INSURANCE ACT (ADMINISTRATION.)

HC Deb 22 May 1912 vol 38 cc1943-2002

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I propose to take this opportunity of calling attention to the breathless scramble with which the Insurance Act is being administered, and to the reports and regulations which are thrown at us day by day by the Insurance Commissioners. Some of those reports are of extreme importance. Some are recommending alterations in the Act, and others are actually altering the Act in somewhat important particulars. First, I propose to call attention to this outworkers' question, then to the winding up of the small societies, then the appointment of additional officials, and, lastly, the scandalous leaflet which has been issued by an organisation which is sometimes called the National Insurance Committee, and sometimes the Liberal Insurance Committee, and for which the Patronage Secretary is responsible. In regard to the outworkers' position an outworkers' Committee has been appointed and has made a long Report. This is only one Committee out of a large number that has been appointed by the Government. I want to know from the Government what the Government intend to do in reference to the outworkers' question? The Committee's Report is a very long one, but I think it is quite easy to summarise it. The Committee reports that it is impracticable to arrange any scheme for the inclusion of any of the outworkers unless all are included. The Committee recommend that there should be included in the compulsory insurance married women—the wives of insured persons not dependent upon their own labour for their livelihood; and they recommend a different method of fixing the contributions to that which is adopted for other people who come under compulsory insurance. They also recommend what is in effect a different system of benefit for outworkers.

The House will recognise that those are all extremely important recommendations. I do not propose to discuss the merits of them. I want to know what the Government are going to do in connection with them, for this has been before the House on other occasions. In July last the Chancellor of the Exchequer was approached by employers from South Somerset to exempt married women outworkers. He refused. A little later, in October, just before the by-election in South Somerset, further representations were made. The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury communicated with the electors of South Somerset, and said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been carefully considering their case, and had come to the conclusion that a case had been made out for the exemption of married women. Later on—I suppose it was in order to attempt to win that by-election—the Liberal candidate who then stood, wrote to the electors of South Somerset, appealing to them "to trust my word, and to trust the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the married women outworkers should not be included in the scheme." That is not by any means the whole of the curious history of the outworkers. When Part I. of the First Schedule, which does include outworkers, was before this House in Committee it was pointed out that the definition given of outworkers was a very vague one; that it was a definition by reference to the Factory and Workshops Act, and that it would be quite impossible to say who would be included and who would not be included in the definition of outworkers. In Committee that point was left over for further discussion. All the Committee did was to put in the word "outworker" without giving any definition at all.

The Government's original proposal in this matter was withdrawn in Committee, and we were promised on Report that another definition should be substituted. Obviously that presupposed that we should have the opportunity then of considering whether the married woman outworker was to come in, and on what conditions, or whether she was to go out. This by-election occurred in the meanwhile, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself to the electors of South Somerset to exclude married women outworkers when the matter came up for consideration on Report. This is what happened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is true, fulfilled his promise to the Committee in the exemption of the married women outworkers, but he seemed to be then a little uncertain as to the future, for he put in something else also in Part I. of the First Schedule, which enabled him later, if he had any reason to change his mind, to cancel the concessions being made to South Somerset and to reinstate those concerned as compulsorily insured persons. That precisely is the provision, so fortunately put in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer owing to clamour when the word was discussed in the House of Commons, which the Committee that has been sitting on the outworkers' question now proposes to be availed of and acted upon. There is also in that definition of outworkers, which was smuggled in on Report, a power to postpone the application of the Act as regards the outworkers, and I venture to think that that will be a power which the Government will be forced, whether they like it or not, to avail themselves of unless they are going to fly in the fact of their own Committee's Report. The position is this: The Committee recommend that the married women outworkers should be compulsorily insured. The Government have given a promise, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a promise to the electors of South Somerset, that they shall not be included. The Committee say that if they are not included then no equitable scheme can be formulated for the purpose of dealing with the outworkers. What I want to know is this: what is the last stage of the outworkers' question? I want to know whether the Government are going to keep their promise to South Somerset and exclude the outworkers? If so, then their scheme is bound to be an inequitable scheme according to their own Committee. Are they, too, going behind the backs of Members of Parliament whom they have deprived of the right to discuss this matter in the House of Commons, and are they going to include the outworkers, and to admit that their promise to South Somerset was a mere electioneering dodge? It seems to me that the only course they can take is to postpone the application of the Act to the outworkers under the powers they have got, and really consider the question afresh and untrammelled by their previous promises. If they do that I hope they will consider also the question of the casual worker, for the same arguments exactly that are brought forward by the Subcommittee on the outworkers apply with just as great force to the casual worker. The rushing tactics of the Government have had a most deplorable effect. A large number of small societies are being wound-up all over the country. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary when last time this was before the House dealt with the question of the small societies being wound up, and admitted the effect, saying that it was a most deplorable thing that they should be wound up. He tried to find a reason for it. He quoted from one of the official lecturer's reports of what that gentleman found to be the state of things at Haslingden. That official lecturer told him that— he had held a meeting of small friendly societies and at the beginning of the meeting those present clamoured for dissolution. When he left the parish he was informed that the society's officials had decided upon formulating a scheme and would endeavour to make a fresh start. The hon. Gentleman said it was a fortunate thing that the official lecturer had gone down, because he was able to correct the misapprehensions which had been left by previous speakers in the district and also the misapprehensions which had arisen owing to what he called an inaccuracy of which he accused me in a summary of the Act which I published. I do not propose to weary the House by discussing whether that summary is accurate or inaccurate. In my view it is accurate. It reduces to about half the number of words the Act of Parliament, and so it is not in the least likely that every word in the Act of Parliament can possibly be included in the summary. Subject to the fact that it is a summary it is a correct summary, but fortunately it is not necessary to go into the question whether it is accurate or inaccurate, because it is quite clear that it had no effect whatever upon the decision of the societies at Haslingden in winding up. I only raise the question now because the real reason these societies are winding up is a reason operating not only with them but with other societies throughout the country. I shall ask the Financial Secretary to correct the statement he made to the House, and I think he will do so. He said that something that I had done had caused deplorable results in this small village. I asked him what the society in question was and the name of the particular village. He promised very kindly to communicate with me, but he did not do so immediately. I wrote asking if he could give me the name of one of the societies, and I got the name of the Salem Sick and Burial Society. That society is reported to have been misled by me or someone else, and to have wound up in consequence of misapprehension, and it was also reported by the official lecturer to be reconsidering its decision, and was endeavouring to put itself upon solvent basis, and so on. I think the president and secretary of that society are likely to know what was operating in their mind. They were asked several question. They were asked if they had decided to dissolve their sick and burial society, and they answered, "Yes, quite unanimously." Why have you decided to dissolve? And this is the answer to which I want to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury: Because they were unable to pay two contributions, and as most of our members are members of trade unions, they choose the trade unions as their approved society. Of course, that may be a good or bad reason why a small society like that should wind up. If the insured person chooses his trade union as his approved society the 4d. deducted from his wages will go to the trade union, and unless those persons can afford to pay us an extra contribution to these small chapel societies it is impossible for them to continue their membership. They were asked whether they were influenced by any speaker. They said they were not, and that they acted entirely upon their own initiative. They were asked in specific words whether the report of the Government lecturer was accurate, and they answered it was inaccurate, and they were asked whether they were misled by my summary, and they said they had never heard of or seen the book by Mr. Worthington-Evans. I am sure the Financial Secretary after that will withdraw his allegation against me. These statements are signed by the president and secretary and by the president and secretary of another society in the same district.

I have the rules here of five of these little chapel societies, and I understand they, too, have resolved to wind up and distribute their funds, largely for the reason given that their members are members of trades unions, and cannot afford to pay the additional contribution, and therefore the compulsory contribution is being given to their trades unions, and not being able to pay the second contribution the societies are losing their members right and left, and they have decided to wind up. That is the deplorable result of the Act, because it is causing a great deal of hardship to the old members. The president of that society at Salem has been in charge of the society's operations for twenty or thirty years, and it is enough to break a man's heart that, looking after his society for all those years, and doing the good he has done, he is now to be forced out of his position of honour and responsibility and obliged to join some other society of employed persons, whether he wishes it or not. I do not think I need dwell any longer upon that, but if the Financial Secretary wants any more confirmation the local Press will give him that confirmation. If any lecturer or speaker did mislead any of the members of societies in that district the hon. Gentleman will find it was not speakers on our side. There were three Liberal speakers, and no Tory speaker at all, addressed meetings in that district, and the result of the meetings was summarised in the Press as "apparently purely with the object of persuading the members of these societies from disbanding, but what they did was to stiffen the members in their decision to disband," so no one can be accused of having brought about the dissolution of these societies except the provisions of the Act itself.

Apparently there is another result of this rush, and I should also like to have some explanation upon this point. The Home Office is losing one or more of the best members of its staff to assist the Insurance Commissioners, and I understand also the Board of Education have been put under tribute and have parted with some of their best members. The Treasury too are having men transferred to the Insurance Commissioners. I want to know whether it is a fact that higher salaries have been offered to the officials in these various Departments in order to get them to help in the scramble in the administration of the Insurance Act, and if so, upon what Votes we shall find them, whether the whole of their salaries will be charged to the Insurance Commissioners or whether part of them will remain upon the old Votes. There is one other result of this rush, which is that last night a regulation was issued which was labelled a draft regulation. It gives the conditions under which persons can become members of approved societies. I want to call attention to it because it seems to me to be a most unhappily worded regulation. It is headed a draft regulation. If it is a regulation it ought to show that not only may people join approved societies in the manner set out in the regulation, but that they must, if they wish to join approved societies do so within a certain time, because unless they do so within the time specified in the regulation they automatically become deposit contributors. Let me read the draft regulation:— For the purpose of Section 42 of the Act, the time within which person may join an approved society shall be— and then it goes on with the time. The real truth, if properly expressed, is not "for the purposes of Section 42 of the Act," but for the purposes of the Insurance Act persons must join, not may join, an approved society within these dates or the consequence will be that they will be deposit contributors. This seems an unhappily worded regulation which, unless it is made clear, will certainly mislead people. Will the Secretary to the Treasury say why this is called a draft regulation, and when he expects it to become operative. If it is a regulation I suppose the answer will be that it will become operative within twenty-one days after it has been laid on the Table of this House.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)

Has the hon. Member that regulation in his possession?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Yes, here it is. It came through the post I believe with the compliments of the Insurance Commissioners, and I believe every hon. Member received it in exactly the same way. It has upon it all the ordinary marks. The Act has got to operate before the 15th July, and will operate then, but this regulation cannot possibly be operative until long after the 10th July. If it is a draft regulation I do not know when it will be operative, but if it is a regulation now it cannot be binding until long after the 15th July, because it will not have been laid on the Table twenty-one days. I think the Government ought to do something to give the people much more time to understand the position. They might save the small societies if they gave them more time to turn round instead of being under the wrong impression that they have got to do something before the 15th July. If the Government would make it clear that they were prepared to put a little more business common sense into the administration of this Act and a little less political driving force, then further time could be given to acquaint the various classes of people affected by the Act as to their real rights and obligations under the Act, and this would clear up any mistakes, and there are many, that still are current. They would then have time to settle the proper form of insurance for outworkers and casual labourers which it is absolutely impossible to do by the 15th July. I know we run a certain risk in suggesting anything which looks like postponement. No doubt we run the risk of another leaflet such as that known as "Killing no murder." I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will disown this leaflet. I believe it is the product of a diseased mind because no one would like to suppose that anybody would be so reckless and cruel as to wilfully produce such a leaflet as this. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows what the leaflet is, but I will read just a few lines of it. It talks about the number of people who are entitled or who will be entitled to maternity benefit, and then it says:— It follows that for every day of glorious success in dishing the Liberals by postponing the great liberal Insurance Act, the Tories will have the honour of killing one poor mother. That leaflet is issued by a Committee presided over by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, the same right hon. Gentleman who communicated to the electors of South Somerset the statement that the married women were to be excluded from compulsory insurance. The leaflet issued under those auspices, for which the right hon. Gentleman must be held responsible, accuses the Tories, whose desire is that this Act shall be put in a form in which it can work, of killing or wishing to kill, one poor mother a day for each day's delay. I think the Patronage Secretary, as well as the writer of that leaflet, ought to withdraw it, and apologise for ever having put the thing forward. Instead of doing that the writer of the leaflet is trying to justify it by quotations from it in the local Press. At the same time he does not say that one of the biggest friendly societies, the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, have resolved to apply for a six months' delay. He does not seem to see that he is accusing them also of desiring to kill 150 poor mothers a day. The writer does not seem to see that the Liberal Government itself cannot be held blameless in this matter, seeing that they were six years in power before they took the step of attempting to save one poor mother a day. It may be an absurd leaflet, but it is a cruel, abominable outrage upon political honesty and decency, that hundreds and thousands of that leaflet should have been distributed throughout the country. It affects the Government, and the Government cannot get away from responsibility for it, because it has been issued by a Committee over which the Patronage Secretary presides. It is issued with their imprint, and upon their responsibility. We know the Patronage Secretary intervenes in a by-election to communicate what is supposed to be good electioneering news when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with outworkers. The two things are so linked together that we have a right to say that the Government itself and those sitting on the Treasury Bench should to-day disclaim responsibility and undertake that that leaflet should be withdrawn.

