity in establishing it in regard to women than to men.

The greater necessity is this, that throughout the actuaries have assumed that the rate of sickness for women is the same as for men. I do not think they will expect that to actually occur in practice. At any rate, a large number of people do not think that it is likely in practice to prove the case. They have taken those figures because there are no other figures to take. I think they expressly hedge in their calculations by saying that they have had to take those figures which were the only available figures. Therefore there is some probability of whatever calculations are based upon those figures turning out to be disappointing. It is therefore the more necessary to reinsure the risk by spreading it over the widest possible area, or else you will have the country dotted about with bankrupt societies, or, rather, societies with reduced benefits or increased levies. The Government, it seems to me, are not pledged to any particular course, and I hope that before they do finally pledge themselves upon that they will consider this suggestion.

Another point: If the central fund such as I have suggested were in fact established it would be more easy for the Government at some future date to give a grant for health or for sex much on the lines as they have been given a grant for age. The grant for age has been necessary to equalise age values, and women will never be properly treated, in my view, until a special grant is made for them because of their sex. I believe it will be found that the sickness liability will be greater in the case of women than in the case of men. Should that be found to be the case, if you have a central fund there is a fund from which the grant will be made, and from that fund should radiate all the societies who are endeavouring to administer benefits. I think this Clause is an infinite improvement upon the previous proposition. I hope the Government will give real consideration to the suggestions I have ventured to make before they finally pledge themselves as to the methods of setting up the women's account.

Mr. BOOTH

I do not know what support of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton caused the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce this scheme. I quite grant that it is an able scheme, and is a well-meant effort to solve the difficulty; but I cannot allow the Clause to be adopted without saying that, in my opinion, those who administer this Clause, will be heading for a financial morass. The great difficulty in regard to the general scheme is the amazing increase in the rate of sickness. If this Clause comes into operation the recorded sickness of women will go up by leaps and bounds—not the actual sickness. I do not suggest for one moment that this will do anything to increase that actual sickness, but the recorded sickness will go up at least 40 per cent. I do not see anything like that margin in the Bill. The hon. Member who is responsible for the Chancellor's adoption admitted that he wished to give some special privileges to married women. My own voice was first raised in this House when the Bill was introduced appealing for better terms for women. I took the responsibility of saying that I did not think the Bill was quite fair to that sex. Since then meetings of members have been held, so I am told, of those who identify themselves with the women's cause. I yield to no one in a desire to make this quite as fair and quite as generous to women as it can possibly be made, but I want to point out that if you give special privileges to women, and particularly to married women, it admittedly places them in a preferential position. You are giving an inducement to men to bar the door against receiving them into their societies. If you give privileges to any one under this scheme do not flatter yourselves that those privileges will not have their effect. The rank and file of the approved societies will pass a rule to keep the women out. I would like to guard against that difficulty, that very grave danger. Candidly, I do not want to go through the Clause piecemeal. I rejoice there will be no Division, because I could not take the responsibility at this short notice of voting against the scheme so well-meant and which has such distinguished sanction. But I do honestly feel it my duty to disclaim any responsibility for its financial working. I do not see that it can be done. I could not take the responsibility of urging any Holloway, or deposit society, or any other institution which has a pride in its past to work this with any other idea than that it would be a very large drain upon their funds. It may be that the sacrifice will have to be made. I shall not be the one to dissuade them from it, but I cannot be a party to leaving them in any state of misapprehension.

Mr. LEWIS HASLAM

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question which earlier in the evening I put to the Under-Secretary. Will the Government consider the desirability of allowing married women who are not able to join any approved society to become Post Office depositors on the reduced scale of Table D in the fourth Schedule? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down urged that there was some danger of this scheme not being acceptable to the friendly societies. If the married women come in under the deposit scheme they will get advantage, and the great bulk of married women will probably in those circumstances join. I shall be, therefore, glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this proposal his attention. Of course, it will cost more, but the cost will be a final one. There will be no deficit to be met on the funds of the friendly societies. By this means all the married women who desire to do so will have a reduced scale, and can become Post Office depositors and get the advantages of the scheme so long as that deposit lasts. They will also get the advantage of sanatoria treatment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This is a serious proposition. It is our desire rather to keep the Post Office depositors' schemes within as restricted limits as possible. It would devolve a very very serious charge on the Exchequer, and could only possibly be applied to that class of married women who are well off and could pay 6d. a week at least before they claimed any contribution from the State. For that reason married women who are well off have special advantages given to them; whereas the idea rather in this Clause is to enable those who are able only to pay 2d. to come in.

