§ (1) Regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners under Sub-section (4) of Section four of the principal Act shall provide for applying the contributions paid in respect of persons who hold certificates of exemption in providing medical benefit and sanatorium benefit for such persons 1328 and the cost of the administration of such benefits, and such persons shall, if they fulfil such conditions as may be imposed by those regulations, become entitled to medical benefit and sanatorium benefit as if they were members of approved societies, and the provisions of the principal Act and this Act with respect to the payment and administration of those benefits (including those relating to the application of moneys provided by Parliament towards the cost of those benefits and the expenses of the administration thereof) shall, subject to any modifications, adaptations, and exceptions contained in the regulations, apply accordingly.
§ Provided that—
- (a) if the condition so imposed require payment of a number of weekly contributions before the person becomes entitled to such benefits, that number shall not exceed twenty-six;
- (b) when the total income from all sources of any such person exceeds one hundred and sixty pounds a year he shall be required to make his own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment, and Sub-section (3) of Section fifteen of the principal Act shall apply accordingly.
§ (2) This Section shall apply to persons in Ireland with this modification, that the benefits to be provided shall be such as may be specified in a scheme framed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, but the sum to be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the cost of those benefits and the administration thereof shall be the same as if the benefits were benefits to insured persons.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I do so for the purpose of raising a very important point, namely, as to what ought to be done with that part of the contribution which is provided by the employer in the case of exempted persons. The House will remember that under Section 2 of the original Act there were two classes of people who could be exempted, a person in receipt of any pension or income of the annual value of £26 or upwards and not dependent upon his personal exertions, or partly or mainly dependent for livelihood on some other person. It is proposed in this particular Clause that the money paid by the employer shall be used for certain purposes. I want the House to consider 1329 whether those are the best uses that can be made of that particular money. Because I think there is no particular hurry why we should decide in this Bill the ultimate destination of that money; there is then no particular grievance in omitting this Clause from the Bill. These people pay nothing. They are absolutely non-contributory, and, therefore, not entitled, as a matter of fact, to anything. They either have money of their own or they have people looking after them. The reason the employer is asked to pay is to prevent preferential employment of those people, and to prevent other people being handicapped. Under the original Act it will be recalled that the Insurance Commissioners have no specific regulations with regard to those people, except the direction in the case of the provision of reserve values for those people who may subsequently become employed contributors, and presumably, applicable mainly to apprentices. I notice in the Annual Report on the National Insurance Act, Part I., that there is a remarkable set of figures dealing with these two particular cases of exemption. On page 169 of that Report we get the total number of certificates of exemption granted up to the 31st March, 1913, as 91,751. More than 50 per cent. of that number are people who are in receipt of a pension or income.
There are 27,235 who are granted exemption on the ground that they have a pension mainly in connection with the Navy, the Army, and the police, and there are 28,976 who have exemption on account of them having the income necessary to keep them outside the provisions of the Act, or altogether 56,211. When you come to the other Section, those who are dependent upon the exertions of some other individual, you find that the married women who are dependent upon their husbands, total no fewer that 19,292. Those people are not contributing anything, and are therefore not entitled to anything, but by this Clause are going to receive benefits which I suggest might be used for other purposes, and purposes which would help other classes of the community more deserving of help than they are. For instance, if you compare those 19,292 married women who are dependent on their husbands with the widow or the spinster who is casually employed, those married women may be receiving under this new Clause benefits which are denied to those other women. I think everybody in the House will agree that that class of woman is much more entitled to whatever benefit can be re- 1330 ceived than the married woman who is dependent upon her husband. Similarly, with the apprentices, who are the next class on this particular list. It is a very valuable thing to them to have this particular reserve value when they become employed contributors. As a matter of fact, in some cases those benefits will be a very large addition to the subsidy which is already provided for doctors under this Act, because if the House will turn it over in its mind it will realise that a large number of apprentices are sons of wealthy parents, apprentices, for instance, in the legal profession, in chartered accountancy, or in architects' offices, none of whom in any case would ever make any attempt to draw this particular benefit.
