§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Mr. FORSTERI am not going to reiterate speeches which I have already made in connection with this Bill. It would be impossible to deal comprehensively with a Bill which deals with so many detached administrative details. It cannot really be described as a large and comprehensive measure of reform when dealing with so many administrative points, though not in any large measure with the benefits or the main structure of the Act. It does deal to a certain extent with benefits. So far as it does, it carries out the recommendations which were made in this House two years ago by the party to which I belong. We then urged upon the Government, I think without exception, every one of the points with which they have now dealt in this the latest of their Insurance Bills. If the Government had listened a little more carefully to the advice that we then gave them, there would not have been the necessity for dealing with these matters of administration—at any rate on the present occasion. So far as they are sound, I hope that the new proposals will do something to make less arduous, less difficult, and less impossible, the task of those humble individuals who are concerned throughout the country in carrying out the administration of the Act.
I am not going to dilate upon these topics; the hour is much too late. I suppose it is only a fitting sequel to the earlier treatment of this measure, that we should be invited to embark upon the Third Reading Debate at half-past eleven o'clock at night. The House will remember that this Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute rule, that it was hurried through its Second 1910 Reading, was then committed to the obscurity of a Grand Committee, was rushed through Report, and now its Third Reading is taken at this hour at night. It really looks as if the Government were ashamed of their latest measure. They need not be ashamed of it. It is quite a respectable measure and if it were judged merely by the number and length of its Clauses it is really almost more than respectable. It is a very different Bill from what it was when introduced. The modest measure of reform which the Government introduced consisted of thirteen Clauses. It emerged from Grand Committee not with thirteen but with forty-one Clauses. The House may well wonder how this magic change has taken place. I think the change has taken place because the Committee undertook a task which apparently the Government were unwilling to face. I have never been able to understand since this Bill was introduced why it was that the Government were content to frame so meagre a measure of reform, and still less have I been able to understand why they postponed its introduction to so late a period of the Session.
The various points with which the Bill dealt and with which we were concerned in Committee, were points of constant occurrence calling for instant remedy. They were matters of common knowledge for weeks and months past. The Government, the Insurance Commissioners, the Insurance Committees know that, and I should think there is hardly a Member of the House who has taken the slightest interest in the question who had not known many of the difficulties brought before us in the Committee. These difficulties were not dealt with by the Government when they introduced their Bill. I say the course the Government have taken in introducing this Bill as late as they did was unfair to the Committee to which they sent it, and was unfair to the insured community. It is perfectly obvious the Government never meant really to tackle the larger administrative difficulties with which the Committee had to deal. I do not believe they ever meant to do more than tinker with the Insurance Act, and remove some of the more glaring anomalies which had been forced upon their attention as a result of a recent by-election.
When we got the Bill in Committee, what happened? The Government finding that they met with assistance in the con- 1911 sideration of their proposals, shuffled the responsibility on to the Committee and took advantage of the willing co-operation of Members of all parties on that Committee to have Amendments put down which ought to have been brought forward as Government Amendments, and which appeared upon the Paper in the names of private Members. I do not complain of that, but if those were the lines on which they intended to deal with this Bill in Committee, they ought to have given to that Committee full, free, and unfettered opportunities of bringing forward proposals in more detail. The Government adopted the somewhat subterranean course of accepting Amendments to the Bill which they were unwilling to make themselves. We discussed the measure in Committee until the Government told us that the last hour had arrived, and then they put an intolerable strain upon the members of the Committee. It was no light strain to consider day after day all the Clauses brought before the Committee. We sat under circumstances of exceptional difficulty, but we were not fairly treated by the Government in the extreme pressure they put upon us. The time allowed was wholly inadequate, and when the Government told us that we had to choose between refraining from moving our Amendments or jeopardising the fate of the Bill, the party to which I belong were put in a position of extreme difficulty. On the one hand we had to choose between refraining from pressing Amendments which we thought were desirable and thus jeopardising the Bill, or else we had to submit to a kind of voluntary closure which was extremely distasteful to us and which we believe was fraught with danger to the insured community.