Mr. LEWIS HASLAM

I desire that the married women should be able to pay 3d. towards the deposit scheme, and to get the State to help it would make it worth their while. I do not wish to press the matter, but I think at this or some other time it would be very desirable to have it in the Bill.

Mr. FORSTER

I moved this Amendment for the purpose of clearing up some points of obscurity which necessarily existed owing to the short notice at which we had to deal with this Amendment. Perhaps now the Committee will now allow me to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills)—in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "who having before marriage been an insured person"—is one about which I have some doubt, and I am not quite certain that I understand its purport. If it means to put an additional charge upon the scheme it will not be in order. I think it would also make the Clause a protection.

Mr. HILLS

I move this Amendment—

The CHAIRMAN

No, the hon. Gentleman must not move it. I am inviting him to tell me what it means.

Mr. HILLS

Very well. Dealing with your last objection first, I think the Clause would not be made ineffective, because the only effect would be if my Amendment were carried that certain people outside the Clause now will be brought inside it. With regard to the question of finance, I submit that with the estimate for ordinary insurance this Amendment would not increase the charge upon the Treasury, because I should propose that the deficiency should foe charged upon the men's fund in the same way the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested earlier, and therefore the Treasury would not be subjected to a bigger charge, though the period of the sinking fund would be prolonged, and additional benefits payable would be postponed. My Amendment is shortly this. Assuming that we weaken the fund, you have a certain capital sum to bring into insurance persons who are insured before marriage, and that is done without an additional charge upon the Exchequer by means of prolonging the period over which the 1 5–9d. is paid, and thereby providing a larger sum than the Exchequer provides for reserve balances.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that ingenious arguments like that would do away with the Money Resolution altogether. The Amendment, therefore, cannot be moved.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "and is supported by her husband."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "unless she continues to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act,"—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "any" ["be suspended from receiving any benefits"], and insert instead thereof the words "the ordinary."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "any sums credited to the society in respect of her, calculated in the prescribed manner," and insert instead thereof the words "one-third of her transfer value."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "such account and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed," and insert instead thereof the words "a separate account called the married women's suspense account."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. POLLOCK

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "such" ["and dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "the." It is merely a drafting Amendment, in order to insert a consequential Amendment, namely, after the word "death" ["after such death "], to insert the words "of her husband." I do not think it makes any real difference, but the true intention of the Clause is carried out on the death of her husband.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In the absence of the Law Officers, I am willing to accept the advice of the hon. and learned Member, and I am thankful for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "arrears" ["for the purpose of reckoning arrears"], to insert the words "and there shall be transferred from the married women's suspense account to the society of which she is a member the proper reserve value calculated according to the tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners."

The CHAIRMAN

There is an Amendment which has been handed in by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), which proposes an addition to this Clause. The hon. Member is not here.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

May we know the nature of that Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

It is not moved.

Sir H. CARLILE

As a matter of form, I beg to move it.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Member would read it.

Sir H. CARLILE

I have not got it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "such married woman again," and to insert instead thereof the words "a woman who, having been employed within the meaning of this part of this Act before marriage, proves that she continues to be so employed after marriage, she shall not be so suspended so long as she continues to be so employed, and that where a married woman so suspended from the ordinary benefits."