I may be asked what alternatives can be suggested, and I have thought of one or two which may lead the House to a useful discussion on this matter if they do not care to omit the Clause. There is the great problem of what is to be done ultimately with the deposit contributors under the original Act. It has been suggested before that they will ultimately have to be put into an approved society which may be handled by the Commissioners themselves. We all know that these deposit contributions are in a special class by themselves, and that it may be necessary to find money to put them in a position which would warrant us in setting up a special society under the control of the Commissioners. There is one object to which this money could be devoted, the subsidising of a society of deposit contributors. There is another suggestion which appeals to me even more than that, and that is the casual worker. The House knows that the casual worker may never be in benefit because of his inability to pay up arrears, and the conditions of his work are such that he is not able with the same facility as other workmen to achieve that purpose. Why not, then, have a scheme by subsidies to keep the casual worker in benefit by assisting him to pay up his arrears? There is a valuable object for which this money could be used. Thirdly, there are cases which I do not think ought to have arisen under the Act and to which I would have addressed myself had not the Amendment I put down been ruled out of order. Why not use some of this money to complete the medical service in cases of consultation and operations, and such matters as that? My principal point is that I do not understand the urgency now of this money, which is not contributed by these people, 1331 being used for these purposes when those are the figures of the first year's working with regard to exemptions. I think there are other uses to which this money could be devoted which would bring about very much more substantial results than those suggested in the Clause; therefore I beg to move.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThere was some debate upon this Clause in Committee, and I think that the result of that debate was that there was a general agreement that the scheme proposed for dealing with the contributions that come under this Section was the scheme which was most likely to benefit the persons affected. To begin with, I think I should take exception to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the money should be used outside the class of persons who are dealt with. He has suggested alternatives to which this money should go, but in so far as I have had experience of the working of this matter a good deal of the complaints have come not from the employed, but from the employers, who say, "Why should I pay for persons who are getting no benefit?" There is the reason, of course, that we do not want to encourage those persons at the expense of ordinary employed persons, and, therefore, we have to make this condition. But most of the employers are quite willing to agree if this money which they pay does go to the benefit of their own employés in respect of whom it is paid, and in that event a good deal, if not the whole, of their objection to it would cease. Therefore, I submit that any scheme that we prepare ought to have that condition laid down, that it should be a scheme for the benefit of the persons in whose respect this money is paid. Then there came the question before us of how much money we had got to pay, and that we could not find out until we had some months' experience of the Act. Even now we cannot say that we have any certain knowledge of the number of those exempt persons. On the one hand, exempt persons are always joining approved societies and coming into full insurance, as they realise the full advantages of full insurance, and, on the other hand, more persons come into the catalogue of exempt persons from time to time.
6.0 P.M.
But on the figures which are given our actuaries tell us that we should be safe 1332 in the scheme which we are propounding in this Bill—that is, the scheme to give to all these persons at least medical and sanatorium benefit. When I say "at least," I mean to signify that if there is any more money than that which would be used in providing medical and sanatorium benefits, it can be used later on for their advantage. In providing these benefits we are not taking away from them the possibility of obtaining maternity benefit or sickness benefit or any other, if it is proved, in time, that the money is available to meet those particular demands. The reason why it was necessary for us to bring in medical benefit under the Bill, instead of merely prescribing that the money should go to that benefit, was because the giving of medical benefit means a payment by the Exchequer which any other benefit would not mean. If it is desirable, as everyone seems to think it is, except myself, that money should be transferred from the State to the insured person, then, in so far as we are giving medical benefit, we are giving these people far greater advantages than they would have by giving them any other. They are getting medical attendance for the amount which is paid in respect of them, and that will cost the Government something like £20,000. Why did we choose medical benefit? A large number of these persons are pensioners of a certain age, and recommendations were made in respect, to them that what they wanted above all else was free medical attendance. Another considerable number are persons in very poor circumstances indeed, and who are not able to afford insurance. There are persons, for instance, living in the poorer districts of London, who have obtained exemption certificates because they are mainly dependent on other persons; they are working, and they would like insurance if they could afford it. Strong representations were made in their interests by women's trade unions and other working women's societies; it was stated that what was wanted by these persons, who are scarcely every really well, was medical attendance and treatment, and that if that, could be given it would be a very great boon. The employers, too, who are paying subscriptions, ought to have some voice in the matter. All those whom I have consulted on the matter say, "It would be in our interests as well as in the interests of the insured persons if you 1333 could give medical attendance, because the more they are kept well the better it is for us as well as for them." With such a concentration of interests upon this benefit, I think I had no alternative but to propose it to the House. It is a benefit only to be given by mutual insurance. Everyone has to come in in order that they may get medical benefit. Therefore we are turning this fund into a mutual insurance fund, and by the help of the contribution from the State it will be able to give all these people who need it medical attendance.
