§ (1) So much of Sub-section (5) of Section 8 as requires the payment of fifty contributions between two periods of disease or disablement in order to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other shall cease to have effect.
§
(2) At the end of the same Sub-section the following provision shall be added—
Where by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of this Act a part only of sickness benefit has been paid to an insured person, he shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be treated as having been in receipt of sickness benefit for a period bearing the same proportion to the whole period in respect of which such part benefit was paid to him as that part bears to the whole benefit, and the period so resulting shall be deemed to have been continuous and to have expired on the last day of the incapacity in respect of which the partial benefit was paid.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, before "(1) So much of Sub-section," to insert "(1) Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act shall be read and have effect as if the words 'first day of' were substituted for the words 'fourth day after.'"
I have another Amendment lower down, and I do not know whether I can move this with the addition of the second Amendment, dealing with the same question. I was impressed by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons as regards the very big cost of this Amendment and of this concession, and therefore I am anxious that it should be only after three days of illness that the benefit should count from the first day. I do not think that benefit for illness should be given for simply one day's illness, and in order to mitigate the possibility of malingering or going on the fund earlier than is necessary I have made this proposal. No doubt in the old days the friendly societies paid for illness from the first day, but if the second alternative is taken I think it would considerably reduce the cost, if a person had been ill three days, then only would he get benefit as from the first day. I hope, if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give benefit as the old friendly societies gave it for the whole period, he might give it in 2975 the modified way which, as I have explained is provided for, by my second Amendment on the Paper. I beg leave to move the first Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order. I would like to ask your ruling as to how far this Amendment, which enlarges the cost upon the societies and upon the State, is really in order when moved by a private Member? Surely, it is evident that it could not possibly be operative unless some large sum of money is found by the State! I have always understood that a private Member could not move an Amendment which would involve a contribution from the Exchequer.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know that there is any distinction in this matter between a private Member and a Member of the Government, so long as the Amendment is covered by the financial Resolution.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI hope the Committee will not devote much time to this Amendment, and that I may be able to appeal to all sections of the Committee not to vote for it, or, if possible, to have it withdrawn. It is evident that this Amendment is quite outside the scope of this Insurance Act Amendment Bill. If it were carried, it would swallow up every farthing of the money that we have under the Bill, and it would cut out all the other Amendments which we have passed in favour of giving extra money to the old men and other things which have been recommended. It would involve the Exchequer in a cost of something like £800,000 a year.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI do not think it is so much as that.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe cost to the Exchequer of paying on the first three days' illness from the State would be £800,000. If the State only paid a proportion of it it might be £200,000, but that would mean extending the reserve value by four or five years. None of the friendly societies desire that the reserve value should be extended by four or five years, and in that case the Government would have to bear the whole cost. Therefore, if you pass this Amendment, it would commit the State to finding £800,000 per year. Everyone knows that that would be quite impossible at the present moment. It would quite kill this Bill. I would remind the Committee that no Claus: was more thoroughly threshed out in the House of Commons when the original Bill was being considered than this Clause. 2976 The cost of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding), that we should pay for the first day after three days' illness, would be just as great as paying from the first day. That is the opinion of the actuaries and it is the experience of the Workman's Compensation Act. The arguments that were used against it have been intensified by the experience of the friendly societies. I do not think there is a single responsible member of a friendly society who would wish this Amendment to be made. It is one of the substantial checks against excessive sickness claims which the societies now complain of. I do ask hon. Gentlemen, in order to save the Bill, not to vote for this Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHMay I again raise the point of Order in view of the statement which has just been made? I want to obtain your ruling, Sir, whether a private Member or even a Member of the Government can move an Amendment of this kind? We have already dealt with all the funds which are covered by the Money Resolution voted by the House, and the Resolution does not provide funds for this purpose. Unless the hon. Gentleman claims that all the money must come from the friendly societies, I do not see how it can be in order. If he claims that the money should come from the friendly societies there is not a single person in the country who wants it.
§ Mr. GOULDINGThere is no limit in the Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTDo I understand that these Amendments can be considered, notwithstanding the terms of the Standing Order, which relates to the introduction of new charges?
§ The CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member read the Standing Order?
§ Mr. HARCOURTI do not know whether it is quite relevant.