Question, "That the words 'such married woman again' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

Mr. HILLS

I beg to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a very real inequality which will occur if these words are inserted. If he will turn first of all to Sub-section (5) of the new Clause upon the While Paper he will see that in the case of existing married women they will get back to full employment benefits at any time during marriage or after the death of their husbands at the flat rate. In the case of women who are unmarried when the Bill passed, they have to fulfil all the conditions of coming back to full employment benefit. In the first place, they must have been employed as well as insured beforehand, and they must be employed after marriage. I do not think the Chancellor means to give better treatment to women who are married when the Bill passes and have no reserve value against their names, than to women unmarried and insured, and who at marriage will possess a reserve balance. The effect of the Bill is that a woman married when the Bill passes, gets advantages which the unmarried woman who is insured when the Bill is passed does not get. Why should a woman married now get better terms than an unmarried woman who pays her contribution to form a reserve. If you want to discriminate, you ought to discriminate in favour of the woman who insures herself now. A woman married now need not pay a penny until she becomes a widow, and then it is not as if her age was sixteen. The woman who insures herself and then marries comes in under less favourable terms. The Clause on the White Paper and this Amendment will not fit. I quite agree I cannot expect the Chancellor to accept any Amendment now, but if he will assure me he will remove this inequality I will be satisfied. It is a very real inequality and will hit very hard the woman who is unmarried now and marries, it may be in a year or two, and then comes into employment. She cannot get back to benefit, unless she pays a rate on her admission, which may be 1s. In the figures of the Government Actuaries, they have allowed for all women employed during marriage, whether before or after the death of their husband, coming back at a flat rate. I am certain that is a mistake, and I hope the Chancellor will look into it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am not sure that I follow the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he has some basis for it as he knows the problem thoroughly, but I do not understand the grievance. You cannot have it both ways. We have got to protect the societies, and the women have to decide which course they will take if they want to use their suspense fund. They get these alternative benefits and they cannot say afterwards we made up our mind to take it the other way.

Mr. HILLS

Why does this class come in and not the other?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

They have all got the same opportunity as long as they pay.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It is a very difficult point, especially to one who does not pretend to understand all the details as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me my hon. Friend has made out a case which requires the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer between now and the next stage of the Bill. What I understand my Friend to argue is that a woman who is married at the passing of this Act is in a better position than a woman who marries subsequent to the passing of the Act. The woman who at the passing of the Act is married and comes in under Sub-section (5) in its amended form will be in a better position than the same woman would be if, instead of being married at the passing of the Act, she married five years after, and that in spite of the fact she is a better proposition in the second place than she is in the first place. In the second place, she has accumulated by the time of her marriage a certain reserve value, having been an employed person. Assume that she has worked five years as an employed person after the passing of the Act, and then marries. She has a reserve value, and yet she is less well treated than the woman in the other case. My hon. Friend says surely the woman who has created a reserve value ought to be rather better off than the woman who has not created such a value. I do not think this is a matter we can settle now across the Table; but it seems to me there is more in my hon. Friend's point than the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to think. I press the right hon. Gentleman to give this point his serious attention.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will promise to consider this point very carefully, but I should like a little more time to consider it. As far as I can see it refers to persons who will get a special reserve value, because they come in at the passing of the Act. We are giving special terms to all those who at the beginning cannot possibly come in at all unless you rejuvenate them. Those get special terms. I will consider the point very carefully, and if I find there is a grievance I shall certainly try, with the assent of the Opposition, to put the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "receiving" ["suspended from receiving benefits "], to insert the word "ordinary."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the period between her marriage and the time when she so again becomes employed shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning arrears," and to insert instead thereof the words "subject to regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners, she shall for the purposes of those benefits be treated as if she had not previously been an insured person."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Mr. HILLS

This provision compels a married woman who comes back to full benefits during marriage to pay the rate for age. I would rather she came back on the flat rate, but I regard that as part of the bargain. My grievance on the other Amendment is quite apart from this.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will consider that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (2) to insert:—

(3) Where a married woman being a member of an approved society is so suspended from the ordinary benefits as aforesaid she may, if she so elects within one month after such suspension or, subject to the consent of the society, after the expiration of that month, and notwithstanding that she is not engaged in any regular occupation, become whilst so suspended a voluntary contributor, subject to the following modifications, but not otherwise:—

1. (a) The rate of contributions payable by her shall be three pence a week;
2. (b) The benefits to which she shall be entitled shall be—
1. (i) medical benefit, and
2. (ii) sickness benefit and disablement benefit at the rates and subject to the conditions specified in Table D of Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act;
3. (c) No part of her contributions shall be retained by the Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of discharging their liabilities to approved societies in respect of the reserve values created under this Act.