§ Mr. J. HOGGEMy quarrel is not at all with the nature of the benefit. My point is that here, in a Bill which has gone very hurriedly through the House and has not been considered in all its aspects, you are ear-marking for a particular purpose a sum of money which many of us think might be devoted more advantageously to other purposes. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the employers pay a contribution. But, after all, the employers get back that contribution from the community. There is no employer to-day who has not to a large extent passed on his share of contribution under the Insurance Act to the consumer, that is the general public. It is the general public in the long run who have to make this contribution, and the more effective purpose to which the money could be put would be in dealing with the poorer sections of the community, who are paying under considerable difficulty owing to the increased cost of living, rather than those people the list of whom I have read out. The right hon. Gentleman drew a pathetic picture of persons in the East End of London dependent on other people. But in this list there are only 3,724 out of 91,751. Nearly 75 per cent. of these people do not require this benefit nearly so much as the poor widows and spinsters engaged in casual employment. All I am asking is that the right hon. Gentleman should not ear-mark this fund in this particular way in a Bill which, after all, is only one contribution towards the Amendment of the original Act, but should leave it open so that these sums of money could be dealt with in other ways. I hope he will agree to that.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, after the word "benefit" ["providing medical benefit and sanatorium benefit"], to insert the words "or, in accordance with the scheme to be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, one or more 1334 of the other benefits or additional benefits set out in the principal Act if preferred."
Although the right hon. Gentleman has possibly made out a good case against eliminating the whole Clause, I do not think that what he has said militates against this particular Amendment. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be necessary to make a consequential alteration by inserting later in the Clause the words, "or such other benefits as aforesaid." I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should limit the benefits he is going to give to these persons to medical and sanatorium benefits. I do not see that there is any reason at all for so doing, because, after all, medical benefit will not be wanted by various classes of people who are to get the benefit of the employer's contribution. Take a man working under a medical practitioner. Such a man, if he happens to be an exempted person, obviously will not want medical benefit under this Clause. There are various other classes who might be named. It seems rather hard that if they do not want medical benefit, and do not happen to be suffering from tuberculosis, they should not be able to get some alternative benefit. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment it will not add in the least to the cost of the scheme. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman said it would be very difficult indeed to give alternative benefits, because actuarialy it might be almost impossible to arrange the benefits individually. I have, therefore, after consultation with an actuarial friend of mine, altered the Amendment by putting in the words "in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Insurance Commissioners." My friend assures me that it would be perfectly possible, by some pooling arrangement under regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners, to give alternative benefits if they happened to be required by any of these persons. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this Amendment favourably.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to second the Amendment.