We never had the slightest desire to prevent the Bill from passing into law, and the action which the Government took placed us in a difficulty into which we need not have been driven if the Government had given us fuller time for discussion. We were obliged to throw upon the Government the whole responsibility for the Clauses which they chose to adopt after the time had come when they told us that the Committee stage must be brought to a close. It was under these circumstances that we looked on almost in a state of suspended animation whilst the Government adopted no fewer than twenty-five Clauses which appeared in the names of 1912 private Members. I confess that I was a little astonished when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury after bringing the proceedings to a close and adopting twenty-five new Clauses, got up and solemnly commented upon the inconvenience of the power that was given to private Members to put down new Clauses to a Bill of this kind. I was still more amazed to hear him say that in his view some cheek upon this power of putting down new Clauses would have to be devised in the future.
It is very lucky for those who will be called upon to administer this Act in the future that the power of the members of the Committee still remained unchecked, to put down the large number of new Clauses which the right hon. Gentlemen subsequently adopted on behalf of the Government. We found ourselves under the same insistent pressure of time when we came to the Report stage, and we find it to-night. We have striven as far as lay within our power to lay on one side while we were considering the details of this Bill all questions of party difference and all party considerations of any sort or kind. From the moment this Bill was introduced, throughout the Committee stage and since, we have been animated by one object and one object alone, and that was to secure for the 14,000,000 insured people and the vast army of humble individuals who are striving with the almost impossible task of understanding the mass of regulations in which they are involved in administering this Act, some improvement of their lot and their condition. If this Bill confers upon them any benefit, and I hope that it will, then neither I nor any of my hon. Friends who have been associated with me will regret any of the efforts which we have made in connection with it.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)The hon. Gentleman was so full of goodwill and helpfulness in our discussion in the Committee upstairs and on Report in this House that I find it in my heart to turn to-him the other cheek when he is smiting. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to be offensive in anything he said. That I am quite sure he could never be. I join at once in admitting what he has said as to the desire of some of his friends to help us in our task. I should like to bear testimony to the spirit of goodwill which prevailed throughout the eight days that we were engaged in our work upstairs. Throughout those proceedings I noticed 1913 with infinite satisfaction—I hope that I may say that without mpertinence—the complete singleness of purpose which hon. Members of all parties brought to our discussions, and I entirely agree that the spirit of partisanship and of party recrimination was altogether absent, and, though they are political opponents of mine, I desire to express my admiration of the way hon. Members like the hon. Gentleman himself, the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst), the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), and indeed, hon. Members in all parts of the House came to the task of improving and extending the usefulness of this measure. It went upstairs containing thirteen Clauses and one Schedule: it came down with forty-one Clauses and two Schedules. It embodies contributions thankfully received from all quarters. Our policy within the limits of time at our disposal—upon which the hon. Gentleman has commented—and within the limits of money at our disposal, has been, as I think he will be the first to admit, impartially to consider and if possible to adopt and adapt any suggestions made to us. Throughout we have been in friendly council in the Grand Committee in order that this great scheme so newly entered upon—this great State intervention into the social conditions of the people may work more smoothly and more effectively. And, if I may say so, I am sure that all those who have taken part in the work will agree with me that in that common endeavour the patience, the tact, the urbanity, and the very detailed knowledge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has been invaluable to us.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer conceived this great purpose and determined to bring the whole of the industrial population—speaking generally—within the operation of his scheme, many miscellaneous and casual callings on the fringe of the army of established workers presented a difficulty, and the temptation to take the easier path and leave many out possibly presented itself to him. If it did he resisted it, and why? Because those whose inclusion presented the greatest difficulty are precisely those who need the protection of insurance. Therefore he undertook the task, but not without the fullest appreciation of the fact that this great endeavour would need the closest and most solicitous watching. That has been given to it. This Bill, with 1914 assistance of hon. Members of all parties, is the result and the first result. What does it propose? Let me state that briefly. It proposes the raising of the sick pay for persons over fifty years of age to the full benefit level. That change, if this Bill becomes law, will take place not later than the 13th October next. It proposes throwing open the medical benefit to all persons irrespective of age, and that will come into operation on the 15th January next. It proposes striking out the obligation on the part of the workman in arrears to pay the employer's as well as his own contribution. It declares that the maternity shall in every case be the mother's benefit. It further provides for the removal of the insured disability under which an insured British girl rests if she marries an alien. It fixes the price of the marriage certificate at one shilling. It improves, thanks largely to the Noble Lord the Member for South Notts, the machinery for meeting the cases of people on the lower rates of wages.