Mr. BOOTH

I have not seen the leaflet of which the hon. Member for Colchester complains, but, of course, I accept his phraseology. At no public meeting have I ever used such language about my opponent. I have always endeavoured to treat this question a little more from the non-party standpoint, and it is not my fault if controversy has so shaped itself that I have been forced to take an active part in the country in these discussions. In the remarks I am about to make I think I can free myself entirely from any party bias. I have a most serious case to bring before the attention of the House in regard to which I shall appeal to Members on all sides of the House. The case I shall bring forward is one far more serious than that of Miss Malecka. She chose to leave this country. I am horrified at the way in which she has been treated, but she left this country and went to Poland, and one must run some risks in going into the Russian Empire. I am bringing forward the case of a poor woman who was treated far worse than Miss Malecka, and I think it is my duty to bring her case before this House. I feel it my duty to make some disclosures with regard to the members of an honoured and respected profession, and the disclosures I have to make would rival in horror what has been said about some of the rescues from the "Titanic." I shall have to tell the House of a poor man who was left to die, neglected by the doctors of his own profession, who have been largely guilty of hastening his end. I think it is time we, as a House of Commons, did not let our sympathy run to the ends of the earth, or even into the North Sea, but determined to see justice done in a painful case of oppression, of cruelty, and of heartrending conduct in our ancient county of Devonshire—a county which has produced good writers and seamen, and some of the greatest heroes in English history. The heroes in Devonshire at the present time are a handful of friendly society men who, at some risk of persecution and difficulty, have determined to expose to the whole world the circumstances connected with the death of the first victim of the Insurance Act.

I would like to remind the House, before I give the particulars of that case; what we did when dealing with the Insurance Bill in Committee. The doctors asked that they should be taken away from the purview of the friendly societies in contract practice, and a Division took place against what was then supposed to be the doctors' request. There were only a mere handful of men who voted against them. They asked to be put under the county health committees rather than under the approved societies. I voted for them, not because I had lost my faith in friendly societies by any means, but because I thought it was a reasonable settlement. That was the decision of the House. I am bound to say now I consider the House was misled on that occasion. No defence was put up for the friendly societies. The House was led to believe they were harsh masters, and that they stood in the light of the deserving doctor. I waited for some exponent of the friendly societies to get up and make a defence; but there was no real defence put up on that occasion. What was the reason? At that time the trade unionists who were thinking of forming approved societies under the Act, the insurance societies which wished to do so, the dividing societies, and the other thrift organisations were not united in one common purpose with the old friendly orders, which were anxious with regard to their own place and their own sphere under this great scheme. I wish to warn the medical profession, and I think I have some authority, that if they pursue their demands extravagantly and unreasonably, and if they persist in a campaign of attack upon the old friendly orders for their treatment of doctors and their club practice, they will find in the future that all approved societies must and will stand together.

2.0 P.M.

Now the Act is passed and all those various forms of approved societies are being admitted by the Insurance Commissioners, I hope the medical profession will see that the great friendly orders, the great insurance organisations, the dividing societies, and the great trade unions will have a common interest in seeing that doctors are not too greedy and not too unreasonable. I have hopes that conflict will not take place. I have still some faith in that great and noble profession, and one of my objects in speaking is to appeal to the moderate men, who do not attend meetings and shout their champions down and refuse, them a hearing, and who do not agree with their organisations in declining to enter into a conference and in declining to send delegates to meet the Insurance Commissioners set up by this House, but who still have a pride in their profession. Scarcely a day passes without I receive a letter from some medical man repudiating these agitators, these medical syndicalists, who are introducing a new spirit into that great and noble profession. In the years gone by they have not always asked themselves whether they could screw the utmost sixpence or shilling out of their patients, and their patients have not asked them, "How much are you going to charge me?" or tried to beat them down in price. That has not been the custom or the tradition in this country. Private patients and doctors alike have regarded medical labours in the past on a much higher footing; but now we are face to face with a new state of things, and this combative spirit of which we have had such an unfortunate manifestation in the instance which has taken place in Devonshire, is almost beyond belief. The doctors have been reticent in regard to their figures. They have not supplied us with them. They have not thought it wise to supply the details with regard to their practice, and they have never made it clear what they want. Some asked one price, and some another. Some condemn the Act from one standpoint and some from another.

I want, before I give my own views with regard to a possible settlement to point out to the House as clearly as I can where this ultra-combative spirit of the doctors is leading some of the more extravagant spirits. In a beautiful district of North Devon, there was a vacancy with regard to a medical practice a little over eighteen months ago; and a doctor, as is customary in this country, bought the practice and went to take up his residence there. The system of buying and selling practices and of exploiting assistants at a small salary is, I think, peculiar to this country. I know it is not tolerated in any of our Colonies, or generally all over the world. If a man asks for a medical man he wants the personal services of the man of his choice; but the medical profession of this country has developed the system of buying and selling practices and employing assistants to an extent which does not prevail in any other country of the world. I have investigated these conditions in many parts of the world, and I can tell my hon. Friend (Dr. Chapple) to begin with that it is not so in Canada, where I got all the particulars from the president of the medical association in Canada, and studied the question on the spot. Neither is it so all over the world. I challenge the hon. Member to name any country where exactly the same system prevails. I have no doubt the hon. Member, being a medical man, will devote a great deal of attention to the matter in order to escape the serious part of my charge. This man bought this practice and went down there. Part of the duty which the previous doctor exercised was attendance upon clubs, and I have a document in my hand signed by seven officers of various friendly societies who form the medical club of which this man was the officer.

Shortly after the new man's arrival in the village he made use of some remarkable expressions, expressions which, I may say, were repudiated by all the friendly societies throughout the country. He said he regarded all medical clubs as a form of charity. I say they have been a business transaction of which the doctors themselves have been very pleased to enjoy the benefits. These contracts have been the means of lifting up many a struggling man to a honoured place in his profession when boycotted and ostracised sometimes by neighbouring medical men who did not welcome him in their midst. Clubs have given him contracts; they have been the introduction of business, and he has gone on his way perhaps to become a wealthy man. Many of the leading men of the profession, rolling in wealth at the present time, owe their real start in life to being given a post by some medical club. If the doctor says he regards medical clubs as a form of charity I reply at once that the working classes repudiate any such designation. I hope that the medical profession will also repudiate it. But this doctor went on to make a rather remarkable addition to his statement. He said, "I am not anxious to undertake club work, and I shall be quite pleased if the clubs referred to will make their arrangements with another medical man." They proceeded to do that. But this gentleman wanted to dictate terms to working men. When they took him at his word, and advertised for a new medical officer on the same terms as were accepted by the old medical officer, he objected, and suggested that they were sweaters. This suggestion that these working men's clubs are sweaters is unfounded, for in this country district they pay the highest subscription, they pay 5s. or 6s. per annum, and that is a very large sum when it is remembered that in crowded towns and in Scottish villages 2s. 6d. is often the allowance. I think the hon. Member will be obliged to admit that there are places all over the country where doctors freely compete for jobs like this at 2s. 6d. per head per annum. It therefore cannot be suggested that these men in this particular place have been sweaters seeing that they have been paying 5s. and 6s. in this club practice.

They got a number of applications from duly qualified medical men offering their services, and selected one. But what happened in the meantime? A cruel organisation which has gone further than any trade union ever did intervened. This was a medical trade union formed in 1832 as a scientific society, and transformed in 1902 into a class organisation. It issued one of its favourite warning notices. One of my medical correspondents—an esteemed doctor—I may say he is a Conservative—has sent me a copy of the warning notice which this medical association issues. It is an attempt to dictate to people all over the country as to how they shall be employed, and Members who may not be familiar with the "British Medical Journal" would be aghast to see places near their own constituencies which are tabooed, and in connection with which doctors are warned off in the same way as a man might be warned off Newmarket Heath.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but so far I cannot see how he can connect his remarks either with a Government Department or with the administration of the Insurance Act.

Mr. BOOTH

You will be quite able to connect them before my story is finished. Part of my case is that the doctors boycotted the new man who came in under these terms and said he was doing it against the Insurance Act.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not see how any Member of the Government can reply to that. Whatever the doctors may have said does not affect the fact that no Government Department is concerned.

Mr. PEEL

Is the hon. Member aware that the quarrel which is now under discussion began before the Insurance Bill was even introduced into the House of Commons?

Mr. BOOTH

That is not so at all. I will of course obey the ruling of the Chair. I am not anxious to avoid it, but I am exceedingly anxious that these facts shall be placed before the House, because I am going to make a strong appeal to the Government, in the name of the working men's societies throughout the country, not to pay the extravagant terms demanded by the doctors. The whole of my argument is based on the warning notice to which I have referred.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I want the hon. Member to clearly understand that I cannot allow him to proceed with reference to this purely local case.

Mr. BOOTH

I must appeal to you upon that point, because it is not merely one instance. I have tried to explain exactly what is the club practice, and in order to do that I am quoting a concrete case to this House. But in the process of administering the Insurance Act the Commissioners are finding this point constantly recurring, and I claim therefore that I am entitled to throw such light as I can upon the matter and to strongly appeal to the Government to take the stand which I indicate is desirable on the facts I am able to adduce.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

As far as I understand it the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a case which is closed, because the doctor concerned is dead. I believe the hon. Gentleman admits that these matters took place before the Insurance Act was brought in. He is, of course, entitled to deal with the general question of contract practices, because they relate to the administration of the Insurance Act, but I do not think he is entitled, and I must rule this definitely, to deal with the case to which he is referring, as it does not come within the purview of any Government Department and no Minister can reply to it. As the hon. Member must be aware, questions raised upon the Motion for Adjournment must have some relation, direct or indirect, to a Government Department or to matters which come within its administration.

Mr. BOOTH

I shall have something to say on the general question, but I again appeal to you on the ground that this incident is not closed. There is a poor widow. The Medical Association will not allow her to realise the practice. They have killed her husband by their conduct. There is a woman and child living who have to be provided for. They get no money from the medical fraternity. I saw a letter only to-day in the papers, written by the locum tenens who attended her husband when the rest of the doctors boycotted him, and he appeals in that letter—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not see how the Government can be held to be responsible in this case. The hon. Member, to put himself in order, must suggest some remedy, and as it could only be by special legislation it is out of order to raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

Mr. BOOTH

I am not suggesting fresh legislation. I am not proposing to do that, but I do wish to urge that the Insurance Commissioners, in administering the Act, should take notice of what is going on, and should make such arrangements with the medical profession as will prevent a repetition of this kind of thing. The medical profession at the present time are taking up a very antagonistic attitude—an attitude altogether unreasonable, when compared with the statement they made in their report in 1905, which is largely the foundation of the Insurance Act. I want to appeal to the House to support me in this. The Insurance Act is our work. It was built up in Committee here stage by stage We all thought we were advancing the interests of the medical profession. I still think so. I still believe they will be far better off working tinder this Act than under the existing system, and I do suggest that there is no need for this bitter and intolerant spirit of persecution which is breaking out in various parts of the country. I have had letters from all over the country protesting against the action of some of their spokesmen, and I want to make an appeal to the medical profession to be reasonable with members of their own profession. If they are reasonable they will find the House willing to support them in any arrangements they make. But I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Insurance Commissioners, if they find the doctors are led by extremists and by unreasonable men, who will not fairly look facts in the face, to make it clear to them that they must be prepared for stronger criticism and even opposition from the great body of working men throughout the country.