I would point out that in the case of Ireland it is provided that. a scheme of benefits may be framed by the Commissioners. If it is possible to do it in the case of Ireland, it is a little difficult to see why it should be impossible on this side of St. George's Channel, unless there are some political reasons. All that my hon. Friend 1335 proposes is that the Commissioners should be empowered to frame a scheme for alternative benefits, and it would be only reasonable that that power should be given to the Commissioners on both sides of St. George's Channel.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI can disabuse the hon. Member's mind at once of any idea that any preferential treatment has been given to Ireland for any other reasons than the necessities of the case. The hon. Member for Salisbury suggests that we should give other ordinary or additional benefits. But you have only the employer's contribution, and my right hon. Friend has shown that it is very doubtful indeed whether you could provide sickness and disablement benefits if they were chosen. This is mutual insurance, and if you granted a choice to certain individuals you would not be able to carry out your scheme. For sickness or disablement benefit you want reserve values. You have not any reserve values here, and you have no machinery for creating them. Therefore, I think, we have done all we can with this particular fund. The acceptance of the Amendment would make it quite impossible to carry out the scheme.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman's arguments, if applied to the original Act, would have prevented the insertion of Section 13 as applicable to insured persons. What my hon. Friend is now suggesting is that these exempted persons who ought to get some insurance in respect of the employer's contribution should have, if they wish it, and the Insurance Commissioners formulate a scheme for the purpose, the same power of choice as is given to insured persons. Insured persons, if schemes are brought in by approved societies, can have alternative benefits under Section 13, and the same reasons which made the House at the last moment allow that Section to be put into the original Act ought to make the House accept my hon. Friend's Amendment on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman argued that they cannot have sickness or invalidity benefit because both these benefits require a reserve value. They do not require a reserve value. Why should they? It is better to have a reserve value because you can give a bigger benefit. But in the original Act those who are over sixty-five were entitled to sickness 1336 benefit, but there was no reserve value provided for them. If the right hon. Gentleman could provide a reserve value for exempted persons, they would be able to get a better benefit; but if he cannot provide a reserve value for them, at least he can give them the same sort of sickness benefit as was given to people over sixty-five years of age under the original Act. Neither of the arguments adduced by the Government really meet the case put forward by my hon. Friend. I hope the House will see that an alternative benefit is provided to the extent of the contribution. As it is, all that is intended to be given to these exempted persons is a benefit which absorbs about half the sum that is paid in contributions for them by their employers. The Report of the Insurance Commissioners has shown that about 11s. 4d.—I think it is 11s. 4d.—is the average that is paid in respect of each of these exempted persons. Seven-ninths of the medical and sanatorium benefits come, I think, to 5s. 7d. There is, therefore, a balance to their credit of 5s. or 5s. 9d.; and unless the whole of that is going to be absorbed in administrative expenses, there is certainly nothing against giving a reasonable alternative benefit. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESThis is just one of those arguments which, when put before the House, ought to make the Government adhere to the Clause and resist the Amendment. The arguments are that these exempted persons do not themselves contribute towards this benefit, and there was a proposal, therefore, that the benefits might be used for other people. That was resisted. Now an Amendment is before the House to the effect that not only should benefit be given to exempted persons, but that the exempted persons, who pay nothing, should have a choice of which benefit they should receive. The money to provide these benefits comes from the employers, and from the State, and it does seem to me that in deciding what benefits are to be given in relation to those contributions, we ought to consider the interests of the State and of those employers. Let me take a case of a pensioner. Most employers, I think, to-day would feel a sort of moral obligation if that person became ill to provide him or her with medical or sanatorium treatment. I think it is only right if we force the employer to pay a contribution in relation to that person, we should, at 1337 any rate, relieve the employer of that obligation to provide medical benefit for that person if he becomes ill. I do not say there is a legal, but a moral obligation. The same thing applies to sanatorium benefit. You refer to the State contribution, surely no better return can be given to the State for its contribution than that this exempted population should receive adequate medical or sanatorium treatment.
Mr. DENNISSMay I inquire what is going to be done with the other half of the amount referred to if medical and sanatorium benefit only takes one-half of the contributions? Will you not leave it to the Insurance Commissioners to frame some scheme which may give something in addition to the medical or sanatorium benefits, or some substituted benefit, which will cover the whole ground and not only use up part of the money? That is the real point!
§ Mr. MASTERMANI can answer that in a moment. There is another charge laid on this fund; that is a charge that money shall be provided out of this fund for reserve values if any of these people subsequently enter into insurance. It is a very important charge, though of rather an indefinite amount. We must keep a reserve in order to meet that charge, since we have no indication of what kind of average amount may be required to meet it. It will be perfectly possible that then whatever money is left may be used for such benefit. But let the hon. Member be quite clear: this is a separate fund. No money will be used except for the benefit of persons in that fund.
