HC Deb 15 August 1913 vol 56 cc3185-91

"At the end of Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted: 'Where a woman is entitled to sickness or disablement benefit under this Section, a certificate of the midwife in attendance (if one be in attendance) shall be accepted by approved societies as showing that the mother is incapable of work for the first four weeks after confinement.'"

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

As it stood on the Paper there were in the Clause, after the words "shall be accepted by approved societies," the words "instead of a doctor's certificate," I do not move the words "instead of a doctor's certificate," because I do not think they are really necessary. I think this new Clause will add to the convenience of insured persons under the Act. One of my reasons for moving it is that at the present time the procedure differs a good deal in different societies. For instance, the Federation of Trade Unions, one-fifth of whose members are women, I believe, and the Workers' Union, arid the Shop Assistants' Union all accept, the midwife's certificate up to the fifth week, and they do not insist upon a doctor's certificate until then. On the other hand, the National Amalgamated, the National Deposit, the Royal London, and the Refuge all insist upon doctors' certificates and will not accept midwife's certificates. I think that it is only reasonable that the procedure should be made uniform. This Amendment, exactly as it stands, has not been approved of by any of the societies so far as I am aware, but something, very like it is very much wanted, among others, by the Joint. Committee of Approved Societies and the Women's Co-operative Guild.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think if I tell the Committee what the Government propose to do, with, I think, general satisfaction to the Committee, on the question of the four weeks' sickness which succeeds confinement, the home. Gentleman will see that there is no need to press this Motion. I have been very much pressed by all parties in the Committee, with some reason, to allow all approved societies, especially women's societies, to substitute for the four weeks at 7s. 6d. per week sick pay after maternity, a maternity benefit of 30s. subject to regulations to be made by the societies. There has been a great practiced difficulty in getting doctor's certificates for sickness benefit, when the societies require it. The doctors themselves are not attending the patients in those cases, and consequently they demand payment, and, in some cases, they do not give certificates where the case are attended by midwives. In a great number of cases the midwives depart after ten or fourteen days and the woman is then left without any one who can give a certificate of illness. The original intention of the Act, and the actuarial calculation, were undoubtedly designed to meet, the standard laid down by the Factory Laws. By that standard under the Act the wife was to receive in respect to confinement 7s. 6d. per week fur four weeks on condition that she did not return to work during those four weeks and should give her attention to the care of the child.

The Amendment of the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), which is also in the name of the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), deals with this subject, and it is the most satisfactory. It says—I am only reading the operative words—that where a woman confined of a child is herself an insured person she shall in lieu of any sickness or disablement benefit to which she may be entitled under Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act be entitled to receive a maternity benefit from the society of which she is a member or from the Insurance Committee as the case may be, in addition to the maternity benefit to which her husband may be entitled in respect of his insurance. She will receive 30s. maternity benefit which may be paid weekly or may be paid in one sum of 30s., instead of the 7s. 6d. per week sick pay, and it goes on to say "that every approved society and insurance Committee shall make rules to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners requiring any woman in respect of whom any such sum is payable to abstain from unremunerative work during the period of four weeks." I think that fully covers what the hon. Member desires, and if he will withdraw it we can take the Amendment of the Member for Derby when we come to it on the Paper.

The Committee adjourned at forty-five minutes past four p.m., and resumed its proceedings at ten minutes past five p.m.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I certainly should not withdraw at this point, as any further Amendments may be made afterwards. It will simply delay matters if we go on postponing everything; it is much better to accept it now.

Mr. MASTERMAN

It is really not a case of withdrawing a Clause in order to accept a similar Clause further on. If the Committee pass the new Clause this will be unnecessary, and might really be harmful, because I do not want to make a differentiation between midwives' certificates, doctors' certificates, and all other kinds of certificates. I think the hon. Member for Salisbury will realise that the point will be covered if the necessary regulations are made for maternity benefit.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I hope my Friend will not withdraw this Amendment. There is something quite different in my hon. Friend's Amendment from that to which the Financial Secretary has called attention, and when we come to discuss the other Amendment, there will be points to be taken into consideration which do not arise on my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not want to discuss that Amendment because it will not be in order. There is an extra charge falling somewhere if the double maternity benefit of 30s. be substituted for the four weeks' sickness. Who is going to pay the extra charge? Is that to fall on the funds of the societies, or is the Government going to make some extra Grant for it? I hope when that Amendment comes up for discussion the Government will make a statement with regard to it which will remove the apprehension in my mind and enable us to support it. But until they do that, it is by no means certain that the double maternity benefit proposed will receive the support of the Committee. I, therefore, think that my hon. Friend would be unwise to withdraw his Amendment, which is an Amendment to facilitate the administration of sickness benefit, without costing the societies more. Under the proposal, 30s. is said to be equal to four weeks' sick benefit at 7s. 6d. each week, but even if it were understood to be four weeks in each case, it would not follow that it would amount to 30s. For example, a woman might be in arrear. The benefit would then be reduced below 7s. 6d., and therefore she would not be entitled to 30s. She might have had a period of sickness which exceeded six weeks and therefore be entitled to disablement benefit of fourweeks, and entitled not to 30s., but only to 20s. There is, consequently, a considerable extra liability being thrown upon the societies. I am not suggesting that the woman ought not to get 30s., but where does the money come from? It might be included in the actuarial calculations or it might not; but if it is, it ought to have been made clear long ago, and the Act ought to have provided for the money being paid. The hon. Member for Hoxton said that disablement benefit was provided, but it is a disablement benefit of 5s. and not of 7s. 6d. Therefore, as it now stands, they under the proposed Amendment, be getting only 20s.