§ The CHAIRMANSo far as I can form any judgment, I should not feel able to rule any Amendment, even one like this, absolutely out of order, having regard to the wide terms of the Money Resolution which we are working under.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI want to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is really correct when he says that the friendly societies do not want this benefit at the expense of the prolongation of the Sinking Fund. I hold in my hand a document 2977 which has been prepared by the Joint Committee of Approved Societies, and at the end of that document they publish a calculation made by the actuaries whom they employ. They say they want three days' sickness given and they point out that it could be partly met by the prolongation of the Sinking Fund by three and three-quarter years—that is the Joint Committee of Approved Societies. That seems to me, definitely, to be contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is quite clear that the approved societies are perfectly willing to meet a large portion of this expense out of a prolongation of the Sinking Fund. During the Debates in the House on the original Act, one of the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave was that it would increase malingering. I do not believe that any friendly society man who considered this would agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because malingering is much more likely to take place at the end of six weeks' sickness than during the early days of sickness. That has been the experience of friendly societies. In fact, at one time, collecting societies and friendly societies did not give sickness benefits for the first three days, and practically without exception these societies have dropped that custom, and now they all give sickness benefit in the first day [HON. MEMBERS, "No!"]. Nearly all the big ones do. There is another point. Under the present system your not giving sickness benefit for the first three days leads to the most ridiculous state of affairs. A man for instance, is ill for a week in January; he therefore gets sickness benefit. He then falls ill again in February for a day; he gets one more day's sickness benefit. He falls ill each consecutive month for one day, right away up to December, and he gets fourteen clays' sickness benefit." But if, instead of that, that man fell ill for one day in January and was ill in each of the consecutive months up to December for one day, and for one week in December, he would only get that week's sick pay. That is to say you differentiate for absolutely no reason. One man would get sick pay for fourteen days and another man would only get sick pay for about three days. The existing system differentiates between insured persons in a way that is not in the least justified, and I would very much like to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASI do not think that the Committee ought to approach the Amendment now before us as if we were voting whether an insured person should 2978 have sick pay from the first day. That is not the point involved in this Amendment, and it will be unfair to suggest that whoever votes for or against that Amendment is voting in that direction. The real position, so far as the friendly societies are concerned, is this: I would ask hon. Members rather to discountenance so much of what they read in statements issued and apply their practical experience of what has happened since the Insurance Act came into operation. Some societies have used their surpluses to give all members the benefit of the first three days; other societies by the additional small contributions over and above the State contribution, are also giving this benefit. Therefore, it is perfectly true that in the main the insured person is not being deprived of the three days' sickness benefit. The Amendment that is now being proposed, means this—that the State must provide the money. That is clear. We have had an intimation that it cannot find this sum except at the expense of some of the other benefits that are roost urgent. Therefore, in approaching this question when the original Bill was under discussion, I moved an Amendment to exclude the three days. It was fully debated and was defeated. But now, when we are considering an Amending Bill in which we have to choose between benefits of a more important kind than this, I think that the Committee ought to approach it from that standpoint also—what is the best benefits that can be given? It will be recognised that benefits on the lines indicated by the Amending Bill are far more important than the three days in this case.
§ Sir R. BAKERI do not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member that this could only be done by money provided by the State, because surely, supposing that this Amendment was accepted, it would be in order to propose a further Amendment that it should he done partly out of the surplus of the Sinking Fund. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) just now stated that the friendly societies are not in favour of this unless it is done by the State. I have got here a paper from which he quoted very often yesterday, the Report of the Joint Committee of the Approved Societies, which was sent out yesterday. It says that anything that can be conceded in the direction of giving sickness benefit for the first three days' incapacity will be appreciated by the societies and that the Amendment by Mr. Goulding and others to Clause 6 should be supported, and that the additional cost should be provided by a further suspension of the Sinking Fund. According to their 2979 own figures that would enable this money to be given. That is exactly the opposite to what the hon. Member for Pontefract has just stated, and also to what the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) have stated. I am one of those who believe that the actual effect of giving the benefit for the first three days' actual sickness would not be so alarming as many people think, because I believe that we get a great deal of sickness at present which might be prevented. When a man thinks he is only going to be ill for a day or two and that therefore it is not worth his while to apply for sickness benefits, he turns into his work longer than he would do if be got sick benefit from the first day, and the result is that he gets a more serious illness than if he went to a doctor when he first fell ill, and if the sick benefit were given from the first day in many cases very long illness would be prevented and the eventual drain on the sick fund would be smaller if a man got sickness benefit from the first day and not from the fourth day. I am prepared therefore to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAll the arguments are known on this subject, so that the Committee may make up its mind at once. If this Amendment is carried either the Bill is dropped or all the other benefits go. Quite apart from the fact of any extension of the Sinking Fund the State would have to pay as much for this one benefit as for all the other benefits under the Clause. I submit to the Committee that they might now be prepared to make up their mind whether they want each of the ocher benefits to go or whether they want the Bill to go on at all or not. That is the simple issue on this Amendment.
