§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. CHAMBERLAINWhen our proceedings were interrupted I had been answering the charges of breach of faith by giving my own version of what, I believe to be the real basis of the bargain struck in 1911, and I had shown that the developments of the insurance scheme had brought a great deal more to insured persons than they had at the time when the scheme was started, or had any reason to expect. I do take any charge of breach of faith as a serious 2189 matter, and I make no distinction between pledges given by myself and pledges given by other Ministers who may have made them in this House before I was a Member, and if I thought that in these proposals any charge could fairly and properly be brought against us of breaking our pledges, certainly I for one would be no party to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) read out passages from speeches made by members of the Government in 1911 in support of his charge that they had made pledges which we were not now keeping. He read them very slowly and very solemnly, and apparently his slowness and solemnity were regarded by his own party as sufficient proof that what he was reading out was really a pledge that we were breaking. I listened very carefully, and I made some notes of the words on which the right hon. Gentleman relied. I do not deny that certain pledges were made at that time, but I say that we are keeping those pledges. The pledges we are accused of breaking are not pledges that were ever given then. The right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members talk all the time as though we were raiding the, surpluses, but we are not raiding the surpluses. I have plained before that the surpluses are entirely untouched by our proposals. What the pledges really amounted to was this—and I take the phrase from the speech by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—that he said he undertook that the societies would have the benefit of their own thrift. That is a short phrase, but it was the same as the statement put at rather greater length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in his speech on the Second Reading of the Economy Bill—I think he stated it very fairly—and I say that that pledge is being kept in the spirit and in the letter.
It is absolutely true that after this Bill is passed the societies will still continue to reap the benefit of their own thrift and their own careful and economical management; but the report of the Actuary and the report of the Royal Commission show without any 2190 shadow or vestige of doubt that the surpluses which have been accumulated to such a gigantic figure have been due in the main to extraneous causes which are not to be described as due to anything that has been done by the societies but arise mainly out of the extra rate of interest which they were enabled to earn. I have explained already that the rate of interest which was taken into account by the Actuaries when they were making their calculations as to the appropriate rate of contribution by the State in the original scheme was 3 per cent. Now that the rate of interest is found to be 5 per cent, instead of 3 per cent., as was then calculated, it is reasonable that we should review the whole situation. Really, we are returning good for evil to the societies. It has been said that the societies have voluntarily undertaken certain burdens and borne certain sacrifices and that this is their reward! But could anything be more one-sided? Could anything be more partisan than a statement of that kind. I pointed out in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill what this Government, what various Governments, have done for the approved societies, that they have taken upon themselves the burden of the extra cost of medical benefit, estimated at £19, 000, 000, and on account of minor charges another £5, 000, 000. I might mention other things that might very well be brought into the account—provisions for the improvement of the public health, etc.; provisions for the relief of tuberculosis, sanatoria, maternity and child welfare, etc. All these mean that to this extent we have been successful in the relief of sickness.
Mr. THOMASWill the right hon. Gentleman explain this situation: While it is true that the interest on the original calculation has increased from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent., is it not also true that, notwithstanding all the services to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, there is no society to-day getting greater benefit for the present contribution than was originally anticipated in the Act—in addition to which, based on the increased cost of living, the value is less to the man than was originally contemplated.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINA right hon. Gentleman with the knowledge that the 2191 right hon. Member for Derby has of approved societies asking me a question like that! Is it possible that he is not aware of the additional benefits, cash and others, that are being paid more than originally agreed upon? Of course they are paid, partly because the rate of interest is greater than was contemplated under the scheme.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINYou must set against that the increased benefits they have got. You cannot have it both ways. I think really I have disposed of this charge of a breach of faith, though nothing could alter the opinion of hon Gentlemen opposite, I say that no reasonable person can sustain any charge of breach of faith in what we are doing under this Bill. I say again, that that is not the whole question. I protest against these charges of breach of faith being hurled about without any foundation. But it is perfectly open to hon. Members opposite to argue that what we are doing is unfair, even though it be not a breach of faith. I am perfectly prepared to argue that what we are doing is perfectly fair and perfectly reasonable. We are not touching any surpluses accumulated under the first valuation. We are not touching any surpluses accumulated under the second valuation. We are not even touching the surpluses which have been accumulating since the second valuation up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman asks: 1f you are going to take £2, 800, 000 a year, where is it going to come from? If we do not pay that money out of the Exchequer, then the approved societies will have that much less. It is perfectly obvious. I might equally say that if we were not, merely not to withdraw £2, 800, 000, but if we were to add another £2, 800, 000, the societies would have that much more. Is it reasonable, assuming that there is no question of faith or pledge involved, to say to the societies: "You really do not require this extra money at the present time so much that we are justified in asking the taxpayer to find it for you "? That is our case.