I sincerely hope that a way out will be found. If the doctors are still unreconciled, if they show the same spirit that they have shown at Winkleigh in doing that poor man to death, and the same spirit in dealing with exponents of the Act who go about the country, such as myself, who receive anonymous letters nearly every day, and epistles attacking both myself and my wife for speaking on the Act—I have never said a disrespectful word of a doctor in public, but such is their anxiety about this that they think anyone connected with the Act or connected with the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be met in this spirit; it is only a minority, I am not bringing the charge against the majority of the great medical profession—I would appeal to them to show a better spirit. What are the facts? In 1905 they issued a report, and their calculations as to what remuneration should be given them appear on pages 35 to 37. The medical profession invited the men in their own profession to state what remuneration they would like. As far as one can learn, the principal reason for the deadlock between the Insurance Commissioners and the doctors is the question of money. If that be so, I would refer them to their own document issued by the British Medical Association, Strand, and published in 1905. Out of 568 doctors who answered communications as to suggestions with regard to the future remuneration for club practice, no less than 471 were satisfied with 6s. per year or less. The Act provides 6s. It was, therefore, very clear that when they were bargaining and putting up their top request, none of them dreamt they would get such good terms as the National Insurance Act provides. When people receiving an average of 4s. or less throughout the country find the Insurance Act giving them 6s., then they immediately ask for 10s. or 8s. 6d. I do not think a great profession ought to come into the market and begin huckstering in that manner. How can a big association which took up that standpoint indulge in the bitter opposition it does now to the National Insurance Act?

As a matter of fact, I estimate that a doctor will get four subscribers for one patient. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have taken the trouble to get figures from the societies with which they are acquainted. The best evidence I can get points to the fact that there will be one patient for every four members of these clubs or approved societies. In many cases the doctors have been under the impression that they were going to receive 6s. per patient. All over the country doctors have been arguing as if we were going to pay so much per patient. They turn up their books, and see that the average patient costs so much per annum. As a matter of fact, I think it will be found right to take one patient for four subscribers, that is to say, the doctors will get 24s. per annum for one case. There is no doubt that under the National Insurance Act, if they accept that figure, the medical profession will receive a much larger amount of money than they are now getting from the same people. In Leeds some of the doctors have been attacking me, or replying to me in the local papers, but the only one who in discussing this Act ventured to give any definite opinion with regard to remuneration agreed that if he was in club practice this would increase his remuneration. I believe the average for Scotland is 3s. and the average for England is not above 4s. There will be an increase in fees to the doctors. Why should they want another cut off the joint? They are the only people now standing out. If they cannot accept a reasonable scheme, if they are claiming to have the Bill defeated because we do not give them fair terms, the only suggestion I can make is that the medical benefit should be deleted from the arrangement, and that the money should be handed back to the societies. The people who would lose by that arrangement would be the doctors. They would lose a large sum. If it is their wish to be so treated—I would warn the medical profession it is the goal to which they are hastening—the alternative is a State system or a municipal system of doctors, which takes in the hospitals and the services of these approved societies.

Sir J. D. REES

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that under the Insurance Act the doctor does not get 6s. per patient per year, but 6s. per visit?

Mr. BOOTH

It is 6s. per subscriber. The Act enrols all the working classes as subscribers to the medical profession. The people from whom they cannot get money at all now, or from whom they can only get it with great difficulty, are to come upon the books and are to be regular subscribers to the doctor's income to the extent of 6s. per subscriber and per member of the approved societies. I hope I have made that clear. It is not a bad advantage for the doctor. I would suggest to the medical profession, to those who are inclined to look at it upon reasonable business lines—I am glad to say many of them are doing it—that if they cannot get the money from those people who pay weekly they will not get it at all. The working classes cannot pay bills for pounds. Trade unions and societies dealing with people earning weekly wages have solved the problem by getting in. small weekly subscriptions. The doctor has not solved it except by club practice. The only opportunity we can afford to large masses of the working population of this country to subscribe for doctors is through the medium of these approved societies and of the National Insurance Act. The doctors are attacking it as an antagonistic scheme. To my utter amazement, wherever I go they are denouncing Lloyd George, they are furious at the sound of his name, or that of anybody who goes about speaking of the Act.

My conception of the Bill as it passed through the House of Commons was that it would increase the prestige of the medical profession, add to its income, and put it on a better and sounder financial basis. If they take the opposite view, I will not say it is because of party bias, because I know some of them are as good Liberals as myself. There may be some party bias in the case of some doctors, but I prefer to delete that element. The fact is that a great many doctors have made up their minds that the Act shall not work. I attach much less importance to the medical benefit than does the average Member here. In the meetings I have addressed in dealing with benefits the medical benefit is that which has been least appreciated by the audience. I think the medican profession should understand that the Bill makes an effort to strengthen them and to improve their position. It is a chance they will never get again. If they reject it and treat it as a hostile movement instead of a friendly help the medical profession must take the responsibility. The inevitable outcome will be that men like myself, who are not Socialists, will be driven at once to the conclusion that the only solution is a State or a municipal service. Business men of the community generally will seek for that solution. It will solve many a question besides the National Insurance Act. I do not want to be driven there. It has been no part of my programme to attempt to set up a State service in the place of the present relations of the profession. But when men can boycott suffering people, when they can refuse to help because men have club practices, when they are asking men to sign pledges now that if they work under the Act they shall be boycotted and ostracised, and refused any help and consultation, it is time to cry halt.

In Hunslet a vacancy arose recently, and some of the doctors no doubt are very antagonistic to the Act, but the friendly society was successful in getting its contract renewed at half-a-crown per head per annum, and there was a considerable amount of competition among the local doctors for it. Some of the doctors have written to me asking me to tell the House that they did not apply. It is true that all the doctors in Hunslet did not apply, but the doctors in the immediate neighbourhood of the club to whom notices were sent did apply at the rate of half-a-crown. Now I get a letter from that district pointing out the danger of administering the Act. One doctor asked me not to give his name, and, after the experience of Devonshire, there will be a great deal more of that. He will probably refuse to sign the pledge; at any rate, he does not like it, and if he signs it it will be under duress. But the most popular doctors do not like this scheme to come into operation except at a price which would remunerate them. They do not seem to like that the struggling doctor who may want to do this work, and who has done it in the past, who may like a working-class practice—they do not want it to be made easy for him to go on the panel and make a better living and get an increased practice. That is the view of this doctor, a Liberal, simply weighing up the position, and the Government must be aware—I do not know what the trade unionists of the House will say—that men are being asked to pledge themselves not to act in consultation with doctors who take work under the Act unless they are satisfied with the conditions of this Star Chamber which led to the boycotting and death of Dr. Richards, of Winkleigh, and unless this body of Syndicalists get them to comply with it, the doctors are not even to consult with regard to people on the point of death and they are not to take cases in hospitals. I can only warn the medical profession, as one who has many personal friends in it, with all the solemnity I can muster, that if they embark on that their day as an independent profession is gone. The community will take care of themselves. I cannot conceive of a more terrible way of putting pressure upon a Government or upon the Insurance Commissioners than that.

I should like to tell the House what my correspondence with the doctors results in. What is their solution? They have not any. I think the Act is very good or I think State service should be good, but what is their proposal? Nearly every man you meet suggests something different. It is impossible to get together a dinner party or a meeting of doctors who would agree for five minutes upon any of the important points dealing with this Act. One man writes to me with regard to the choice of a doctor, that he is now in club practice and he does not want any panel and choice of a doctor. He therefore opposes the Act. By the next post a man says the only good thing in the Act is the choice of a doctor. It will weed out the bad ones. Another writes that he is a young medical man with no chance against an older and more popular doctor. An old doctor writes and Hays the Act unduly favours the young man starting business, and here is a remarkable phrase, "There will be a swarm of Scotch doctors coming down from Edinburgh and Glasgow who are not fit to be associated with socially, and who are on a much lower scale," and so on, "and they will spoil the profession." Another writes to say that he is a beginner and he thinks when the Act is passed it will be more difficult for a beginner to start in practice and get on the panel. An old doctor writes to say his assistants will leave him immediately the Act is passed, because it is so easy for a new man to start. Another man says that when the Act is passed there will be a gain financially, but all the rest of the Bill is bad. Another says the whole scheme should be suspended because the remuneration is so niggardly. Another says it will break up all the amicable arrangements now existing between the clubs and the profession, and he regrets that the Act is setting up State machinery instead of these beautiful friendly agreements which are being made all over the country. Another says the Act perpetuates the detestable system of bargaining, and he wants fixity of price and of tenure by legislation. Another writes to say that the only result of the Act, so far, and the attempt of the Commissioners to negotiate with them has been the breaking up of the doctors as a united body and sowing discord in a peaceable profession. Another says this Act has made them trade unionists, and has abolished all their rivalry.

In these conditions what can we expect? The trade unions of this country, it is true, have always looked after the conditions and wages of their people, and I do not blame the doctors' trade union for doing it, though, as a rule, the doctors themselves have been the first to condemn working men when they went out on strike or asked for an increase of wages. I ask whether that is not the almost universal experience. One of the chief difficulties of a trade union leader is to repress the extreme spirits in the ranks. The trade union leaders of the present time are experienced men, and they know that they have to restrain some of the bolder and more youthful spirits from time to time. When you come to the medical profession they had not had that experience; they have not got men at the head, trained unionists, who will repress the wilder spirits, and the consequence is an outburst like that at Winkleigh, with such deplorable results which I hope the British Radical Association will repudiate with its whole heart and soul. I agree that there are some difficulties about this matter. I am not always sure, when one speaks and lays the facts bare, what amount of good may be done. If you state anything upon a matter which really goes to the heart of the question you find yourself in a storm of controversy, and you almost suffer personal violence, but that does not deflect me or any Member of the House. The thing must be faced boldly; the Government must face it boldly; the moderate men in the doctors' ranks must face it boldly, because I can assure them that the inevitable outcome will be either a breakdown of the Insurance Act on the one hand, if the Government are foolish enough to give too much away and to bribe the medical profession to come in, and, on the other hand, if the doctors remain unreasonable and have their demand refused, we shall have to set about making a State or municipal medical service and train our own medical men, who will not turn a deaf ear to the cry of the child or the despairing mother.

Captain SPENDER CLAY

I will not go into the alleged delinquencies of the doctors which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has dealt with at some length. I should like to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to a few of the difficulties which I think will, be brought about in carrying out the Insurance Act in regard to seasonal labour. I call seasonal labour such occupations as hop-picking, fruit-picking, and market-gardening. After July next every employer of labour will be responsible for seeing that his own and his employés' contributions are paid up to date. But just think of the difficulty you are going to throw upon an employer of seasonal labour. Some hop-growers and fruit-growers employ thousands of men, women, and children, and some of the people come from the very poorest parts of the great cities. On the other hand, others may not be insured persons under the Act. They may be small tradesmen, and yet the employer will have to find out from each one of these workers, whose names in many cases he does not know, and of whom he can have no possible knowledge, what the position is in relation to the Act. I maintain that you are putting a great burden, an almost impossible task, upon employers in these trades at the busiest time of the year. It seems to me that there are only two alternatives for an employer of labour to take. One is that he must engage proper clerks to carry out the business at a considerable price, which must increase the cost of production, because you cannot get responsible clerks for a few weeks' employment at a moderate wage—they do not grow on mulberry bushes or on hop grounds—he will have to employ clerks, or else the Insurance Commissioners must indicate some very simple system of carrying out these regulations in seasonal trades. They have got what is unquestionably a difficult work to do. I think if this is brought to the attention of the Insurance Commissioners, they will devise some scheme whereby those engaged in these trades may be treated fairly and not put to great trouble or expense. The matter is urgent, as we all know, because the Act will soon come into force. I hope the Insurance Commissioners will do this at the earliest possible moment. Personally, I should have liked to see the Act postponed for those engaged in the agricultural industry from the very inconvenient date of 15th July, for at that time farmers all over the country are engaged getting in their hay. They have extra hands in their employment, and in many cases they do not know much about the workers. At the most ticklish time of the year farmers will be required to start this new work of which they are entirely ignorant, and which must put them at some disadvantage.