Provided that where a married woman elects not to become such a voluntary contributor she shall be entitled to have a sum equal to the remaining two-thirds of her transfer value applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act until the same is exhausted, except that where a reserve value was credited to the society in respect of such such woman at the date of her entrance into insurance so much of such sum as aforesaid as may be prescribed shall not be so applied but shall be written off the amount of the reserve values credited to the society.

(4) Where the husband of a married woman who has been so suspended from ordinary benefits as aforesaid and who is a member of an approved society dies, she may, if she is qualified to become a voluntary contributor, and elects to do so within one month after the death of her husband, become an ordinary voluntary contributor paying contributions at the rate which would have been applicable to the case had she become such a contributor at the date of her entry into insurance.

Provided that she may, whether or not so qualified, if she so elects within one month after the death of her husband, continue to be or become a voluntary contributor on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as above provided as respects married women.

In either such case there shall be transferred from the married women's suspense account to the society the proper reserve value calculated as aforesaid.

(5) Where a married woman who was at the date of her marriage a deposit contributor is by virtue of this Section suspended from the ordinary benefits under this Part of this Act, two-thirds of the sum standing to her credit in the Post Office fund shall be applied in accordance with regulations of the Insurance Commissioners towards the payment of any of the benefits specified in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act until the same is exhausted.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I suggest in Sub-section (5) of the proposed Amendment, the leaving out the words "two-thirds" ["two-thirds of the sum "]. This deals with the point I raised in the general discussion to which the Under-Secretary for the Home Department gave a very sympathetic reply on behalf of the Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It has been pointed out to me, and pressed upon me very strongly, that this will affect thousands of the domestic servant class. In this way they would get cash, whereas we ought to press them to join friendly societies. This is better for them still, since we have amended the Clause. I was told that it would be a very dangerous thing to do, that it would be destructive to the friendly societies, and damaging to the women themselves. I am afraid if this alteration is made this class would say: "We would rather be Post Office contributors, because we should get our money back." That is the real reason.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I desire that people should not be attracted to the Post Office fund in preference to going to friendly societies. I agree most wholeheartedly that it is very much better for them that they should become members of an approved society rather than that they should be merely deposit contributors. My difference with the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers is as to whether we should allow the deposit contributor the full benefit of the money standing to her credit. Under these circumstances I do not think this would be such an attraction as to cause them to make that choice in preference to joining an approved society. To the bulk of such women the offer of a kind of dowry on marriage or a lump sum down would be the most attractive alternative though not the best for them. I agree it would be dangerous to offer them that, but that is not the scheme of the Bill. The Bill only allows them to take benefits and take out two-thirds of the money that stands to their credit in subsequent benefit. My proposal would allow them to take the whole out in subsequent benefits, not at their own discretion, but in accordance with the Schedule, and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioners. I really cannot myself believe that that would have the damaging consequences which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks, and though I will not divide the Committee on this point, I will just press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should consider further this point and consult the special representatives of women upon it. I shall be satisfied without moving my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind and will consult the special representatives of women as to whether this might safely be done.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have considered this point very carefully with my advisers, and they were perfectly unanimous in saying that it would be a most dangerous thing in the interests of the society and in the interests of the young women themselves. In this proposal there is something more than being the next-of-kin, for it means two-thirds of the sum standing to their credit, and it includes not only their own contribution, but also the contribution of their employers. All we give to the next-of-kin is the whole of their own contribution, and that is a far different thing. By this proposal you are giving them more than you give to the next-of-kin, and in that case we all agree that it was very dangerous to go beyond that. I believe that was the general feeling of the Committee when we last discussed the matter. I will certainly consult further the representatives of the societies on the point, and those who have been urging the claims of married women upon the Government. I will further consult with them, and, if we come to the conclusion there is no real risk, I shall be delighted to agree to the elimination of the two-thirds. At present, I think the right hon. Gentle- man is not prepared himself to take the responsibility of the elimination of the two-thirds without further consideration.