§ Mr. FORSTERI think what the right hon. Gentleman has just said really adds strength to the case that my hon. Friend behind me has made out. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know how much will be required out of the balance; how much will remain after medical and sanatorium benefit has been provided. It may not absorb the whole balance remaining to the credit of the insured individual. If the House accepts the Amendment, of my hon. Friend, the Insurance Commissioners, as soon as they are in a position to decide how much is needed for each one of those contributions, will be able to set themselves to work and frame a scale of benefit which will absorb the balance. If a scale of benefit were framed, each individual would be able to choose for himself what he would have. I really cannot 1338 see why the House should not adopt this suggestion. It will give a little elasticity. It will give a little time to the insured persons to choose. It will not inflict any damage upon anybody. I therefore hope the House will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYMay I, in a single word, point out to the hon. Gentleman opposite that we had this matter put forward in the Debates in connection with the principal Act? If the hon. Member will turn to Section 13 of the principal Act, he will see that where we gained elasticity we particularly exempted those two benefits, the medical and the sanatorium benefit, and we did not allow any of the insured persons to choose other benefits than those. The argument is precisely the same now. It was just because of the nature of these benefits that we decided to use them in this particular case.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThe speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is the kind of speech that I never let pass if I have an opportunity of protesting against them. It is the vice of the whole of this scheme of insurance, which is really making it so difficult of acceptance in the country; it is this insane idea that the people who sit here know so much more about the matter than everybody else, and than the people themselves concerned. For my part, I shall certainly vote for this Amendment, if pressed, for it seems to me perfectly clear that if you can give greater elasticity to this Act it is better to do so. That is a proposition which seems to me to be absolutetly incapable of refutation. I have heard no arguments against the position from either of the two Ministers who have spoken. It is quite plain that you can do this, because you are going to do it in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty misunderstood the argument of my hon. and learned Friend beside me. He did not suggest that there was any unfair favouritism to Ireland. What he suggested was that if you can give elasticity in Ireland, you can also do it in England. That seems to be a perfectly clear proposition. I cannot conceive any reason why it should not be carried out. The hon. Member who spoke a moment ago seemed to think that the question was one of what was fair to the State and what was fair to the employer. I protest altogether against that way of looking at it. The thing is, if you are to have this scheme at all, in 1339 what way can you give or do the most benefit to the people you pretend to benefit. That is the whole question. It appears to me, therefore, to be a question, not of whether the State or the employer would or would not like best this method of dealing with it. That is irrelevant. I do not myself agree with the hon. Member. I believe myself that the employer would take the same view as I do, that the great object was to benefit those who are entitled to benefit. The employer would not take any interest in it as to whether they were benefited in one way or another. In any case I certainly hope that this Amendment will be accepted, because it will give a measure of elasticity to this particular proposal.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am somewhat surprised, in view of the concluding remarks of the Noble Lord, that he did not support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI certainly should have supported it if the hon. Member had gone to a Division.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWe had no vocal evidence of the Noble Lord's support. It was certainly a much more rational Amendment upon which the Noble Lord might have intervened in our discussion. The Noble Lord dealt with this case as if people dealt with in this Clause were people who are being dealt with in order to be benefited. They are only brought under the Act, not for their benefit, but simply to prevent them having preferential treatment over other people. There is no suggestion that they have been brought under the Act at all in order to be benefited. Money is to be paid in respect of them. How is that money to be applied? The Amendment which is before the House at the present time insists that the whole of that money should be applied for the benefit of these people—mark you, people who are paying nothing themselves!
§ Lord ROBERT CECILNot this Amendment.
§ Mr. PRINGLECertainly.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIt merely provides, if you are to apply it to their benefit, that a certain measure of elasticity as to how it is to be applied shall be given.
§ Mr. PRINGLEA large part of the arguments which have been adduced in 1340 favour of the Amendment is that after you pay for medical and sanatorium benefit there is a considerable balance, and that this balance should also be applied by the Commissioners for the benefit of these people. I think it was the Noble Lord who made use of that suggestion.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILNo, no.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThat is the main suggestion at the root of the Amendment. If that be so, it prevents the Commissioners applying any part of the money for the benefit of the people to whom it should be and to whom it could be much more beneficially employed. As my hon. Friend beside me pointed out, these people are really paying nothing towards insurance at all. The contribution is a charge upon the employer alone. In the great majority of cases the employer does not himself really pay this contribution. He shifts it by enhancing the price of his commodity to the general community. By that enhancement this Act has laid a charge upon the general community. I think that if we do anything to provide that the money derived from this charge should be used exclusively for the benefit of the employed person in respect of whom it is paid, we are doing an injustice to a large number of the people in this country, we are being called upon, through this system of indirect taxation, to pay that which they can very ill afford.