There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Insurance Commissioners. I understand that in some counties in England private committees are being formed at this moment. They are being called together in a more or less informal manner to prepare the way for the local insurance committees which are to be set up later on. I attended one of these meetings the other day. I had not much knowledge of what the meeting was called for; but I understand it had been ordered that meetings should be arranged in villages within a certain area, and that honorary correspondents should be appointed, so that when a date was fixed a lecturer would be appointed from the central office who would attend free of all charge to give explanations of the Act. One of the things I asked was, Who pays the preliminary expenses? There are expenses for postage, calling the meeting, and bill-posting, and I was informed that in this particular county certain gentlemen had agreed to guarantee a sum of £50 each in order that these meetings should be held for explaining the Act in every part of the county. I maintain that it is an absolutely wrong principle. There may be other counties which do not possess gentlemen who have adequate means or who have the inclination to spend money in this way. People who would be insured persons may possibly be put to greater disadvantage than they would be in other parts owing to the want of knowledge as to the best way of availing themselves of the Act. I think it is entirely wrong that the dissemination of knowledge and the explanation of the Act should be left to private generosity. I would urge the Secretary to the Treasury to make inquiries and see if it is not possible that the funds required for what I may call unofficial committees might be found out of the funds at the disposal of the Insurance Commissioners, so that in every county insured persons may have the opportunity of hearing an official lecturer and questioning him on this subject. The expenses would probably be very small. There is no reason why they should be large, but I think the reasonable expenses in matters of this kind should be found out of public funds.

Mr. PEEL

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) at any length as to what he said about the doctors, for this reason: We had a discussion on this subject a short time ago, and I understand that the relations between the Government and the doctors are now being discussed by the Advisory Committee. Therefore it is not necessary now to enter into that subject. The hon. Member referred to a particular case in Devonshire. I am not at liberty to go into the particulars of that case; but I would say that he made certain assumptions which did not seem to me to be quite warranted. He alleged that the gentleman to whom he referred had been worried to death by certain people. All I have to say is that the Association mentioned absolutely denies that. If I do not say more on the subject, it must not be taken that I agree with what was said by the hon. Member. I am only prevented from going into this matter by the ruling of the Chair. I want to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the lecturing which has been going on in Norfolk. I understand the hon. Gentleman was asked a question this afternoon, and that he said lectures were not taking place in that county. I have in my hand the notice of a lecture to be given in regard to the National Insurance Act at Fakenham on Friday, 17th May, 1912, to explain the provisions of the Act. When an Act of this kind is a matter of keen controversy between the parties and when elections are being fought on the details of this Act there is really no defence for such action as sending by means of public money lecturers to give lectures on this subject in places where an election is going on at which this Act is being discussed. The Government has shown a most extraordinary unwillingness to deal with the Insurance Act at the present time. They want to treat it as if it did not exist. I asked a question on a very delicate matter about the Insurance Act yesterday, and though three days notice was given neither the hon. Member (Mr. Masterman) nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, and the question was answered by an hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) whom I generally associate with the duty of keeping his Friends in the Lobby from going home late at night.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think it is most unfair to say that, as yesterday was the first time that I was absent from questions since last January.

Mr. PEEL

I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be absent from questions. It is his business to be here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has swept the matter out of his mind altogether. The Insurance Act is beneath his notice. He leaves it to be managed by the Insurance Commissioners and goes off to some obscure place in Wales to meditate on minus values or perhaps study a little of the history of the Church or go more deeply into the peerage to see whether there are any other representatives of noble families whose ancestors got church lands. After all, these gentlemen are responsible, and it is their business to be here to answer questions. With regard to outworkers there is only one way of dealing with them; either they must all come in or be all excluded. It is quite impossible to draw the line between those who are wholly or mainly dependent, and those who are not, and also between those two classes and widows and unmarried women. The question is not free from difficulty, because in considering the outworkers you have to consider the in-workers also, so as not either to throw work into the factory or throw more work outside the factory, because I assume that the right hon. Gentleman in this Act simply wants to administer sickness insurance and does not want to utilise it as a means of carrying out some theory about either working in or working out, which I understand is held by many persons.

All these arguments were laid very clearly by different hon. Members before the Chancellor of the Exchequer while the Bill was passing through the Committee stage. I have looked with some interest into the Report of the Outworkers' Committee, and I find that those who spoke for the outworkers and also those who spoke for the employers were absolutely unanimous on the point that no distinction can be made between these different classes. I will repeat the question which I asked yesterday. On what ground has the Government made this particular exemption? I do not wish to be thrust back on the ordinary answer, that these women were wives of electors and therefore it was done. That would be too ignominious an answer. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is going to confess that it was done for electioneering purposes. He must have some reason outside that, and I should be very glad to know what it is, because I want to show the hon. Gentleman in how disagreeable a position the Government would have been placed if they had won South Somersetshire. Before the election they exempted under the exemption provision in the first Schedule these particular classes of workers. At the same time, under the proviso of the first Clause, the Insurance Commissioners have got the power, subject to the consent of the Treasury by special order, to admit any of these exempted classes, outworkers and other workers also, and bring them within the purview of the Act. Suppose they had won South Somersetshire on what they had done? Suppose, afterwards they appointed a Committee, and that Committee reported, as this Committee has done, that they must be all included, and the Treasury gave its consent, and under the special order these women who had been excluded were now brought in, it would be said, "This is a trick played upon us. We were excluded for the purpose of the election, the Government all the while knowing that they had the power to bring us in again, and then they appointed a Committee, which they knew must report in a certain way, as any half-dozen men of ordinary common sense must report, for the purpose of common sense in administration." The Committee suggest that payments should be made for work actually done. That may come in in a fortnight as well as a week. That suggestion is a valuable one. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is as easy as the Committee seem to suggest to set up an average common denominator, which must be done before payments are made under this Act, of the average wage which these people would be earning if they were working an ordinary normal week? In many cases it is extremely difficult to decide. If they were working for more than one employer it might well be, however, where you split up between the week's work, the amount contributed by employer and employed, no matter what fraction you get, you are very likely in the end to get a larger contribution from employers and employed than you would get if the whole of the work is spread over a fortnight.

Then the question arises, after all, supposing these people do contribute on that basis, they will contribute far less than would the people who are permanently employed. The Commissioners say that it is no disgrace to be in arrears, and these people who work between twenty-six weeks and thirty-nine weeks would, of course, be in arrears in this sense, that they will never get sickness benefit or medical benefit, but they will if they work between twenty-six weeks and thirty-nine weeks obtain the certain benefits. The question is whether they will be taken by the friendly societies, because surely there must be very great difficulty in dealing with these people who are constantly varying in their arrears. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that they are really likely, under this double difficulty, to be accepted by the friendly societies, or whether it is not far more likely that they will fall into the unfortunate class of Post Office contributors. You are really, if you follow the recommendations of the Committee, setting up alternative benefits, and I think it will be better to have a different system of lower contributions and lower benefits suited to the particular conditions of those contributors who work not more than twenty-six weeks in the year. A few weeks ago I asked a question as to what was to be done about seasonal workers, and I was requested to put the question later on, and I ask it now. I need not remind the House that the question of seasonal workers is one of those matters which were thrust into the Act without our having had any opportunity of discussing it, and the provision made is entirely inadequate to the situation. I ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Government to tell us what he has done to carry out the provision dealing with the hard case of seasonal workers who, in my opinion, ought to have a special class of insurance provided for them, and who ought not to be lumped into the general provisions that are applied to all classes of workers who, of course, are more regularly employed, and are not subject to those disabilities which fall so heavily on seasonal workers.

3.0 P.M.

Dr. CHAPPLE

I desire to say a word or two on a question which was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) in regard to doctors and the Insurance Act. Let me say, personally, I think that some of the statements he made with regard to persecution in connection with the profession were a little wide of the mark. The right of doctors to refuse to meet others in consultation has never been challenged. It is part of the etiquette of the medical profession to attend when called upon in urgent cases, and no rule of professional etiquette is inconsistent with the health or life of a patient in need. This statement was made in the leaflet referred to by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth):— And with such rigour was this boycott exercised that not even in critical emergencies as, for example, the one in which the life of a woman may depend upon the assistance of a competent anæsthetist, were the services of his professional brethren available. It is impossible for such a boycott to exist, and any doctor would be really violating the spirit of professional etiquette if he denied professional attendance in any circumstances whatever to any patient in need. But when we come to the question of the State commandeering the services of the medical profession in order to retail them out on its own terms, we touch on entirely new grounds. I quite agree that many advantages will be gained by the profession as a result of this Act. There will be 8,000,000 new members brought under friendly society conditions, and they will include a large section of the community whom the doctors now attend without being paid. For the future they will be paid. That is a new source of income. Moreover, among these 8,000,000 new members will be a large number of men who in the past have abstained from joining friendly societies because they enjoy such good health that they never require professional attendance, and continually boast that they never swallowed a dose of medicine in their lives. These men are all roped in under the National Insurance scheme, and will be a new source of income to doctors, notwithstanding that they would not require the services of those doctors. Moreover, the maternity benefit will be practically ear-marked for medical men. That is another new source of income. Again, practically all cases of tuberculosis will in future go to the sanatoria, and so doctors of friendly societies will be relieved from attendance on tuberculous cases which involve protracted and continuous attention, with a great expenditure of time, and medicine. These cases will in future be taken out of contract practice and relegated to the sanatoria. Working men, because of the operation of the Act, will be better off, and will thus be better able to pay for attendance upon their wives and families.

This is equivalent to still another new source of income for doctors. These are some of the advantages that are going to come to the medical profession under the National Insurance Act. What are the terms and conditions under which medical men engage to do contract practice? A doctor is offered 5s. per member per year. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) said the other day it did not matter whether these members were employed at 25s. a week, 35s. a week, or 75s. a week, because the medical services were all the same. But it matters very much indeed; in fact, the whole trouble of the doctors is whether you are going to ask them to attend a man who has 75s. a week for the same amount as the man who gets 25s. a week. That is the whole trouble, and it is where the injustice lies. A doctor takes a contract practice say at 5s. per head per year. If a member has 25s. a week he is presumably a working man with a workman's home. That would rule out a large number of serious diseases. For instance, it would rule out typhoid fever. A man living in a working-class home with that wage could not afford to have professional nurses night and day, and would have to go to a special institution. It rules out also compound fracture of the thigh or of the lower limbs, and all Major operations for which he could not stay in his home. The doctor has to estimate all these things in taking contract practice, and with these serious cases ruled out he would simply have to attend indigestion, rheumatism, the lancing of small abcesses, and so on. If a member with that wage advances and gets a larger wage, say £4 or £5 per week, he has a larger home and he makes greater demands on his doctor. If he had typhoid, he might say that he would not go to an institution and would spare no expense on professional nurses. If you are going to make these extra demands without giving a higher fee you are going to do an injustice. That is the basis of the demand for an income limit. Are you going to pay any more or not? If you are not, you are going to violate the implied terms of contract. If a man joins a society with a wage of 29s. per week and goes on to 79s. per week, then he is going to demand services from the doctor which were impliedly ruled out. He is going to consult the doctor for simple ailments about which he never would have consulted him if he had been in the enjoyment of 29s. per week. A man who has a small wage has often not the time to lie up or consult a doctor. We know that 50 per cent, of the simple ailments cure themselves if you give them time. Club patients do not know that; but if the hon. Member for Pontefract would carry on a propaganda and tell them that there would not be so much demand for medical service.