Question, "That Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of the Clause (as proposed to be amended) be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

moved, at the end of Sub-section (6) of the Clause (as proposed to be amended), to insert the words: Provided that where an unmarried woman is prevented from qualifying for insurance, or where such a woman's insurance has to lapse, by reason of the fact that for a period her services are given to attend an infirm or disabled parent or other relation or the children or household of a relation by whom she is maintained, the same rights and privileges in regard to arrears and subsequent entry or re-entry into insurance shall apply to such period as are applied by this Section to a period of coverture. It is a rather complicated Amendment, and perhaps I can best indicate its object by giving two instances. Take an elder daughter who remains at home and looks after her parents and does ordinary household work. She is not able to be insured. She may have a younger sister, also unmarried, who is able to be insured because her services are not required at home, and she is able to go out into ordinary employment and become an employed contributor. The young woman who remains at home is not able to become an employed contributor. I think that is a grievance in the Bill, and I should like to see that class included. There is also another class, a class which was referred to by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster). There is the domestic servant who perhaps leaves her domestic service in order to look after an infirm parent, or the family of a widowed brother or some other relation. That woman would actually be penalised on account of her own self-sacrifice and unselfishness. I mention those two cases to show the sort of class I want to include in this Amendment. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, who deserves the gratitude of the community for so enormously improving the Clause, would still further earn the gratitude of the community if he could include those two classes.

The CHAIRMAN

I have just been studying the hon. Gentleman's Amend- ment, and I am afraid this means an additional charge by bringing in fresh persons.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I do not think as a matter of fact it would actually cost more money, because I believe there is a considerable margin within the limits of the Bill. I have been in communication with one or two actuarial gentlemen, and they seem to think it would probably cost nothing.

Mr. POLLOCK

My hon. Friend's Amendment deals with two classes of persons. There are the persons who are at home and who have not had the advantage by being employed or by becoming a married woman or coming in this section. My hon. Friend argues the inclusion of that class would not impose a greater burden. That may or may not be the case. It seems difficult to say. My hon. Friend's Amendment also deals with another class already in the Bill and already insured, and its object is to prevent their losing that insurance. They are persons who being in employment leave that employment for a short time owing to ill-health at home or for some other family reason, and then go back. My hon. Friend asks that those persons should go back without any disability attaching to the fact that temporarily they have lost the advantages to which they had become entitled. The Bill covers those persons and charges are granted in respect of them. All he asks is that they should not lose advantages they have already gained, and that there should not be a surplus piled up as a result of their misfortune.

The CHAIRMAN

I am bound to say the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in the first part of his remarks there was a new charge, and of course it is my duty to be very vigilant in this matter.

Mr. POLLOCK

I agree, if I may respectfully say so.

The CHAIRMAN

And I am afraid I am obliged to rule the Amendment out on that ground.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4) of the Bill, as printed, at the beginning to insert the words "Except as provided by this Section."

Mr. HILLS

I wish to make a last appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave out this Sub-section which nobody wants. It is no good to him. When the Bill was first introduced he informed the House he had prevented married women insuring themselves voluntarily, and, when he was rather gravelled for an argument, he founded himself on the fact that it was hard to check malingering of married women. That reason has gone by the board. It has been thrown overboard in the case of the whole of this new Clause which is based upon the fact that married women have got the right to insure themselves, that they do not malinger any more than men, and that it is not any more hard to check it among them. Surely it is not a big concession, and at first sight it would seem ridiculous that we should have to press for it. Surely if a woman chooses to pay the employer's contribution as well as her own she should be entitled to benefit in a scheme of national insurance. How can you exclude her? She chooses to come forward and pay the employer's contribution as well as her own, and you keep her out. It is absolutely indefensible on any system of logic. I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want this Sub-section, and I do not believe the Treasury want it. Surely it is only common justice if a married woman chooses to pay her 6d. a week she should obtain the benefit of this scheme.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

These words extend the Clause in the direction the hon. and learned Gentleman wants.