§ Mr. HOGGEI would like the Secretary to the Treasury to explain one remark which he made in resisting this Amendment, which I should be prepared to support. I refer to the question of the necessity of retaining this money for the purpose of providing reserve values for certain people who afterwards will become employed contributors. That can only apply so far as I can ascertain, to apprentices. These apprentices number something over 12,000 out of a total of 91,000. Of those apprentices a large number are bound to be, and as a matter of fact are, the sons of people who have never come under this Insurance Act. They are young fellows, for instance, who are engaged in engineering works, and pupils to the legal and other professions. They will never come under this Act. Surely, then, the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury which applies merely to a residuum of men who are apprentices now, and afterwards become employed contributors—that it will absorb so much money that he cannot afford this elasticity is wrong. I appeal 1341 to him to be elastic himself in this matter and to yield.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt does not only apply to apprentices, but we must have the reserves values to enable those concerned to enter into insurance. As to the other question advanced, hon. Members will see that if any other benefit is substituted for medical benefit, it will, as a matter of fact, do an injury to these
§ particular persons. As to the third point, of course, it is quite impossible—and I think the hon. Member realises it—to give medical benefit which will extend after the age of seventy on a scheme of mutual insurance to include that.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 259.
1343| Division No. 258.] | AYES. | [6.29 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Glazebrook, Captain P. K. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Goldsmith, Frank | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Baird, J. L. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Grant, J. A. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Greene, Walter Raymond | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Barnston, Harry | Gretton, John | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Snowden, Philip |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bird, A. | Harris, Henry Percy | Stanier, Beville |
| Blair, Reginald | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Stanley, Hon. G, F. (Preston) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hoare, S. J. G. | Swift, Rigby |
| Cater, John | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Horner, Andrew Long | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hunt, Rowland | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Ingleby, Holcombe | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Dennis, E. R. B. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Mount, William Arthur | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Newdegate, F, A. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Fell, Arthur | Newman, John R. P. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Nield, Herbert | |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel |
| Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Pollock, Ernest Murray | |
| Forster, Henry William | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Duffy, William J. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Byles, Sir William Pollard | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) |
| Alden, Percy | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Elverston, Sir Harold |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Chancellor, H. G. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Essex, Sir Richard Walter |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Clancy, John Joseph | Falconer, James |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Clough, William | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Clynes, J. R. | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Ffrench, Peter |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Field, William |
| Barnes, George N. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Cotton, William Francis | Fitzgibbon, John |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Cowan, W. H. | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | France, G. A. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Crumley, Patrick | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Cullinan, John | Gill, A. H. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Ginnell, Laurence |
| Boland, John Pius | Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) | Gladstone, W. G. C. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Glanville, H. J. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dawes, J. A. | Goldstone, Frank |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | De Forest, Baron | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Brace, William | Delany, William | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Devlin, Joseph | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Dickinson, W. H. | Hackett, J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Dillon, John | Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Donelan, Captain A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Doris, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Meagher, Michael | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Hayward, Evan | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Hazleton, Richard | Middlebrook, William | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Millar, James Duncan | Rowlands, James |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Molloy, M. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Molteno, Percy Alport | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Hewart, Gordon | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Mooney, John J. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Hinds, John | Morgan, George Hay | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Morrell, Philip | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Hodge, John | Morison, Hector | Sheehy, David |
| Hogge, James Myles | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Shortt, Edward |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Muldoon, John | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Munro, R. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Smyth, Thomas F. |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Neilson, Francis | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| John, Edward Thomas | Nolan, Joseph | Sutton, John E. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Nattall, Harry | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Jones, William Carnarvonshire) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Doherty, Philip | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Keating Matthew | O'Donnell, Thomas | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Keilaway, Frederick George | O'Dowd, John | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Grady, James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| King, Joseph | O'Malley, William | Wadsworth, John |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Lardner, James C. R. | O'Shee, James John | Wardle, George J. |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Waring, Walter |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Outhwaite, R. L. | Webb, H. |
| Leach, Charles | Palmer, Godfrey | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Parker, James (Halifax) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Lundon, Thomas | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Lynch, A. A. | Pointer, Joseph | Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| McGhee, Richard | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Maclean, Donald | Pringle, William M. R. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Radford, George Heynes | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| M'Callum, Sir John M. | Reddy, M. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | |
| Manfield, Harry | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "if," and if that be agreed to I shall move various consequential Amendments which are upon the Paper.