If you are going to make greater demands upon the doctor, are you going to pay him more, or are you going to violate the original terms of the contract? That is the one crucial difficulty. It is a difficulty which has always existed, and from which the doctors have tried for years to emancipate themselves. The State now comes along suddenly and stereotypes and makes permanent the very evil from which they were endeavouring and from which they hoped to emancipate themselves. That is at the basis of the agitation, and is the justification for it. What are the remedies? The doctors' remedy of an income limit of £2 per week is absolutely impossible; and the doctors are beating their heads against a brick wall when they advocate such a remedy. For the future men are going to join the societies at sixteen. At that age a member may have 10s. per week. At the age of twenty-five or thirty, he may have £3 per week; and at that time he may require the services of a doctor for the first time. The doctor comes along and says: "No, you are in the enjoyment of more than £2 per week; I shall not attend you." To that, the man replies, that he has for ten or fifteen years been paying in contributions, and he expected that when he got ill he would have the services of a doctor. In fact, during all those years the doctors would have been receiving the contributions of those men. In that sense, a £2 limit is impossible, and yet the injustice remains. How are you going to remedy it? I make this suggestion. As soon as a member gets to the enjoyment of a larger wage, when admittedly he makes more demands on the doctor, he should pay more. Surely, if he makes more demands, he ought to-pay more. How are you going to pay the doctor more? In my own professional experience, I carried it out in this way. If a man were in receipt of a wage beyond a certain sum, then he payed me a proportion of the usual fee; and I seldom found anyone in the enjoyment of a higher salary than what was considered to be a working man's wage who refused to do that. I do not mind saying that they got better service for it. It is worth while for the members of any society to be on good terms with the doctors who attend them, because the doctor cannot give the same prompt attention and the same general care to those cases which he feels make unjust demands upon him.

I think it is to the advantage of the society and of this Act, to remove from the doctors any sense of injustice. You can do it by saying that if any man is in receipt of more than £2 per week, the doctor shall be entitled, the onus of proof being on him, to claim from his patient a proportion of the usual fee according to a scale to be fixed by the health committees of the different localities. In the case of over £2 per week, say quarter of the fee, or in the case of £3 per week, half the fee; or if that quarter and half do not seem fair, then some other proportion. Nobody knows so well as the doctor what is the approximate income of the people he attends. He knows roughly the rental of the house, whether it is ten shillings, one pound or five pounds a week; he knows what kind of furniture there is; he has a good idea of its cost; he knows the occupation of Mr. John Waldorf Smith whom he is attending, whether he is a Civil servant, whether he is earning two pounds or five pounds a week. No official of a society can know approximately as well as the doctor the salary of the person he is attending. I suggest that you should allow the doctor, putting upon him the entire onus of proof, to make a private charge, if he can prove that a man is receiving more than a certain income, the capitation being a sort of retaining fee. I do not fix what the proportion should be but I think that would be a solution of the difficulty. The problem is a very serious one. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) that members of friendly societies under-value medical attention and over-value some of the other benefits under the Act. I think they consider adequate and proper medical attendance a very important benefit, and we should do all we can to make medical attendance as efficient as possible in time of need.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT

This is the second time within a short period that I have had the fortune to follow the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Chapple). Last time I was in a position of very violent antagonism to him. I will not say that I agree with his speech to-day, but I do agree with his mild criticism of the speech, of the hon. Member for Pontefract. I listened to that speech with great interest, because I know that the hon. Member has studied the Insurance Act as much as any man in this House, but there were two points with which I entirely disagree, and they were in reference to the doctors. The hon. Member said that he knew a number of doctors who are as good Liberals as he is, but who disagree thoroughly with this Act from their own point of view. If that is the case, much as the hon. Member has studied this measure, these doctors are the best judges of their own lives and their own interests, and as far as they are concerned they know more about it than he does. I also understood him to say that there was an alternative if the doctors refused to work under the provisions of the Act, and that was a State medical service. That can only mean one thing. The State is dealing with the health of the nation. The doctors refuse to accept the Act. The State is to provide its own service. That can only mean that it will provide its service on the terms that the doctors are refusing to-day. That means lower salaries, lower remuneration. My strong feeling is that sweating in any way is a very bad thing, but the worst kind of sweating is when you sweat your doctor or your cook; it does not pay you, and it never will pay.

I wish to make one or two references concerning my own Constituency of South Somerset. I am extremely sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present, because whatever answer I may receive from the Secretary to the Treasury, it cannot come with quite the same satisfaction as the explanation I shall ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me regarding the election in South Somerset some months ago. Under a measure of the magnitude and complexity of the Insurance Act there are bound to be hardships. With that I do not quarrel, and I do not think any reasonable man does, but what you need not necessarily have is the deception and trickery that we had in South Somerset. I will give a brief history of the very curious parentage of these concessions. In the summer of last year, when the measure was being discussed in the House of Commons, it was soon seen that if the Bill became an Act outworkers would suffer; because, generally speaking, in the country outwork is not a livelihood, It is the woman's supplement of the man's employment. From the employers' point of view it is more profitable to employ fewer people for more hours rather than more people for fewer hours. For that reason, and because they saw that work being concentrated in a certain number of hands, and that a number of people would lose their employment, a deputation waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That deputation left without any hope in its heart at all. The urgency of the case was such and the interest involved so vital, that my Constituents refused to accept defeat, and some months later they came up again. It was explained to them that the real difficulty of the situation lay in the fact that it was not possible to exclude country outworkers without excluding town outworkers, and that if that principle was followed, it would involve putting a certain premium upon sweating in the towns. Outwork is a very good thing in South Somerset, but it may be a very bad thing in London. At the same time, it was suggested that if they could devise a plan to mitigate the hardships of the Act their case would be reconsidered. Very reluctantly and with many misgivings they thought out a plan which I gather met with a certain amount of consideration. That plan was a compromise. It did not do away with all the difficulties or disadvantages that the business would suffer under the Act, but it made a fair compromise between the interests of the workers and the business of the employers. A most dramatic change occurred. As we have heard, a by-election came about and—this is really the serious point, because it is a national point that we on this side of the House have a right to make—when people went to advocate the interests of poor people they received no kind of consideration. On the other hand, when a deputation of Liberals went to the right hon. Gentleman to put before him those same grievances they did receive consideration. But those hardships and those grievances were not changed by one tittle: they were the same in the autumn as in the summer. The only difference was this, that you had one deputation looking at the real facts of life, and the other deputation—of politicians—looking at the way the election was turning. You have the Government, on the one hand, refusing to consider the conditions of the poor families, and you have the Government, on the other hand, considering, and very ably, I am bound to say—and I congratulate them on their electioneering—considering its own interests in this House. The net result of that was this: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was convinced, he had the courage of his convictions, and very quickly a telegram was sent to South Somerset. The result of it was that a number of people, opponents of mine, adhered to their own allegiance, for the simple reason that they trusted the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer did me the honour to attack me in this House when I was not here. He put forward some of my pamphlets. I have here a written promise, a guarantee, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Patronage Secretary was fully authorised to send the telegram that he did, and to which I have referred. What happened was this: That once the right hon. Gentleman became convinced that the outworkers had a case his benevolence became far more elastic and far more complicated than it had been before. Before this he had said: "You ought to derive golden years of prosperity by coming under my measure." Now, he said—at the moment of the election—"You shall prosper by not coming under that measure." The thing which I think we do feel a great deal upon in my Constituency is that after his every effort of cajolery had been exhausted, after all his futile cunning had been expended to win the constituency, and expended uselessly, then from the altitude of his own political integrity and rectitude the right hon. Gentleman turned round and attacked me for fraud and accused my Constituents of credulity, because I had won the seat by saying that he could not fulfil his promise to give thirteen millions of people 9d. for 4d. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not what he said."] Well, that is the occasion of recent speeches. We all know the case of the man who at tennis makes a desperate lunge at a ball, and then, when he misses the ball, cries out "Fault!" That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. So far as that contest was concerned, I am quite ready to allow time to judge between the truth of my pamphlet and the truth of the right hon. Gentleman's own prophecies in regard to the matter. I do not want to go on much longer, but there is one subject—the pro rata concession to which I would like to refer. There have been two possible concessions which we might have had, either the exclusion of married women outworkers or the pro rata method.

With regard to the first, although we were promised, I myself, and I think a great many other people, thought that after the formidable objections which were heard against it, after the definite refusal which we had had in the summer, it would be very difficult to reconstitute the Bill so that those people should be excluded and exempted from its operations. If that was the case, I think there is only one alternative, and that is the alternative which is now before us, the pro rata alternative. I think that will minimise the hardships of the Insurance Act to the outworkers in my Constituency. I think that it will to a very great extent lessen the unemployment that the measure would have caused. What, however, I do feel most inclined to say upon the whole matter is that it has been insufficiently discussed. The Act has been altered since it became an Act. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not really perpetrated a fraud upon my Constituency—[HON. MEMBEBS: "Oh, oh!"]— I am using the word that I am using advisedly—if the right hon. Gentleman has not been absolutely false to his pledges which he gave to us, it is only for one reason, and that is that the Commissioners and the Committee would have to bear the blame of his rash electioneering words. Under those circumstances it seems to me that the only satisfactory thing the Government can do is to postpone the Bill for at least another year, and to go into it from the point of view of business and philanthropy, and not from the point of view of electioneering.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I rise rather to direct the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the fact that we are within two months of the date when we all hope—most of us, anyhow —to see the Insurance Act in operation, and to inquire of him what is being done by the Insurance Commissioners to stem the current of misrepresentation that is still being set going throughout the country. The matter is of great moment, because the Insurance Act is a matter of life and death to a large number of people. National Insurance Acts have been passed by a number of nations, and are in operation in a number of civilised countries at the present time. I do not, I am glad to say, know of any instance in which a measure of National Insurance has been met by the kind of opposition which is being opposed to it in this country. National Insurance is in operation in Germany, and has been for a generation. It is in operation in. Austria, in Hungary; it is beginning to be in operation in France, and it has just been adopted by the referendum in Switzerland. In many forms, varying very considerably one from the other it operates. I suppose it will be said of these measures in force in different parts of the world that they are inperfect; that they contain, to quote the term used by the hon. Member who has just sat down, cases of hardship—unintentional hardship—inflicted upon some people. But in all those countries it is recognised that the measures are of such a nature that the patriotic citizens needs must examine them on their merits, and if he opposes them his opposition must be the opposition of honest criticism. That has been so fully recognised that in no other country but this has there been opposed to a measure of National Insurance the kind of opposition to which I am going to refer. What is the work that the Insurance Commissioners are doing in order to protect the British public from the consequences of this opposition? If persons who are to be compulsorily insured or—and this is important also—who might be voluntarily insured under this Act, really believe the pamphlet put out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester that the Act is "a swindle." "a dodge." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I direct the attention of the House that those epithets are cheered. They are not ashamed of these words and they are willing to cheer them in this House. They are willing to make the assertion that the National Insurance Act for which they have voted on First Beading, and then, after a considerable interval voted for it again on Second Reading, that that Act is a fraud, and to-day they actually cheer the words that it is a swindle, a dodge and a lie.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Read the words.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The hon. Member did not give me notice of his attack upon me this afternoon. If he had followed not only the traditions of this House, but even the ordinary traditions of courtesy, he would have given me notice.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I believe the hon. Member had the usual notice from the Whips.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

No, Sir, I had not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Yes, it is so.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

No; I happened to be accidentally talking to one of our Whips when he said that possibly this subject would be raised. I had no other notice, and on such an occasion the hon. Member should have told me that he was going to raise this matter. He preferred to deliver his attack on me when he knew we were about to adjourn for the holidays, so that he might be able to make another attack such as he made at Portsmouth. Now, coming to the subject with which I rose to deal, let me show the House the very serious character of the deliberate misrepresentations that have been made in the country in leaflets which are circulated by the million upon the Insurance Act. These are attacks by which the party opposite win by-elections and by which a by-election was won which returned the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. D. Rees), whose presence used at one time to grace the benches on this side of the House. Let me read these attacks, and I ask what the Insurance Commissioners are doing to meet these false representations:— None of those who cannot now obtain a first-class health certificate should hope to get into strong societies. I put this to hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a matter of life and death. Here you have a man at fifty years of age who has a chance for fourpence of joining the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, or the Foresters, or some other strong friendly society. This Act gives him that power which he never had before. Here is a sentence which, if that man believed would have the effect of inducing him not to seek membership of such a society, but merely to become a deposit contributor. The hon. Member opposite said something that I had stated was despicable. I challenge him to get up in his place and deny that this is despicable.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The hon. Gentleman was on the platform of the Amend-the-Act League which has circulated this statement. I challenge him to get up and deny that. The hon. Member is very brave when he is 200 miles away in the country, surrounded by gentlemen of the Amend-the-Act League, but sitting at the corner of the bench opposite when challenged he dare not get up and deny it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Deny what? That is the "Daily Mail." What is it you want me to deny?