Mr. HILLS

I want the whole Sub-section left out.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If these words go in you cannot subsequently strike out the whole Sub-section, because, having put in words necessary to have a sequence, the Chairman, by the Rules of the House, would not accept an Amendment to delete the words which stand. It seems to me this is really a revival of the earlier scheme. The words which are added to the Sub-section, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, are themselves a step in the direction in which my hon. Friend desires to go, and if the Sub-section is to stand it is much better with the words the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes than without them. It seems to me, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has no reason for the Sub-section now remaining in the Clause. The scheme of the Bill has been so altered that this is not a necessary part, but an excrescence. I really cannot understand why, when you admit married women to insurance on the general principles laid down in the Clause, you should say there is one form of insurance contemplated by the Bill which under no circumstances shall be open to them—that is, to become voluntary contributors. If my hon. Friend went to a Division I should vote with him against the insertion of these words with a view to the deletion of the whole Sub-section.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If you cut out these words the effect will be to make it impossible for us to introduce the scheme which we have submitted to the House. It is quite impossible to introduce married women as a body at all ages into the scheme at the present moment. That would involve an enormous addition to the deficiency. It would postpone for years the additional benefits which will inure to all insured persons fifteen and a-half years hence and which makes it an advantage for the young people coming into the scheme now. If married women are admitted indiscriminately and without regard to age, it will mean an enormous addition to the amount of the deficiency. That would be a very serious thing to do by means of an Amendment of this kind without having some particulars submitted to the Committee to show what the effect of it would be. Nobody has really asked for it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is the only one who has pressed for it. The only pressure brought to bear upon me by the women's societies and committees has been in favour of those who are already insured, the young women who become married. This is the first time I have had pressure brought to bear on this point. It means postponing the benefits for all people who come now into the funds, and postponing them in the interests of the better class of married women—those who can afford to pay their 6d. a week. It is not in the interests of the poorer working women, it is in the interests of the pick and cream of working class, and it will postpone the benefit for all classes and for those who earn but 9s. or 12s. weekly.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described this proposal then I have misunderstood it, and I agree it is not acceptable if it is the case that every married woman—not having previously insured and not being insurable—is to be accepted. But I think "permissible" is the term used generally throughout the Bill. If they are to be allowed to come in and have the full reserve value placed to their credit it will indefinitely postpone the setting free of the sums allotted for the extinction of those values, and I agree the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot for a moment accept them. But is the right hon. Gentleman right in that view? I understood that this was a proposal to admit married women to become voluntary contributors in the same way as men may become voluntary contributors. What happens when a man becomes a voluntary contributor? There is no reserve value created for him. That is where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is mistaken.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Look at the proviso.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to the extent of the proviso the proposal is impossible, but I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not allow them in on the terms of the first Sub-section without the proviso. They might then become voluntary contributors if they liked at the rate appropriate to their age. It would then be a very small matter, so far as cost is concerned, while it might afford a valuable insurance to some few women who would be glad to take it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will consider that. I must, of course, get the full actuarial figures. It may really amount to a very serious proposition, and I certainly should not like to say now that I will accept it. The proposition is, however, very different to that put forward by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills). After I have got a reply from the actuary I will inform the right hon. Gentleman what I have to say about it.

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

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, after Sub-section (4), to insert:

(5) If a woman, whilst a voluntary contributor at such reduced rates of benefit as are provided by this Section, becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act she shall be entitled to a certificate (to be granted in manner hereinbefore provided) exempting her from liability to become an employed contributor, so, however, that such exemption shall not exempt the employer from his liability to pay contributions in respect of her, or deprive him of his right to recover such part of those contributions as is payable on her behalf, but of each weekly contribution so paid by the employer threepence shall be treated as her contribution as a voluntary contributor and the balance shall be applied for her benefit in such manner as the society may determine.

(6) If at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed on it by this Section the deficiency shall be made good out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created by this Act.

(7) Transfer value for the purposes of this Section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.

(8) Where a deficiency has been found in respect of the society or branch of which a woman is a member at a valuation previous to the time when she became suspended from ordinary benefits under this part of this Act, and that deficiency has not been made good at that time of her marriage, or where a woman is in arrears at that time, such adjustments in the sums transferred to the married women's suspense account, and the balance of her transfer value, and in the rates of benefit to which she is entitled under this Section, shall be made as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I have to propose as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (7), and to insert instead thereof the words "The transfer values and reserve values for the purposes of this Section shall be calculated in such manner as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe, and the tables thereof shall be periodically revised and adjusted in such manner that they shall, as nearly as may be, represent the transfer and reserve values which, according to the experience of the Insurance Commissioners, are actuarily appropriate to the several ages."