§ Mr. FORSTERI am very reluctant to give a vote on this matter in silence. While I am strongly in favour of the proposal which has been put forward by my hon. Friend behind me, there are certain objections to taking the course which he suggests at the present time. I think that it is only fair to the Committee that I should say what I think quite frankly. If this Amendment is carried I understand that this Bill will be dropped. We have got to make up our minds as to whether we put payment of the first three days' sickness benefit before everything else that this Bill contains. We have got something else to consider, at least I have. I am not prepared to give the whole of this money required out of the State. I am not prepared 2980 to see the whole of the money provided by means of suspending the Sinking Fund. I do not think that we can give an extension of benefit of this kind without charging a proportionate amount upon the friendly and other societies. Then I have to consider In view of what has been alleged on behalf of the societies with reference to excessive claims for sickness, I am determined, as far as I am concerned, that I will not impose any further liability upon the societies' funds until we know more clearly whether or not the fears that the societies themselves express are justified. I do not want to elaborate those points. I only wish to put the Committee in possession of my views, and I would ask my hon. Friend behind me whether in view of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and of all the circumstances of the case, this is the right moment upon which to press this matter to a Division?
§ Mr. GOULDINGWhen my hon. Friend got up to make his observations I also had got up to say that in view of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. The Government have told us clearly that if the Amendment is carried they would practically drop the Bill that is now under discussion, and therefore all those more immediately pressing Amendments would fall to the ground. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Mr. LYNCHI desire to add one word. In any case I would have voted with the Secretary for the Treasury, but I still feel that this matter should not be allowed to pass without some observations from a medical member of the Committee. I think that the argument addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member behind me (Sir R. Baker) were absolutely cogent, and I should be astonished if the hon. Member for Stepney did not entirely hear me out in this regard, namely, that for the patient to see the doctor and for the doctor to see the patient on the first day on which illness occurs is of the utmost importance, and may save prolonged illness subsequently, and though I do not think that it is a matter for a Committee of this kind to discuss I hope that this question will be taken into account, in view of the subsequent working of the Insurance Act, to see whether in the end it might not be more economical instead of more expensive to adopt the suggestion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2981§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add as a new Sub-section:—
(3) Where by virtue of this Section, in any year, a society, or, in the case of a society having branches, a branch of a society proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that it has incurred a loss on its benefit funds as compared with its position under the principal Act, there shall be paid to the society, or to the society on behalf of the blanch, as the case may be, out of the sums retained by the Insurance Commissioners for discharging their liabilities in respect of reserve values, the prescribed amount to recoup such loss.The reason for this Amendment is self-evident. It safeguards the societies against any loss which may fall upon them in consequence of Clause 6 in the Amending Bill. Under this Section, supposing a man has got compensation and is getting 3s. a week from his society and 7s. a week compensation or 10s. in all, if he has been receiving compensation before, and his friendly society benefit for 20 weeks, under the existing system he can only receive 6 weeks more sickness benefit, but under the Clause of the Bill, taking the 3s. which he has been receiving for 20 weeks, you multiply the 3s. by 20 and that makes 60s.; you divide it by the 10s. sickness benefit, that makes six weeks. That is to say that under that Clause instead of this man being able to get six weeks' more benefit at 10s. a week he will be able to get twenty weeks' more benefit. It is quite clear that that will entail a considerable loss for the societies, and all I want to provide by my Amendment is that the societies shall be recouped any loss (in the event of their incurring any loss) by the State. It is not a very easy calculation to put perfectly clear to the Committee, but I hope I have succeeded in making it fairly clear. This Amendment of mine is merely put down to safeguard the societies.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am anxious to get the Clause before we rise, and I shall therefore reply very briefly. It is really a drafting Amendment to put right what was always the intention of the original Act. There was no acturial calculations which gave the societies the benefit of members being excused sick pay, owing to paying threepence a week over a considerable number of weeks. We have had some cases brought up; but immediately a case was brought up it was seen that it was a mistake in words when men have bad reckoned up against them a number of weeks in which they may 2982 have only been receiving sixpence. The House did not intend that; it was not in the actuarial calculations. For that reason we wish to put it right.