All these reforms are no tinkering reforms, and it will not be denied that they are reforms which go to make the original Act work more smoothly. They will tend to make it less difficult for poor people to cope with days of necessity; it gives them a full title to claim the assistance of the scheme of National Insurance. One word more and I have done. There are none of us, I think, who do not look with great hope and great expectations to the working of Clause 18. There we give the Commissioners general powers to frame schemes for applying the system of national insurance to the case of the casual labourer and to those whose employment is of an intermittent character. The task of retaining the casually and intermittently employed effectively in the fold of insurance is one of great difficulty, but the necessity is greater than the difficulty. It will be for the Commissioners to survey the conditions of industries calling for special treatment, to survey them patiently, circumspectly and sympathetically, to consult all interests of employers and employed, and to see whether the scheme of insurance cannot, subject to the prescriptions of Clause 18, be so adapted. I am sure that in many cases they will be successful in making it more easily possible for the employed persons in question to continue eligible, should the necessity arise, to receive the ministrations of the Act. I desire to say, in all sincerity and without any affectation, 1915 that I am glad to have been privileged to play a small part in accomplishing of this good work. If the Bill passes into law, as I hope and believe it will, it will go on its mission with the good wishes of all men who love their country.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman tempts me to deal with some of the points to which he has referred. He told us that the mild chiding of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) tempted him to present the other cheek to the Opposition. I do not propose to attempt to do harm to that other cheek in any violent manner, especially after his intentional efforts to disarm hostile criticism from this side. He was even too kind to us on this occasion. We might wish that he would use some of the words his political leaders use on the platform outside. Perhaps now that he is appealing from time to time for co-operation, and thinks he has received co-operation, he might modify some of the expressions the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks fit to use outside. He told us that the Government had dealt with every Amendment which had been proposed with an impartiality which was beyond praise, and that they had attempted to consider all the Amendments that had been proposed. He was present in the Committee, and must not be surprised if some of us think that there was not exactly that impartiality which he would lead the House now to suppose had been exhibited. We do not forget that on the eight day of the Committee proceedings the Secretary to the Treasury announced that if we went on longer the Bill would be jeopardised, and led us to believe that it was a choice between accepting what would be done on that day and losing the Bill. He cannot forget that Amendment after Amendment that had been put down by hon. Members on this side of the House and also from other Harts of the House were cut out because there was no time to consider them.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)New Clauses, not Amendments.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSTechnically they were new Clauses, but they were in fact Amendments to the principal Act. Those Amendments, or new Clauses, were in many cases largely intended to improve the administration of the Act and 1916 strengthen what we believe to be the weak places in the Act. Some of them required that the Reserve Value Fund should be altered, and did require a slight increase in the charge upon the State. That being so, it was impossible on Report to deal with those Amendments, and of course the Government adopted, very unwisely, a course which had the effect of cutting out the various Amendments which we had proposed for that purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman says this is not a Bill tinkering with the Act, but it seems to me that it is still a Bill tinkering with the Act—putting a patch on here and dealing with this or that little point without really going to the root of the difficulty that we have got in National Insurance. The real difficulties that present themselves now are two. First there is a large number of people who are obliged to contribute, whether they like it or not, without any reasonable chance of getting benefit in exchange for their contributions. The second difficulty is that we know, even from the short experience of the Act in operation, that the financial basis is at least in jeopardy. Claims are being made in excess of the financial provisions of the Act and instead of strengthening the financial basis, instead of providing for these extra claims, extra liabilities are being heaped on the Insurance Fund and the money is being spent for further benefits, for tinkering measures largely, I am afraid, to gain for the Bill a popularity which at present does not exist. In administration an effort was made from this side of the House to improve the administration as we thought, to lessen the cost of the administration as we thought, by abolishing the four Commissions and concentrating power in one Commission.