This Amendment is really intended to give full effect to what I believe are the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the new Clause the women's fund is to bear any shortage which may arise on the widow's reserve value and the women's reserve fund. The Amendment really provides for that purpose a table of reserve values, which is to be periodically revised and to be kept up to date. If the insurance goes on developing, as I suppose it will, an obsolete table of reserve values, if it is allowed to operate, would result in the women's fund, I believe, being very heavily penalised. Suppose the reserve value table is £12 as the reserve value of a woman re-entering at fifty-five years of age. I believe that is the figure which the actuaries have taken into account. But suppose £15 is necessary for the purpose of reinsuring at that age, as the Clause stands the society would lose about £3 by taking her back as a widow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will notice at the end of Subsection (3) it says:— In either such case there shall be transferred from the women's suspense account to the society the proper reserve value calculated as aforesaid. And Sub-section (9) says:— If at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed on it by this Section the deficiency shall be made good out of the sum retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of the reserve values created by this Act. I take it there are three funds: there is the general reserve fund under Clause 40; there is the women's fund which I believe the right hon. Gentleman means to set up; and there is also the women's society; and the purpose of this Section in the new Clause is to reimburse the women's society. Surely it would be better that this should be done in full, and not in part. I think the Insurance Commissioners should always have a table of reserve values brought up to date so as to ensure that the women's society shall not be stopped. If it is only the shortage on the women's fund that is going to be replaced out of the general fund it does not really imply the women's society. It only refers to the women's central fund. If the women's central fund has not enough money to hand over to the women's society on account of the table of reserve values not being up to date, it is the women's society that will lose thereby.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This is really not appropriate to this particular Clause at all. It is appropriate to Clause 40, which is a separate Clause dealing with the question of reserve values. If there is anything the hon. Gentleman thinks is inadequate for the purpose there, all he has to do is to move an Amendment to Clause 40. I am not challenging the substance of the Amendment or his contention. If he thinks that Clause 40 does not cover the point, I shall be happy to accept any Amendment upon that. If he thinks that amendments dealing with reserve values and tables should be inserted in every Clause in which they are mentioned then Clause 40 becomes quite unnecessary.

Mr. HILLS

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we shall see these tables under Clause 40? It is most important that we should see them, because Clause 40 is to be reached in a few days, and it will be placing the Committee in a very unfair position to ask us to discuss Clause 40 unless we have an opportunity of considering those tables. It is reported that the tables are ready. Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer see his way to circulate those tables?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter later on, I do not wish to press the Amendment. I think he does agree that, supposing the table of reserve values is not brought up to date and you have an obsolete table of reserve values, it is obvious that the women's society will suffer.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I quite accept that statement.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. POLLOCK