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

Here is another piece:— Sections 30 and 31 of the Act provide for the rejection of weak members and the transfer of some strong members from one society to another. I see the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) sitting opposite. He said something I wrote was nauseous. I ask him what he thinks of this suggestion that by a Section in the Act it is open to a society to reject its weak members. Does he think that nauseous? The particular Sections of the Act referred to enables a member to leave one society for another and take his reserve value with him.

Mr. H. W. FORSTER

What do you call a "strong member"?

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

I do not know. I am quoting from the leaflet. I think the hon. Member had better explain to his constituency what the "Daily Mail" means by a strong member. This is the "Amend-the-Act" League, which is the party that supplies the writers that circulate these things. The hon. Member for Colchester apparently is ashamed of the leaflet. Does he deny it? He says it is the "Daily Mail," not us, and I hope the "Daily Mail" will take notice of that fact. I pass on to another part, and I come to sanatorium benefits, and in this connection I ask the House to remember that one hon. Member on the Unionist side opposite reminded us that he had been inside of a sanatorium, and that was the reason why he took such an interest in sanatorium benefits. The hon. Member has done good service in this House and in the country by taking the chairmanship of the Tuberculosis Committee. I wish he were here today so that I might show him what is said in this leaflet:— Only one-third of a penny per week is devoted to this insurance. The leaflet ignores the fact that sanatorium benefit has an income of £1,000,000 a year. It completely hides that. Misrepresentation of this character has never been equalled in this or any other country. Here is another gem in the leaflet circulated by the "Daily Mail":— Most of the women workers who are past middle age are excluded, for the sums offered to the societies are not such as to procure their admission. The Insurance Commissioners have just issued the reserve values for each man and woman, based on expert actuarial Authority. They are going to provide for women over middle age such a sum as will enable the Foresters or the Hearts of Oak or any other well conducted friendly society to accept as members women who otherwise could not become members. Here is a leaflet going out in millions to servant girls and poor ignorant women leading them to believe that the Act is no use, although that Act was passed through this House nemini contradicente.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT

There would have been one.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The hon. Member was not here then, but I hope his constituents will take notice of the fact. Here you have Gentlemen who voted for this Act leaving these poor people under the impression that they will not get the benefits of the Act, and that they will not get the sum which hon. Members know very well they will get. Let me pass to another quotation. The hon. Member for Colchester said his party were not responsible for these statements. He gave the House to believe that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I thought the hon. Gentleman was giving the House the impression that he was quoting some writing by me. He is not quoting a leaflet by me. If he thinks I have said or written anything which my former action contradicted I challenge him now to call attention to what I have written, and I challenge him to contradict it if he can.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

I am not going to do that. I am simply giving a quotation from a leaflet edited by the hon. Member.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

You do not call that a signed article?

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

I will exculpate the hon. Member from that, and I will come to him again in a moment:— Which ever way you look at the Insurance Act, as Mr. Amery, M.P., has said, it is rotten through and through. The hon. Member and other hon. Members opposite voted for the Second Reading of a measure which is "rotten through and through." I now pass to the hon. Member for Colchester, and I have in my hand the report of a speech which he made at Portsmouth. The hon. Member used language there which he would not dare repeat in this House.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Hear, hear.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The hon. Member says "Hear, hear" to that statement, but he is so full of interruptions that they come from him, I am afraid, accidentally. Let me quote from a speech which he made to the citizens of Portsmouth. There happened to be a number of my friends at that meeting, and I think they let him know it. They told me that the meeting was called with all the attractions of the hon. Member and the Noble Lord who represents the Division; but, notwithstanding this, the hall was only one-third full. The hon. Member tried to stimulate them with some very strong language. He not only attacked me, but he also attacked the Insurance Commissioners. It is never a good thing to attack Civil servants, because they cannot reply for themselves, and the hon. Member in doing that showed the dame kind of courtesy as he did when he attacked me in my absence this afternoon. At the meeting to which I refer the hon. Member said, in reference to an Act, the Second Reading of which he voted for:— The Insurance Commissioners, in their despair— Is that a fair observation?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Read on.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

I will read on in my own good time. The hon. Member said:— The Insurance Commissioners, in their despair— Is that a proper way to refer to the work of Civil servants and to the work of men who are doing their duty so well? Continuing, the hon. Member said:— The Insurance Commissioners, in their despair, were trying to popularise the Act. Does the hon. Member deny the use of those words?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

No.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

Does the hon. Member deny the innuendo which they convey, which is that the Insurance Commissioners were improperly trying to popularise the Act? Is that a proper way to refer to the Insurance Commissioners, or to any other Civil servants? Is it a proper way to refer to a measure which is fraught with the issues of life and death? Is the hon. Member aware that even this day, as I am speaking here, poor mothers are dying in childbirth in the United Kingdom? Is the hon. Member unaware that as the days go by, day after day poor mothers are dying for the want of maternity benefits which this Act provides? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. H. W. Forster), for whom I had a very great respect, has challenged a leaflet which I wrote—or rather an article which was afterwards made into a leaflet—the writing of which I remember as well as though I had only ceased dictating it an hour ago. Since the right hon. Gentleman has attacked the writer, may I ask him to remember and believe that that article was written with feelings of indignation which I still entertain? Will he also believe that it was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks and many others I could mention in his party, that I had in mind when I wrote that leaflet. The persons I had in mind were those engaged in a campaign of a despicable character calculated to lead to a loss of life in this country; and that is why I wrote the words of which the right hon. Gentleman complains. I ask him to believe that I had not in mind another hon. Member I see before me when I wrote those words. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He has taken a genuine interest in social reform, and when I spoke on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Act, I welcomed the co-operation, as it then seemed to me, of hon. Members opposite. I welcomed it, and I did so not only with my mouth but with my heart, because I wanted to see insurance, housing, and other questions of that kind lifted above party, and I thought we were getting some glimmerings of a non-party treatment of insurance and other matters of that kind.

Let him look at the leaflet entitled "The Nation Insured," and see whether there is one word—I do not say there are no inaccuracies in it, because that would be absurd—let him find one word in which I disgrace that great subject by reducing it to a party question. It was issued by the Liberal party, but whatever party it was was issued by I challenge any hon. Member of this House to find a single word in which the subject was treated as a party issue. I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand why I wrote the words which distressed him. I wrote them because I had before me the kind of thing I have quoted, articles full of calculated misrepresentations which I believe now, as I believed then, are calculated to rob a very large number of innocent people of benefits which they ought to enjoy. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe is going to speak in this Debate, and I ask him to dissociate himself from those writings, and do what he can to stop, that sort of thing. Let him not only criticise the writings of those who are opposed to him, but also have some regard to the cheap literature which is being used by his own party at the by-elections in this country. Let him join with us in putting before the public an Act which is admittedly full of difficulties, and let him recommend the Act to every citizen in the country, so as to enable them to get the best benefits they can out of it. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say what he is doing with regard to stemming all this misrepresentation. I hope he will say that he will be able to spread information with regard to the Act, and do something to stem the circulation of statements such as those I have referred to. There are only two more months at our disposal before the first contributions are to be collected, and I earnestly hope that the Insurance Commissioners will not merely take the steps they have taken at present to circulate leaflets, but also that they will see their way to do something to contradict directly statements with regard to the Act which will certainly bring loss, and very serious loss, to tens of thousands of people in this country.

Mr. H. W. FORSTER

I had not any intention of intervening in this Debate; but after the speech which has just been addressed to the House by the hon. Member opposite I am afraid I cannot altogether maintain silence. The hon. Member who has just sat down has addressed to me personally an appeal to dissociate myself from party attacks upon the Insurance Act. I can only say that an appeal of that kind, coming from him, comes from a very strange source. He complains of an attack which has been made upon him in his absence by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I heard my hon. Friend speak, but I did not hear him make any attack upon the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Money). I do not think my hon. Friend even mentioned his name. What he did do was to make an attack upon the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who is the chairman of the Liberal Insurance Committee, for a leaflet which was issued under their auspices, which I believe was written by the hon. Member who has just sat down.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

It was a left-handed attack.

Mr. FORSTER

At any rate, the attack was made upon the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury for having thrown the cloak of the Government over a leaflet which I have described in public as nauseous and revolting. I also had occasion to refer to this document in a letter I wrote to the newspapers, and I was moved to draw attention to the matter, not because I placed any great value upon the opinion or the expressions of the hon. Member who has just sat down, but because I thought it absolutely foreign to all the traditions of public life in this country that those who are responsible for the Government of the day should lend their authority to an attack upon the party opposite to them which I considered to be of so disgraceful a kind. I can assure the hon. Member I did not concern myself very vitally as to what he thought or said or wrote. I was concerned with the official action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a series of leaflets which I thought he imagined had been issued by the party to which I belong, but I understand he was quoting from a certain book prepared by one of the great daily newspapers, and I do not quite understand why he invites us to accept full responsibility for the statements therein contained.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

If the hon. Gentleman is addressing me, I attach responsibility to them for this reason, that several hon. Members who have been elected to this House during the last few months have publicly expressed their indebtedness to the "Daily Mail" for issuing those leaflets. They acknowledge they used them and attributed their success to them.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. FORSTER

Then we should "render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," and, if the hon. Member wanted to attack those who are responsible for the leaflets, I should have thought he would have attacked the "Daily Mail," which did issue them, and not the party which did not. The hon. Gentleman in connection with this matter, referred to a publication which was edited by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and one or two statements contained therein. He said, "how disgraceful it is, and how can you complain in face of the fact that in your publication you have said that the one result of the Insurance Act would be to drive, as I understand, strong members out of a society." I gather that was contained in one of the "Daily Mail" leaflets and not in the publication of my hon. Friend at all. He quarrelled with a sentence that was, I believe, contained in the publication of my hon. Friend, where it is pointed out that if, owing to fierce competition which is created among societies in the race to secure new members, they are driven to abandon medical examination, then there is grave reason to fear that the weak lives will be herded with the weak, if I may use the expression, and societies that are weak will become insolvent and the benefits will consequently have to be reduced. That is the forecast of the result of the Act contained in the pamphlet which my hon. Friend edited, and it is a matter for argument. A great many people still believe that my hon. Friend is right, and that the abandonment of medical examination will have a deteriorating influence upon the general level of health throughout the society. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) keeps up a running commentary which does not really disturb me, but I do not think it assists the argument. I say it is a matter for argument, and a great many people still believe that the abandonment of medical examination will lead to a general lowering of the level of health throughout the membership. If that argument is sound—and whether it is sound or not can only be proved by experience—then undoubtedly the Act will fail to give full benefit to the individual members of that particular society. Then the hon. Gentleman partially quoted another extract from the pamphlet, and pointed the finger of scorn at us because we voted for a Bill which one of our own Members who contributes to this pamphlet, as he says, describes the Act as rotten through and through. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Amery) described the finance of the Act, and not the Act itself, as rotten through and through, and I do not think the hon. Member for Northamptonshire need express such surprise that we did not altogether agree with the finance of the Act. If he had attended the Debates in Committee throughout he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester move an Amendment which was designed to create what I believe would have been a far better financial scheme than the one which the Act now contains. I should like in order to show how fair-minded is the attack made upon us and upon my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to complete the extract which he began to read from a speech which my hon. Friend delivered at Portsmouth. The hon. Member was moved to indignation by what he described as an attack upon the Insurance Commissioners, and he read two or three lines from my hon. Friend's speech:— The Insurance Commissioners in their despair"— He left out the word "laughter"— were trying to popularise the Act That is as far as the hon. Gentleman read. How did my hon. Friend go on?— by drawing the attention of employers to the Section under which, in return for six weeks' guaranteed pay in sickness, their contribution could be reduced by one penny for men, and one halfpenny for women. That offer was unjust to the employer. Does he still think that constitutes a grave attack upon the Insurance Commissioners for having ventured to point out one of the benefits. The Act says—

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

If the hon. Gentleman challenges me, let me say I considered it a most unfair thing for the hon. Member for Colchester to state to a public meeting, in depreciation of an Act administered by Civil servants, that the Civil servants are in despair. I say that is unfair and untrue.