The Secretary to the Treasury made a rather curious admission last night. He admitted that except for a promise that he gave to placate hon. Gentlemen representing the Labour party, the Amendment which was moved to abolish the Commissions would have been carried in Committee. I do not think anyone can doubt that what he said was true. He promised a new Clause which he hoped would meet a grievance of the Labour party. As soon as that came up on Report we find that another part of the coalition which supports the Government opposes the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman had thrown as a sop to 1917 the Labour party to prevent them supporting the Amendment to abolish the Commissions, and here we have in miniature what is going on in this House in the Coalition Government which supports and has passed measures of Home Rule. The sop to the Labour party prevents them from abolishing the Home Rule efforts in these four Commissions. Another sop to the Scotch party last night prevents them also from voting against the Government and cutting out the little douceur which had been given to the Labour party to save the Government from defeat upstairs. Then the right hon. Gentleman was boasting that this Bill had provided a scheme for dealing with the problem of casual labour.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAA scheme from which we hope a great deal.
§ 12.0 M
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI hope the right hon. Gentleman's hope may be realised. It is not in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is now much more modest than the Chancellor of the Exchequer was when he introduced the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said, "In this Bill are provisions for dealing with the problem of casual labour." There are no such provisions in the Bill. All that there is in the Bill is further power to the Insurance Commissioners to create a scheme if they can find one to deal with casual labour. The Committee did not consider the question of casual labour. Not a single suggestion was made for giving those engaged in it any benefit for their contributions. Far from solving the problem you have only just started to recognise that this is a problem. You have passed the problem on to the Insurance Commissioners to try to find a solution. You have found no solution. You have left the grievance—and a real grievance it is—of taxing those who can least afford it for benefits which are purely illusory and visionary. In conclusion I wish to express agreement with that tribute that has been paid to the Secretary to the Treasury for the courtesy which in the difficult conditions that existed in Committee upstairs he showed to all Members who were working on that Committee. No one who knows the difficulty of national insurance can fail to appreciate the knowledge that he displayed and the hard work that he put in on this subject, and if we cannot always agree we nevertheless appreciate the good intentions that he has exhibited throughout in his conduct of this Bill.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDIt may be well to say a few words in view of the reiterated statements by hon. Members opposite as to taxing the people who ought not to be taxed to provide benefits for those who do not want them. If this thing goes on much longer hon. Members will find that there will be a very serious agitation among the workmen of the country that this should be made a non-contributory measure, and that the toal expense should be put upon the State. I dare say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find ways and means of doing that if it is forced upon him by the constant declaration that the voluntary contributions of the workers are an odious tax that ought to be resisted. The Labour Members will not be able to resist that demand if the party opposite keep reiterating it much longer on the public platform and in this House. Those who are managing these societies can see already some of the results of these constant attacks upon the contributions of the workmen towards this scheme. If it were not for these attacks these contributions could be considered a settled policy. We tried to make it so. It would have been a much more easy matter for us on these Benches to have supported a non-contributory scheme. We have resisted that up to now, but I would like to give hon. Members opposite a word of warning, that if this constant agitation by the party opposite continues there will be a serious demand that the contributions from the workmen should cease altogether and that the extra cost should be met by a graduated Income Tax. That is the demand which would unquestionably be made. I venture to suggest that, it would be wise of hon. Members to consider not so much the immediate advantage of making a little party capital out of the contribution of the workmen as the disadvantage which will accrue if the workmen come to the conclusion that they ought not to be asked to contribute directly to the scheme.