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for certain information? I do so because I find great difficulty in following the Sub-sections which appear in the White Paper as (9), (10), and (11) and on the Amendment Paper as (6), (7), and (8). I want to know what (8) on the Amendment Paper means. It says: "Where a deficiency has been found in respect to the society or branch of which a woman is a member that a valuation previous to the time when she became suspended from ordinary benefits," etc. I understand these words cover a lodge or a society which may be comprised of both men and women. At any rate it does not refer to lodges in which men are segregated and women are segregated. If I understood the answer of the Under-Secretary to the Home Department, he said that the deficiency would have to be ascertained by taking the men and the women who are insured separately. Then the Clause goes on to say that if that deficiency has not been made good at the time of her marriage, then the adjustments in the sums transferred to the married women's suspense account and the balance of her transfer value, and so on, shall be made as the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe. It is to be noticed that in Sub-section (6) on the Amendment Paper, that if at any time the married women's suspense account is insufficient to meet the liabilities imposed upon it by this Section, the deficiency shall be made good out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners. Primâ facie if you read (6) and (8) on the same Paper, it would not seem to be necessary, even if there were a deficiency in respect to the married women's suspense account, to readjust the one-third and the two-thirds. The one-third of her surrender value is to be kept in abeyance so as to enable her to come back ultimately as an employed contributor, while the two-thirds is kept and carried to a separate fund in which she gets reduced benefit. The two questions I ask are these, Do these paragraphs have the effect, when there is a deficiency found in a society, although the person herself may not have contributed to it at all, or may not be responsible for it, of defining the deficiency as meaning a separate deficiency of the man or woman, and, if so, are not some words necessary to make that clear? Lastly, is not the question of the women's suspense account already sufficiently dealt with in (6)?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The two deficiencies are quite different accounts. The one in (6), which I explained when I spoke first this evening, is a deficiency where the one-third, which is retained for the purpose of insuring the right of re-entry, turns out to be inadequate. It is then proposed that the deficiency in that account shall be placed on the general sinking fund. Sub-section (6) deals purely with that. Sub-section (8) deals with a special deficiency in the case of a particular society where that society is insolvent. Then there are general provisions in cases of that kind for a levy or reduced benefits. If a man belongs to a society which has any deficiency, then a man's transfer value is not as high as if it were a solvent society. We simply prescribe the same rule with regard to a married woman. The two deficiencies are quite different.

Mr. POLLOCK

Is it not necessary to have some words referring to this deficiency in (8) in order to show that that deficiency is to arise not merely from the general account of the lodge in which there are mixed men and women, but a deficiency in respect of the portion which should be allocated actuarily to the woman? I understood the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to say that these deficiencies were to be calculated actuarily and in separate departments.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

May I point out that the question will arise when tie Government put down their words dealing with the important question of the separation of men and women.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has time, I should be glad if he would read the last Sub-section and then suggest to the draftsman that he should couch it in more simple language. The preposition "in" seems to be lacking, while the last sentence seems to have been fetched from Germany and not quite put into English ground.

Original Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (10) of the Clause (as proposed to be amended) leave out the words "who is legally separated from her husband by divorce or otherwise" and insert instead thereof the words, "whose marriage has been dissolved or annulled, or who has for a period of not less than three years been actually separated from or deserted by her husband."

Leave out the words "separation took effect" and insert instead thereof the words "dissolution or annulment took effect, or as the case may require at the expiration of such period of two years."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. POLLOCK

I should like to ask what we have really done? Does anyone completely understand the scheme? I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer does, and I consider him a very happy man, but does any other man completely follow out what has been done in respect of Clause 34? Under these circumstances must there not be some opportunity of knowing and considering whether this question has been sufficiently dealt with, and also an opportunity of considering, when our Constituents have got some sort of inkling of what has been done, whether or not this Clause sufficiently meets the cases that ought to be included in it? Everyone has paid a compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I desire to join in any compliments which are flying about in the sense that a great deal of skill has been shown, but I should like to reserve my right to criticise this Clause when I do fully understand it, because, like many other persons inside and outside the House, at present I have a very hazy notion of what it does include, and I desire to associate myself with those who also desire to reserve their full criticisms when they really understand the Clause.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Some such observations as those of my hon. Friend really were required before we part from this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of what man did when he got a headache. If any man wants to find out what he has to do when he has a headache he has only to try and understand this Clause. After an afternoon's work, I can say from personal experience that he will be very near having a headache if he has not actually got one. I think everyone who has given attention to that feels that the proposals which are now embodied in the Bill are a great improvement on the Bill as it originally stood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has worked it out, and other people have worked it out, and the scheme is undoubtedly very much better, but this is not legislation by the House of Commons, and we had better not pretend that it is. There is not one man in 100 in the House of Commons who knows what the Clause is, or could give an intelligible account now, if called upon to do so, of what would be the result of our afternoon's work. If it is a good Clause, it is a Clause made outside the House. The House has not had an opportunity to consider the proposals of the Government fairly, to put alternative proposals if they desire it, or fully to measure what the effect of those proposals will be. That is the misfortune of trying to discuss a Bill of this complication and of this difficulty under the conditions in which we are now placed.

Question put, and agreed to.