The CHAIRMAN

I hope the Committee will be willing to keep to the point from which they have been rather diverted by the Financial Secretary's statement—whether a midwife is to give a valid certificate or nor. The other part is much better met on a subsequent Clause.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I cannot reply to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want this Clause in because I do not wish to limit the approved societies by saying they should accept the midwife's certificate. There is no need for them to be restricted to that choice, but I only brought in a short point showing that if we pass the Maternity Benefit Clause as I have outlined it, the whole of this will be swept away, and I very much want the Committee to pass that Clause. I hope this Amendment will be negatived.

Mr. FORSTER

Until we know whether the Committee are going to accept the other Amendment, I think we should have this one inserted. If subsequently we make the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, this can be excised on Report. What my hon. Friend submits is that if, instead of insisting upon a doctor's certificate, societies may be authorised to accept midwives' certificates, that is a step in the right direction. If, owing to these proceedings, this should prove to be unnecessary, it might be taken out.

Dr. ADDISON

I quite agree that they should have the sick benefit on the certiti- cafe of a midwife in attendance, but I should like to say that there are at least 120,000 women in connection with whom there is neither a midwife nor a doctor, and there fore I think that to limit it in that way is very undesirable.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

It is not limited.

Dr. ADDISON

It is the certificate of a midwife in attendance. By so stating it a society would take it that they were not, at liberty to accept it. If that is what you mean, why pot in the words? The fact of confinement should entitle a woman to sick benefit. That is what you mean. Why then this certificate of a midwife? If you say "satisfactory evidence of confinement," that is all you want. There are half a million women attended by midwives at the present time and that will continue to be so. I only want to leave it open. Any satisfactory evidence of confinement should entitle a woman to sick benefit, as long as they are satisfied that the woman has had a child.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

A large number of societies, and especially the trade unions, have always recognised midwives' certificates as being equal to those of the doctors', and we were anxious to safeguard that by the Amendment standing in my name further on in the Paper. If that Amendment be accepted—as the Financial Secretary has intimated it will be accepted—there is certainly no need for the proposal of the hon. Member because the larger proposal will include the lesser. I urge that in view of the fact that our Amendment gives more advantage to the woman than does his suggestion, he should withdraw in favour of our Amendment

Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)

The hon. Member for Hoxton was drawing attention to the words "in attendance." If that is the crux of the situation, perhaps the hon. Member for Salisbury will agree to delete those words. He wants to come to some common agreement with regard to the Clause, and if this is the only point to which the hon. Member

Division No. 11.] AYES.
Bathurst, Mr. Charles Gwynne, Mr. Rupert Newton, Mr.
Boyle, Mr. William Hall, Mr. Frederick (Dulwich) Sandys, Mr.
Cassel, Mr. Lawson, Mr. H. Tryon, Captain
Forster, Mr. Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey Worthington-Evans, Mr.
Goulding, Mr.

for Hoxton refers, perhaps my hon. Friend will be inclined to withdraw those two words, and thus meet the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN

Would it suit the hon. Member to withdraw now, and simply put the words down again?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am not quite satisfied with the explanation. I do not definitely know whether this alternative proposal is going to be accepted by the Government.

Mr. MASTERMAN

As far as the Government are concerned, we intended to accept it.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

It is an extraordinary procedure to point out some. Clause ten pages further on in the Order Paper, and to say that the Government are going to accept that Clause which will meet what I want to be done. I cannot see any objection to accepting this Clause if the Government are able to agree to the principle. If, later on, the right hon. Gentleman accepts the hon. Gentleman's Clause which he thinks is better than mine, it will be easier to delete the Clause I bar e put.

Mr. GOULDING

I do hope my hon. Friend will stick to his Amendment. We, have several pages here of new Clauses. On this system of postponing everything to the future, not a single question is passed and dealt with, and I do hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the question of whether we accept the principle or not.

Mr. ALDEN

The intention of the Government is to face this question at once. They have faced double maternity benefit, and the right hon. Gentleman has given his decision. If that were accepted a good deal of this talk would be unnecessary. I think it would be the easiest way out of our difficulty. We all want the same thing, and that is the way of getting it.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 13; Noes, 21.

NOES.
Addison, Dr. Harvey, Mr. Edmund Rendall, Mr.
Alden, Mr. Jones, Mr. Glyn- Roberts, Mr. George
Booth, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay Samuel, Mr. Jonathan
Dawes, Mr. Macnamara, Dr. Scott, Mr. MacCallum
Esmonde, Dr. Masterman, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Falconer, Mr. Money, Mr. Chiozza Warner, Sir Courtenay
Harcourt, Mr. Robert Pearce, Mr. William Wing, Mr.