Mr. FORSTER

I understand it was the use of the word "despair"—

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

I dwelt upon that.

Mr. FORSTER

That caused the wrath of the hon. Gentleman, and there was nothing further than that.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The whole innuendo. I think the hon. Gentleman had better refer to my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he wants me to make it again, I will do so with pleasure. [HON. MEMBEES: "Despair."] "The Insurance Commissioners in their despair were trying to popularise the Act by drawing attention," etc. The only possible understanding on the part of the audience was that the Insurance Commissioners were in despair, and were trying to draw attention to some features of the Act in order to give it a false popularity.

Mr. FORSTER

I grant the word "despair" is the only point at issue, because the Insurance Commissioners, acting under the authority of the Government themselves, are endeavouring to do this by sending official lecturers throughout the country.

Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

The hon. Gentleman must allow me—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has had a very fair opportunity of stating his case.

Mr. FORSTER

I do not want to do an injustice to the hon. Gentleman. I will, therefore, not pursue the subject further. But there is one thing I hope the Insurance Commissioners are directing their attention to. I referred to it in the Debate which took place not long ago, and that is the urgent need for immediate action on the part of the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester referred to the draft regulations circulated by the Commissioners, and in those regulations it is pointed out that three months only is given to those who are insured as soon as the Act comes into force. During that three months they will have to make up their minds whether they will join an approved society or whether they will exercise their option within that three months to become deposit contributors. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that these people stand in need of a special kind of insurance. They are already provided for in regard to sickness by their employers, but, so far as I know, there are practically no approved societies which offer them the alternative advantages, and they are not in a position to start with these societies themselves, because they have neither the knowledge, nor the time, nor, perhaps, the ability to do this work. I want to know whether the Insurance Commissioners are doing anything to encourage or to assist those who might be willing to start these societies, otherwise unless something is done and is done soon, the power which is given by Section 13 will, I am afraid, become wholly inoperative.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I feel some regret that polemics have been introduced into this discussion, and certain statements have been made to which I must make a reply. The hon. Member opposite, the Member for the Sevenoaks Division, complained that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had asked that every kind of party attack should be withdrawn. But that was not the request of my hon. Friend. His request was that Members opposite should repudiate the mendacious statements made. I think if we had made an appeal to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that any kind of party attack should be withdrawn, we should have a right to do so. I have never heard anyone rise from this side of the House without expressing respect and admiration for the attitude the hon. Gentleman first took up concerning this Bill, and his attitude in Committee, and the general way in which he has refused to accept the method adopted by some of his colleagues. No one ever imagined that he would make himself responsible for such nauseous trash as that contained in the so-called "Hard Facts," which is advertised as an "Election Winner," and which I believe has been used by his party in every by-election since the Bill was introduced. I think we do express regret, and I say it without cant, that he has been unable to see his way to carry out the promise he made last June, and that having done his best to modify the Bill and to make it a better Bill—and in some respects I gladly acknowledge his having succeeded—when the Bill became law he might not only himself, but through his great influence in his party, have ceased from that date to make the Bill a matter of party controversy in connection with the winning or losing of election seats. I am delighted at one thing, at all events, that this Debate has called forth: that is, the complete repudiation, both by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) and the hon. Gentleman who speaks in the name of the party opposite, of this particular form of electioneering literature. I hope that repudiation may be conveyed to Norfolk and South Hackney. I have only looked at it in a cursory manner. I find it is stuffed with every kind of mendacity. This is what is being used to give people information concerning the Act at various by-elections in the country:— Not only is the unfortunate Post Office contributor—remember that you may be one of them—robbed in this way, but he suffers a still greater injustice. He is branded as a man who on account, of his ill-health or other reasons, has been refined by an 'approved' society. His employer will know this as soon as he asks for work. It will be shown on his card. This is the speech of an agent of the Conservative party, taken down verbatim:— The Post Office contributor however whose life is not sufficiently vigorous to enable him to join an approved society, would be provided with a white card. What would be the first question the employer would ask? Instead of the question 'Are you strong?' as they had been accustomed to hear, it would be 'Let me look at your card.' Naturally the man with a red card would stand a better chance of securing a job than the man with a white card. When the same literature goes on to say that a medical certificate is demanded by all the best societies, which is also an absolute untruth, and when you realise that this statement about the red and white cards is a lie, brazen and apparently deliberate, I think we sometimes wonder at the difference between the very generous promise made by the hon. Gentleman last June, and the methods adopted by the friends of the hon. Gentleman when they wish to deceive the people of this country in the hope of gaining a small party victory.

Mr. FORSTER

As a matter of curiosity, have the Insurance Commissioners fixed the colours of the cards?

Mr. MASTERMAN

Yes, long ago they fixed the colour of the cards. Long ago they decided it, and long ago did the Chancellor of the Exchequer state in this House—it was last October—that there would be no distinguishable difference of any sort whatever between the card of the deposit contributor and the card of the approved society member. The whole thing is a figment, in order, apparently, to deceive some of the unhappy electors of this country. There is only one other word I will say before I get to more satisfactory matters. I think it is discreditable to our public life that when this Act does come into force it could not be supported by all parties until an amending Act can be passed. The hon. Member for South Somerset (Mr. Aubrey Herbert) complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attacked him in his absence. He has evidently got quits with the Chancellor of the Exchequer by attacking him, and then declining to wait for my reply.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT

I am here.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He made an interesting speech concerning the outworkers, on which I hope to be able to satisfy him, and he has every right to put their case before the House and the Government. What was the question upon which he complains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at tacked him? It had nothing to do with the outworkers at all. Because he issued a leaflet, or a leaflet was issued under his aegis in his election, which I suppose is one of the most disgraceful electioneering leaflets ever issued in this country—

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT

The point of my speech was far less the attack that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on me than the attack I was making on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having acted up to the pledges of his letter at a time when a by-election was going on in South Somerset, and everything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the meanness of making this a party question applies to the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. MASTERMAN

The hon. Member misses my point. If he had not referred to the Chancellor's attack on him I would have said nothing about it. He announces that the Chancellor of the Exchequer attacked him in his absence, and gave the House reason to believe he had no right to attack him. I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer attacked him for having permitted the issue during this by-election of one of the most scandalous leaflets which has ever been issued in any by-election in this country. It led every agricultural labourer to believe that the 4d. which they were going to be asked to pay for the Insurance Act for next July was going to pay the salaries of Members of Parliament.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT

I have already dealt with that point in a way absolutely satisfactory to every agricultural labourer in my Constituency.

Mr. MASTERMAN

The only dealing with it that I saw was when the hon. Member had not even the grace to withdraw it, but tried to defend it in a letter written to a paper. When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the nauseous cant of a leaflet issued by my right hon. Friend with an air of self-righteousness, and say we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, they might look a little nearer home and see what kind of stuff they have been issuing during these by-elections, which they are now prepared, quite cheerfully, to say have nothing to do with them; they only issued them to win the election, they did not issue them themselves. The hon. Member (Mr. Peel) seemed to assume that the only time we were considering the question of the outworkers was when there was a by-election in South Somerset. Five or six months before the Bill was introduced we were troubled with the question of outworkers, and were making investigations as to their condition.

Mr. PEEL

You refused to do anything, and sent a deputation away.

Mr. MASTERMAN

For twelve months the question was before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, and then, before anyone interested in social reform, and then before the whole of this Parliament. Invitations were issued again and again to hon. Members on that side and on this to give suggestions how best to deal with what has been found to be by far the most difficult problem in dealing with National Insurance. I am not aware that any particularly helpful suggestions have come from the hon. Member opposite or his Friends.

Mr. PEEL

You only acted at by-elections.

Mr. MASTERMAN

We did not do anything of the kind at all. We were acting all the time trying to obtain information how best to deal with this extraordinarily difficult and complicated problem. It baffled the House of Commons, it baffled us, it baffled various social reformers to whom we applied for information and for advice on the subject, and I am not sure it has not at present baffled the great National Insurance schemes of foreign countries. Everyone who has studied this subject, and who is not trying to make party capital out of it, knows what an extraordinarily difficult problem it is. Everyone who has studied the 250 close pages of the investigations and evidence before the Outworkers' Committee will realise how, even among the various representatives of employés and employers, there is a divergence of opinion how best to treat the problem. I think everyone will be grateful to the Committee for the way they have tackled the subject and for the advice they have given.

Mr. PEEL

What is their opinion as to the exclusion of married women?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think sixteen out of the thirty-two representatives of the employers, while agreeing to unmarried women being included, ask for the continuance of the exclusion of married women. The utmost that the Committee finally ask for is this:— The Committee are convinced that, no scheme can be considered as complete and permanently applicable to the whole body of outworkers, unless it provides for the ultimate inclusion of married women. The first thing we have to do is to see whether the scheme proposed by the Committee will work. That is a matter which is being considered by the Insurance Commissioners' Committee. We have no intention at present to make an order to bring in the various classes excluded under the Schedule. They may in future be brought in by request, but we have to see how this scheme will work before we make any order at all. We do not know how many will be included in this class which has been referred to, but we believe there will be very, very few indeed. We do not know whether they will want to come in, and on that question, long before we make a special order, I am quite prepared to consult with hon. Members who are interested.

Mr. CASSEL

Will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss it?

Mr. MASTERMAN

The method of dealing by special order is this: A special order is issued, and anyone who takes exception can object to it. A competent and impartial person will then be appointed to report on the objection, and that course will be open to Members of the House just as to people outside. There will be no special opportunity for the discussion of it in this House. We do not know whether the new scheme will be adopted, and we do not know whether, if adopted, it will work. We do not know what subsidiary effect it will have on the employment of married women and single women, or on the transference from the one class to the other. I am told there may be actuarial difficulties under paragraph (j) of the exceptions in Part II. of the First Schedule. We can only rely on learning by experience. Not being able to gain any satisfactory experience for 12 months, we have to see that the Act is put into force, and we have to learn by experience how best the problem may be dealt with. I am not sure that we shall not find the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) and his Friends, after the Act has been in operation for a few months, asking the inclusion of this special class of workers rather than that they should continue to be excluded.

Mr. PEEL

Are they to retain a preference for some time?

Mr. MASTERMAN

It is not a question of preference at all. We have no knowledge that there will be a preference. The next point was raised by the hon. Member for the Tonbridge Division of Kent (Captain Spender Clay) in a speech which, if I may say so, compared very favourably in its moderation and suggestion with some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon. He raised, and rightly raised, difficulties in connection with certain special classes of persons for whom, as their representative he has a special right to speak. The question of seasonal labour, of subsidiary employments, which are not the main means of livelihood, and how far hop-picking and fruit-picking can be included in such subsidiary employments, is engaging not only the study of the Insurance Commissioners, but also of the Advisory Committee, which consists largely of agricultural representatives. I hope to be able to report shortly after Whitsuntide. I have received many deputations on the subject, and I think I am familiar with the facts of the case, but if the hon. Member has any special points to bring before the Commissioners we shall be very glad to receive him at any time. He also drew my attention to the fact that in some cases private subscriptions had been used in order that advertisements may be obtained for the imparting of further information in connection with the working of the Act, and urged that that should not be left to private cost, but should be borne by the money voted by Parliament. I was very glad to hear that suggestion from him, because during all the earlier part of the year, when I was chairman of the Joint Committee in January I was subject to a perfect storm of obloquy and attack by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the very existence of a single lecturer, the spending of a single farthing, not as the hon. Gentleman said to popularise the Act, which is not the duty of the Commissioners, but to explain to the people the intricate details of the Act, and I shall certainly convey to the Insurance Commissioners the strong appeal made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge that more money should be used in order that more lectures should be given to more people in connection with the working of the Act. I was very glad to hear that recommendation of the hon. Member. The next point was raised by the hon. Member for Colchester, who, if I may say so without disrespect, is far better than some of his Friends, and in all the Debates with this House shows, what it would be almost indecent for me to say, not only a great grasp of the subject, but also great moderation in putting the points which he brings before us. I wish he could persuade his Friends to do the same. He asked me about draft regulations. Draft regulations, provisional regulations, and complete regulations are dealt with in the Rules Publication Act. Draft regulations have to be published for forty days before they conic into operation. Provisional regulations come into operation at once, immediately they are produced. The regulations which have urgency now, which are being made by the Commissioners, are being issued both as draft and provisional regulations. That is to say they will come into operation at once as provisional regulations, but, before they are made complete and full regulations there will be full opportunity for any criticism to be made either by people outside or inside the House.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Are there also provisional besides being draft?