I wish to refer to the question of administration expenses. That is a subject which can only be dealt with by legislation proposed by the Government. I should imagine that after some little time my own society may be able to keep within the limit. Perhaps it may even be necessary to saddle the expenses of the working of the Act upon the ordinary society funds. That is a problem which sooner or later will have to be dealt with. Probably the Government and the Commissioners are right in leaving it until they have had more 1919 experience of the working of the Act. I believe that Clause 15 of this Bill will enable me to keep within the margin allowed. The correspondence relating to transfer and retransfer is more than half of the work of the society. There is therefore even in this Bill something done in the direction of lightening the expenses. Under the old Act societies are obliged to, defend the benefit side of their account by taking proceedings against employers to secure compensation, if they believe that the member is entitled to compensation. My own society in three cases took proceedings against employers in the Liverpool County Court for compensation. We paid the men until the case was settled the ordinary State benefits on the understanding that the payments would be returned the moment the cases were settled, one way or another. Fortunately the cases were decided in favour of the men and compensation was secured.
We were advised by our legal advisers that special medical evidence was necessary to ensure that the men would get compensation. Special medical evidence was required, and though we won the cases, the costs amounted to £8 8s., which could not be obtained according to the ordinary rules of the Court relating to the subject. We shall have saved from £30 to £40 to the benefit side of insurance under the Act by taking this action. It would be imagined that the cost of proceedings which resulted to the advantage of the benefit side of the society would have come out of the benefit funds; but no, we have been informed by the Commissioners that the expense of bringing the necessary proceedings to safeguard the interest of the sick side of insurance must be paid out of the administration funds. That seems to me to be adding to the difficulties of administration, because those societies which are already cutting it as fine as they possibly can, will not take proceedings if they think that the whole of the expense is to fall upon the administration account, making it almost impossible to continue upon their present lines. For that reason I should have liked the matter to be dealt with, for I think the cost of steps necessary to protect the sick side of insurance should be taken out of the sick funds and not out of administration funds.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI should like to endorse the well deserved tribute paid just now by my hon. Friend to the Financial 1920 Secretary to the Treasury for his able and sympathetic conduct of this Bill in Committee. We appreciated his courtesy, and we appreciated no less his sincere endeavour to adopt our suggestions and to meet our objections to the Bill. I think it is only fair to the Chairman of the Committee to say that if we did get through our business well upstairs, it was in no small measure due to the very tactful and courteous way in which he conducted the proceedings. I candidly admit that the Bill has done something to ease the lot of the older insured persons. It also has done something to remove the difficulties of those who are in arrears and out of employment through no fault of their own. It has, further, done much to remove administrative difficulties. But I want to take this opportunity of saying that I, for my part, cannot admit that it has removed any of the more serious defects to the national scheme of insurance. In my opinion those defects cannot be removed without tearing up the National Insurance Act, and I devoutly for my part wish that process could be carried out. In the first place, no attempt whatever has been made to differentiate between the treatment of the healthy and poor rural workers and the less healthy and much more prosperous artisans in towns. And when I consider the threat which was uttered just now by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), I cannot help feeling that if the rural workers were an organised force in this country and in this House they would not have received such shameful treatment as they have received under the National Insurance Act. In addition to that, nothing whatever has been done to give the real and genuine benefits of mutual insurance to the deposit contributors—that class of the community which deserves the assistance of the beneficent efforts of this House in the way of health insurance more than any other class in the body politic.