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMy experience of the Hearts of Oak for a great number of years is that cases of men annually coming up are next to none. Is there then any extra liability accruing in consequence of this Clause if it is passed?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo. All this does is to put right a system whereby a man may be receiving from the sickness fund only, say, 6d. per week, and getting 9s. 6d. a week compensation, and that counts up against him in his twenty-six weeks. Of course, that never was meant by the Bill, and was never in the actuarial calculations, and we just want to put it right.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is not the only point under this Clause. The societies are losing possibly fifty contributions in a certain period from individual insured persons; the average will not be anything like fifty, but if it is only five it is a considerable sum that the societies are losing. That is under Sub-section (1). Under Sub-section (2) they are also losing something. It may be they get it by accident of drafting under the original Act, but still they are losing something. My hon. Friend's Amendment is, knowing as we all know that the societies have not any margin to spare, to ask that, out of the Reserve Value Fund, whatever they are actually losing shall be made good to them.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI did not deal with Sub-section (1), which was not raised.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI was dealing with Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. MASTERMANSub-section (1) is entirely to evade an enormous administrative cost to the societies. It is not we who want it, but it is the societies who want it. Any attempt to estimate that amount would involve just as much administrative elaboration in order to calculate it for Reserve Values. We believe the societies will gain under Clause 6 and not lose. We believe the saving they will make in an almost impossibly complicated system of keeping accounts will more than compensate for any loss they may have. It is entirely in the interests of the societies that this Amendment is made.
§ Mr. BOOTHI wish to ask you a question with a view to seeing how this proviso 2983 affects the Clause in the Bill, which says that a part only of sickness benefit has been paid. There are cases where nothing at all has been paid—not even a sixpence—and some of the societies will be in a difficulty unless that is put right. While I quite agree with the purpose of it, I would ask why should this cause injury to a fair number who have actually received nothing at all?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt does not apply until twenty-six weeks. It does not begin to register against a man unless he is receiving some sickness.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The next Amendment, standing in the name of Mr. G. Locker-Lampson, was to add, at the end of the Clause, the words, "Where the whole or a portion of sickness or disablement benefit is not distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the principal Act, it shall be paid in cash to the insured person on his return from the workhouse, hospital, asylum, convalescent home or infirmary."
§ The CHAIRMANThis Amendment should be brought in as a new Clause.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI beg to move to add at the end of the Clause, as a new Sub-section, "(3) Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall be read and construed as if the words 'and is a married woman or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow' were omitted therefrom."
§ Mr. MASTERMANWhat on earth has this to do with the Clause under discussion? It deals with sickness and disablement benefit to married women, which is quite a separate Clause in the Bill as it stands. No question in connection with maternity can have anything to do with this at all.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the same ruling that I applied in connection with medical benefit must apply to this Amendment—
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIt is Clause 6 of the Amending Bill with which you are now dealing. Is it not in itself a sort of omnibus Clause? It amends Section 8 of the original Act, and also Section 9. I do not know why you should say the omnibus should carry only two passengers when there is obviously room for more.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member rose before I finished my sentence. I have not ruled it out of order.
§ Mr. GWYNNEThe effect of this Amendment will be that it will make Section 8 of the principal Act read, "Where a woman confined with a child, if herself an insured person, she shall be entitled to sickness benefit or disablement benefit, as the case may be, in respect of her confinement, and to any part of the maternity benefit to which she or her husband may be entitled." It more or less leaves out the difficulties as to whether she is a married woman or whether the child is a posthumous child or not.
§ The CHAIRMANI take it the first Amendment the hon. Member moved dealt with sickness benefit only. I think if it brings in disablement benefit it raises a point of Order which has already been taken on this side.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIt refers to the same thing to which the Clause itself refers. This Clause alters Sub-section (5). I merely want to alter Sub-section (6). It all comes under the head of benefits.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is moving it. It will be the first on the. Paper to-morrow.
§ The Committee adjourned at Four o'clock until 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Thursday).