Mr. MASTERMAN

Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS

And are now in force?

Mr. MASTERMAN

They will be in force from the day they are laid on the Table of the House. It is a good point, and I am glad of the opportunity of explaining it, but no provisional regulations will be made final regulations without a full opportunity for objections and criticisms to be made. In respect to the regulation which he has criticised, that regulation was laid before the Advisory Committee at its last meeting. It was revised by them and altered from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) wanted, to its present form on the advice of the Advisory Committee. The regulation originally allowed for a six months' waiting period within which a member could decide whether he would join an approved society. Practically the whole Advisory Committee asked for a three months' waiting period, and in consequence of that advice it was altered. That is to say, from July to October, no man will become a deposit contributor, but will have a full opportunity of joining an approved society, but only after October he will become a deposit contributor, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, ever after that he can still join an approved society and take his full reserve value with him.

As the hon. Gentleman has reminded me of that, perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of giving as much publicity as I can to an expression of gratitude for the work of the Advisory Committee. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the tone and temper with which the Advisory Committee are discussing the conditions and regulations are very different from the tone and temper in which some Members have been discussing the Act in the House. It is a very large Committee; it is not elected by us; it consists of representatives of great employers in this country, of trades unions and collecting societies, and a great number of clashing interests. There has not been a suggestion of a desire for postponement of the Act from any of them. From the employers individually we have had nothing but helpful criticism. I wish in our Debates instead of recrimination hon. Members would endeavour to help us in the same way as the Advisory Committee has helped us. Another point alluded to by the hon. Member for Colchester was that some personal imputation had been made against him. The hon. Member asked me to withdraw the statement made by one of our lecturers that certain members of friendly societies of a village felt urged towards dissolution by a misunderstanding of the Act due to the reading of a pamphlet issued by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). I cannot withdraw the statement, because the lecturer, not from any pride or temper, asserts to me that the statement is absolutely correct, and that the hon. Gentleman with his accustomed modesty, has really miscalculated the extent to which his pamphlet has worked among the rural districts of England. The statement is quite clear in the Act. Section 55, (Sub-section (2), says:—

"On a person of the age of 17 or upwards joining an approved society for the purposes of this part of this Act, there shall be credited to the society the reserve value (if any) appropriate to such person," etc.

The statement of the hon. Gentleman was:— On a person of seventeen and upwards joining a society the reserve value applicable to him shall be credited to the society, etc. It is because of that the lecturer was publicly questioned by a man who stated that "he was a member of a village society of this character which had agreed to dissolve because the society had not for some time secured many new members, and because it thought that no reserve would be created in respect to those persons who are at that time members of the society, but only in respect of those members joining the society after it became approved." The lecturer read out the actual words of the Act; but the interrupter countered him with the statement read out from the hon. Gentleman's pamphlet, and on being asked for the name of the publisher he said "It was Mr. Worthington-Evans."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Will the hon. Gentleman lay that paper?

Mr. MASTERMAN

Certainly, because I think the hon. Member for Colchester will see that there is no question of doubt about the matter. The lecturer states that this statement was made in public, and I have no reason to think that the lecturer is stating anything but what he believes to be true.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

May I remind the hon. Member that the president and secretary of the society say that nothing of the sort occurred, and that the statement, is quite inaccurate?

Mr. MASTERMAN

There were several societies represented at the meeting.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Was the particular society the Salem Sick Society?

Mr. MASTERMAN

That was the society, but I understand that the Members of all the local village societies were there. Really it is simply a matter of fact as to whether the hon. Gentleman's name was mentioned or not. Surely there need be no trouble about the matter. If the hon. Gentleman can show me, after conferring with the lecturer, that it was not mentioned, then the statement can be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington asked if we were taking any steps to counteract the various mendacities and misrepresentations which were being spread about the country in connection with the Insurance Act. We are continuing as far as possible to do so, both by the spread of pamphlets and leaflets, which I hope will be very greatly increased within the next two or three days, and by trying to meet the still unslackened demand for our lecturers. We are hardly able to meet a quarter of the demand for our lecturers from all over the country, and we are endeavouring to arrange for classes specially for members of trade unions and friendly societies to give purely authentic information concerning the effect of the Act. I cannot guarantee that all those statements will be immediately dispelled. What I can guarantee is that when through the natural process of time and the operations of the Act those who have been told those things find out how far they are from the truth they will not be particularly in love with those who gave them those particular statements.

The Act will come into operation on the 15th July, and I have never contemplated any other date for its coming into operation. The four Commissions are working for that date. Although a resolution which was not discussed was proposed many months ago by one of the great friendly societies suggesting delay, I would respectfully ask hon. Members to go to any members of the great friendly societies and find out whether they are not anxious that the Act should come into operation as speedily as possible. Postponement would be disastrous to the members of the friendly societies, and to all those who are making preparation for the Act to come into force, and to those who, if the Act was delayed, would be deprived of benefit. The cards are ready and will be distributed next month. Schemes which have been considered with the employers and the Advisory Committee for bulk payments in the case of large employers will also be issued probably next week, and certainly within a very short space of time. Immediately after Whitsuntide I hope to be able to announce that societies have been approved representing at the present time something like 4,500,000 of insured persons, in addition to industrial societies, collecting societies and companies which hold about 30,000,000 life policies, and whose number of insured persons we cannot at present estimate. Those numbers of approved persons will probably increase by several hundred thousands every week, and I should be very much surprised if they are not something like 10,000,000 by the 15th July. There will be then at least three months for the remainder of the insured to come in before they need become deposit contributors. Schemes under Clause 72 are not necessary for the Act to come into operation, because, as will be seen from a most ingenious table which has been circulated, and which is in the hands of a number of friendly societies, the Registrar has expressed himself willing to sanction provisional schemes which can be put into operation whereby the deductions can be met and solvent societies can fill up to the 4d. which is necessary and which shall be paid through the State contribution so that there will be no need for anyone to pay twice over. Those schemes can come into operation immediately, and will be in operation before 15th July.

Apparatus is being set up for dealing fully with various disputes that will arise. I anticipate a large amount of uncertainty at the beginning in connection with the exact position of a number of persons. I should not be in the least surprised or in the least dismayed if hundreds of thousands of persons did not know exactly the first week what their position was. The same number would not know their position if the Act was postponed for six months or a year. The only thing that will make them inquire and understand is the coming of the Act into operation, exactly as we found when we brought in the old age pension scheme. All the draft regulations which are necessary to bring the Act into operation are, I think, now approved. Most of them have been submitted to and approved by the Advisory Committee, and they are being circulated among the Members of this House for their information. I will not say a word, following the advice of the hon. Member for Taunton, in what I thought was the best sentence of his speech, in connection with the doctors, because most friendly and amicable negotiations are at present proceeding between the representatives of the doctors of the Advisory Committee and the Insurance Commission. I would not by suggestion or word, which might be misinterpreted, do anything which might make those negotiations have a less favourable outcome. It is perfectly true that there will be, and must be, a waiting period, during which many persons will be paying into insurance and not receiving benefits, and during which time misrepresentations may be circulated that they will never receive any such benefits at all. But what are the actual facts looking to the future? By the end of 1913, after the benefits have been in operation for a year, it is calculated by our actuaries that 800,000 mothers will have received maternity benefit to the value of 30s. by right of their husbands, and another 100,000 mothers by right of themselves being insured; that 2,500,000 persons, men and women, will have received sick pay from the National Insurance scheme; that at least 250,000 persons suffering from tuberculosis will have received one of the many varieties of treatment which have been suggested as suitable to their condition by the Tuberculosis Committee, and I should think that, as the result of the Insurance Act, a very large number of those persons will have received restoration of life after a sentence of death. If the hon. Member will raise the question of the Insurance Act on the Motion for Adjournment before the Whitsuntide Recess of 1914 he will not find much support for the kind of criticism that we have had this afternoon.

Sir J. D. REES

The Secretary to the Treasury, in representing the views of the employers and doctors on the Advisory Committee, seems to have got very far away from the views of the employers and doctors off the Advisory Committee. It was only a day or two ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking credit to himself for having banded the doctors together into a trade union, was prepared to threaten them with a legion of blacklegs and strike-breaking doctors to bear down their opposition if they did not meet him in his policy. Only quite recently Sir Charles Macara, representing many of the greatest industries in Lancashire, expressed views exactly opposite to those with which the hon. Gentleman has just credited the representatives of the employers upon the Advisory Committee. However, since the hon. Member will not be able to reply, I will not say any more about his speech. The hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money), when he pointed the finger of scorn at me in a significant and melodramatic manner, suggested that I was one of those members who had been elected on the issue of the Insurance Act. I do not agree with anything the hon. Member said, except perhaps that I should be rather inclined to admit that I, and any other Members who have recently been elected to this House, had actually been elected upon that issue. I really believe, this being necessarily a conjectural matter to some extent, that no conjecture is more likely to be within the four corners of fact than the conjecture that any of the Members who have recently been elected came in upon that Act. I happen to have been the first candidate in a by-election after the measure was brought in, and certainly the last since it was passed into law. I remember that there was no subject that came before the electorate to which they listened with so much interest, and no subject on which they so united in unanimous condemnation. The hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Treasury, referred to a National Insurance scheme as having been in force in Germany for many years. He did not mention that the official who has been responsible for the management of insurance for many years in Germany, throughout its life in fact, when he retired published a comprehensive condemnation of the system, and in the last words of his pamphlet referred to it as in some respects "a cancer on the body politic." These are facts which the hon. Gentleman did not deal with.

Though I am very unwilling to speak on this subject, and shall only deal with it a minute or two, since it has been raised and since the hon. Member has pointed to me as one who came here elected upon that issue, I need simply say that I believe myself that the Act in the recent by-election through which I went, in the former one in which I was, and in all the elections through which others have gone, has been unpopular to the last degree amongst the people of the country. It has been unpopular for the reason that under it men are taxed in proportion as they are doing good. They are taxed in proportion as they are employing their fellow-countrymen. They are not taxed upon profits; they are taxed upon the amount of labour that they employ. It is unpopular for the reason that it means an increase of unemployment; that it does not help those who need help—and is therefore not national—that it does help those who are helped and well helped; that it helps powerful societies that can well look after themselves; that it destroys and impairs private enterprise; that it was forced upon the country without proper consideration; that the bribes that are to be given to conciliate different interests will come out of the pockets of those who are to be bribed to their own detriment, which it is supposed that they will not see. For these reasons, I believe in all these by-elections this Act has been most unpopular, and there is a strong feeling throughout the country that its introduction should at least be postponed for another year.

As to East Nottingham, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, why a stronger case of condemnation of this Act than that cannot possibly be imagined. The candidate who represented the Liberals, and the Government side was an insurance lecturer. Whether as a Committee lecturer or a Liberal lecturer I cannot say, but his occupation was a lecturer upon this Act until it became apparent that a by-election was coming on. Then he shed the garb of a lecturer to put on the white robe of a candidate. It was a case very much like that of South Somerset, and a case very much like—I speak without knowledge here—that which has been alluded to as happening at West Norfolk. The hon. Gentleman, who has just left the House (Mr. Money), has condemned on every occasion the action of the Conservatives in respect to this Act, but I say that the strongest possible case can be made out for the condemnation of the action of his side. The proceedings at Nottingham emphasise that fact. You had a gentleman who was converted at a moment's notice from a lecturer into a candidate, who spent the whole of his time in explaining the provisions of this Act to the electors of Nottingham. So successful was he that by a very large, majority, when they really understood it, they rejected both the Act and him. I note the hon. Member has returned, and I am willing to leave the subject, to which I only referred because he brought me into it. Nevertheless I am glad to have the opportunity of making the few remarks I have about him and his speech.