Nothing or very little has been done to save the small friendly societies from extinction. Most of them have ceased to be, at any rate in the rural districts, and I am bound to say that neither this Amending Bill nor the administration of the Commissioners has done anything to preserve their useful existence. Above all, nothing has been done by this Bill to preserve the self respect, the self government and the vitality of those great friendly society Orders, who by promoting thrift, resourcefulness and manly independence, have 1921 made it possible by laying a good foundation to inaugurate a national scheme of insurance at all. My own strong impression, and I regret it, is that those great friendly society Orders are destined in the future to be mere conduit pipes for the distribution of Government funds. I know that they resent their present position, and I for my part do not see that as the result of this Amending Bill their position is going to be bettered or their self-respect and independence is going to be restored in any way to them. It is perfectly true that this scheme of national insurance, as amended by this Bill, has brought, and I have no doubt will bring, some substantial advantage to many classes of working people in this country. No doubt it is in a real sense fruit and refreshing fruit to many classes of workers, but what I do hold is that that refreshing fruit is of such a rare kind that it is dear at the price, at any rate to the poorest class of workers in the country, and until something genuine can be done to deal equitably with the poorest and most unorganised class of workers in the country to be found in the rural districts, I for my own part shall continue to express the hope that the Act, which was founded on a wrong basis, shall be repealed or at the earliest date torn up and an entirely new system of national insurance substituted for it.
§ Mr. BOOTHI have not risen for the purpose of dealing with the remarks that have been made from the other side, all of which I have heard so often and with none of which do I agree. I rise at the request of a considerable body of approved societies to correct a statement which was made in this House by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). He has complained to-day that Amendments he wished were not inserted in the Bill. One of those particular Amendments was moved yesterday. I think he will agree it was a serious Amendment and involved serious structural alterations in the Bill. The hon. Member said, and I am quoting front col. 1561 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that his Amendment was supported by every representative body of the approved societies. When he was challenged by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Hogge) he went on to say that a similar Amendment had been put down by some other Member, and he went on to specify the kind of society that supported it. He distinctly named collecting societies. He also named the more modern approved industrial societies, that in collecting socie- 1922 ties and industrial societies. They asked me to take this, the earliest opportunity, of repudiating emphatically the words of the hon. Member for Colchester.
There was not the slightest foundation for them, and I am utterly amazed that the hon. Member should have made them in this House. The position of these societies is very well defined. Nineteen of these societies—I will not trouble the House with their names—joined in a national conference. The president of that conference was Mr. Thompson, the manager of the Prudential Assurance Company, the largest approved society under the Act. Mr. Thompson, in a speech which was not only endorsed by the societies present, but of which they circulated copies to their workers and members, used these words. I am quoting from the report in the "Times":—
They were strongly of opinion that the time had not arrived for making what might be called structural alterations in the working of the Act in view of the limited experience they had had of its working. In these circumstances, he felt sure he was representing the view of all the industrial approved societies in say-that they were not prepared to advocate any serious amendment of the Act at the present time.That was the view of these approved societies whose members number about 5,000,000. It was their view then; it is their view now; and my conduct throughout has been guided entirely by that. It is most improper to mention them as being in support of a controversial Amendment which goes directly against their stated policy. These institutions do not engage in controversy about the Act; they consider it their duty to be loyal to the work of carrying it out. They would do that if a Conservative Government were in power, and they protest most strongly against being dragged in this manner into a controversy of this description.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSMay I remind the hon. Member that I was quoting from a memorandum from which he quoted in Committee over and over again? It was the statement of a conference representing more that 7,000,000 insured persons, and I believe that all the societies which I specifically named were parties to the conference. If any one of them was not, I am sorry. I am quite sure that anyone who heard me must have known that what I was quoting from was a document which had been circulated amongst members of the Committee as being the opinion of societies representing 7,000,000 insured people.