As this proviso reads in the Bill, I venture to think it either makes nonsense, or will not achieve what the right hon. Gentleman intends. What is done here is to say that these exempted persons fulfilling certain conditions which are the conditions in the Commissioners' regulations shall become entitled to medical and sanatorium benefit as if they were members of approved societies, and it goes on to say:—
Provided that if the condition so imposed require payment of a number of weekly contributions before the 1344 person becomes entitled to such benefits, that number shall not exceed twenty-six.What is the effect of that? The conditions contained in the regulations, and already imposed upon the persons affected by them, and we will suppose that the conditions provide for payment of no more than twenty-six weekly contributions. We look to the proviso to see what happens, and we read that in spite of that, that "if the number shall have exceeded twenty-six." It means that if the number exceeds twenty-six, it shall be read down to twenty-six. I propose to recast the Clause so that it should read, "Provided that the conditions so imposed shall not require payment of upwards of twenty-six weekly contributions before the person 1345 becomes entitled to such benefits." I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, and if it is, I should like to see these words adopted in place of what is at best a very vague expression.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe hon. Member says that if we pass these Amendments they will make the Clause more intelligible. That being so, we shall be glad to accept them.
§ Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "condition" ["if the conditions so imposed"], and insert instead thereof the word "conditions."
§ Leave out the word "imposed," and insert instead thereof the words "shall not."
§ Leave out the words "a number of" ["payment of a number of weekly contributions"], and insert instead thereof the words "upwards of twenty-six."
§ Leave out the words "the number shall not exceed twenty-six."
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Ireland" ["This Section shall apply to persons in Ireland"], to insert the word "Scotland."
If this Amendment be accepted, I shall propose a further Amendment to insert after the word "Irish" ["framed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners"], to insert the word "Scottish." That would then read that the Section shall apply to persons in Ireland and Scotland, and that schemes can be prepared by both Commissioners. There is another Clause later on on which the general question of national treatment can be raised, but I am now raising this question in order to have an explanation as to why this is confined to Ireland. I understand one of the reasons that it is confined to Ireland is because of the question of doctors. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has noticed the Order Paper with the notice of Motion in connection with the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Bill, for Scotland, because if he has he will be acquainted already with the fact that there are a very large number of places in Scotland where a similar condition exists. It is true obviously that if you are going to 1346 allow Ireland and the Irish Commissioners for a particular local reason elasticity in framing certain conditions, that elasticity ought surely to be extended to Scotland also! The Highlands and Islands Medical Service is designed to meet certain conditions in Scotland which do not arise elsewhere. That in itself proved that the conditions in different countries require elasticity, and I am moving this Amendment in order that we may hear some explanation as to why that elasticity should not apply to Scotland.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to second the Amendment.
On the previous Amendment I pointed out that Ireland was given elasticity which was not given to the rest of the United Kingdom. If we cannot secure that elasticity for England and Wales, let us at all events secure it for Scotland, and make it quite clear that what is impossible for England and Wales is possible for Scotland.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis point is as clear as the noonday sun. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] The hon. Member said he could not understand why an exception was made in the case of Ireland. May I point out that there was no question of Ireland at all as the Bill was originally brought in, but it was immediately pointed out that there was no medical benefit in Ireland unless it was provided for all in Ireland? I have no doubt that when medical benefit is provided in Ireland in years or months to come, then this particular class of persons will have medical benefit just the same as in England or in Scotland. That is the only reason why the distinction is made in the case of Ireland. I cannot see why distinction should be made between England and Scotland, because the conditions are similar. I do not know that I need occupy the time of the House in repeating the arguments on that point. All the employers I have consulted, and all those who have a right to speak for those interested on this point, are in favour of the course we have taken.
§ Amendment negatived.