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe hon. Member ought to be a little more careful in what he says. Not one of these societies was included in the 7,000,000 referred to, or had anything to do with the memorial to which the hon. Member refers. They are in a conference of their own. The conference to which he refers was distinctly formed on the basis that the industrial approved societies were not allowed to join. They stated in their literature that they were forming a society which should not include anyone connected with industrial insurance. The industrial insurance societies formed their own separate organisation. They number 5,000,000. It must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman, if he studies the arithmetic of the thing that they could no be included in the 7,000,000. The trade unions are in with five or six millions. The friendly society people are in. The dividing societies are in. But the 7,000,000 are made up without one single industrial approved society being in. They, being left out of that combination, have formed their own combination. It is for them I now speak, and I entirely repudiate the views of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSHad the hon. Member had the usual courtesy to inform me that he was going to raise the point, I would have brought the document from which I was speaking.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe hon. Gentleman introduced these societies by name. Although he knows that I have the responsibility of speaking for them he never gave me the slightest notice of what was his intention. They have had nothing to do with the Resolution. It is at their request that I repudiate his statement.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIn concluding the Debate on this Bill I shall only say a very few sentences, and they will not be sentences of controversy. Three ways seem to have been suggested of disposing of the Third Reading of this Bill. One, and the most pleasant, was that we should all say nice things of one another, pass a vote of thanks to the Chairman, and go home in a happy frame of mind. The second was that we should all say how much we object to the things that we have in the Bill. The third, led by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, was to show—in spite of the good behaviour that hon. Gentlemen opposite have exhibited—the fierce nature of their feelings in connection with those grievances that they still consider they 1924 have a right to cherish. I do not mind if they have their grievances: if they give us the Bill we may all go away happy. It may seem very ungracious for me to say anything in criticism of the hon. Member for Colchester after the friendly and generous manner in which he spoke of myself, but those who were on the Committee will remember that as the Clauses developed the hon. Gentleman argued on them with his customary sanity and intelligence, whilst at the end of every Clause and when it was on the point of being passed, he broke out into violent invective, stating that the Clause had been suggested by his Friends in the first instance, and that the general behaviour of the Government was unworthy from first to last. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House at first showed some indignation at these tactics, and answered them; then everyone realised that the hon. Gentleman could not help it, and that it was necessary for him to cleanse his bosom of the perilous stuff. In fact, as the later Clauses came we felt that it was almost indecent if his comments were not made. So this Third Reading is necessary in order that those who have assisted us in Committee to get the Bill may really assure us, to what extent they can, that they arc really suffering from a tremendous sense of grievance and indignation. As to the need suggested by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of great organic changes in the Bill, I have no intention of discussing them now. No one wanted organic changes in the Bill. Six months' experience is not enough upon which to advocate organic changes in any Bill. I am sure that the Bill has gained by the fact that every month of experience was worth something more to Members who wished to amend it. So long as everyone is assured that the positive contents of the Bill are good, and that some substantial advantage is being given, especially to those who most need it, I consider that our task has been well accomplished. I should also like to say that I think the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was a. little unfair to the work done upstairs on this Bill when he complained of the Bill being committed to the dim obscurity of the Grand Committee. If ever I needed anything to convince me that Committee is the right place in which to discuss Bills of this sort, it is the recent experience I have had with this Bill.
§ Mr. FORSTERThat is because of the dim obscurity.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf so, long may such dim obscurity continue! But it is really because every man on both sides has applied himself to the question at issue. I am glad that everyone gave something to the fashioning of the Bill; I am glad that the Bill grew in that fashioning from thirteen to forty-one Clauses; and I am glad that the Bill as finally presented contains, as I believe, no Clause which is not of some direct advantage either to the insured persons themselves or to the practical administration of the Insurance Act. I agree I had to ask Members who were concerned on all sides to make considerable personal sacrifices in order that this should be accomplished. It is not an easy task to deal day after day, from eleven o'clock to four or later, with a technical Bill of this sort, but the Committee were willing to make these sacrifices because they believed, as I think, that the work was work which was worth doing. I am convinced that the work is well done; and we see the result in this Bill. Every one concerned in that. Committee will go away at the end of this long and exhausting Session with the belief and satisfaction that he himself has done something to help some of the humbler members of the community.
§ Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.