2192 We say it is not necessary and that societies which have been accumulating surpluses at this rate and have been able to distribute benefits among their members at a far higher level than they ever had any reason to expect—we say that, when the whole country is suffering from a heavy burden of taxation, it is not reasonable that a society should go on accumulating surpluses at this rate, because you must cut your coat according to your cloth. Is it a fact that we are going to deprive them of any benefits which they have contracted to pay to their members? The actuary has given it as his considered opinion that what we are doing will not touch these benefits. Therefore, what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had to fall back on is this, that, if it were not for this provision, at some time in the future societies would have been able to pay some benefits additional to those being contemplated to-day. I think really that hon. Members opposite are too pessimistic about the future of the approved societies. There are several factors which I think ought to be taken into consideration in speculating—for it is not very much more than that—on what surpluses they may still be able to accumulate under the third valuation if these proposals are carried out. We have seen a steady rise in the rate of accumulation of surpluses in the past. In the first period of six years they were £17, 000, 00; in the second period, which was only four years, or two-thirds of the time of the first valuation, there were accumulated surpluses, including the carry forward and the contingency fund, amounting to;£45, 000, 000; and in the remaining period of only something like two years, already it is estimated that there are accumulated surpluses amounting to £20, 000, 000 additional. Altogether you have £36, 000, 000, and this is the backyard around which we are supposed to be prowling in order to rob somebody. I say that the rate of accumulation of these surpluses is steadily increasing, and that is shown by the figures I have just given to the Committee. You have to take in account two facts. First of all, under the Pensions Act the societies are relieved of the liability of cash benefit to people between 65 and 70, and that applies to additional benefits 2193 just as much as to normal benefits. Therefore, a surplus of a given amount which went to a certain point before the passing of that Act is bound to go beyond that point after the passing of the Act, because the demand upon them will not be so great.
The second point is that the average of contributions per year is steadily going up. At one time the average number of contributions was 43, but it has risen and is now 47. I daresay it will go higher still if unemployment continues to decrease as it has been doing recently. [An HON. MEMBERS"What about parish relief?"] It is perfectly clear that as unemployment goes down the average number of contributions will go up. Those are figures which may give us a certain amount of confidence in the future, and I am very strongly of opinion that in spite of the diminution of the State contribution proposed by this Bill when the third valuation comes round, the surpluses will be sufficient to enable the approved societies to continue all the benefits which they have been able to declare under the second valuation.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI am a little astonished at some of the arguments which have been used by the Minister of Health who is not able to get it out of his mind that the taking of £2, 800, 000 out of this scheme is going to adversely affect the benefits. He has also declared that insured persons are getting greater benefits than they were at the beginning. I challenge that statement. The right hon. Gentleman also makes the astonishing statement that the benefits of insured persons will not be reduced by the proposals we are now discussing. I would ask him to follow me for a moment or two over the three valuation periods, and I trust the Committee will bear with me while I put the matter in my own way. It is perfectly true that the benefits which are payable as the result of the first and second valuations will not be disturbed in the least by the proposals in Clause 1; that is obvious. But I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman not telling us the whole of the truth. It is perfectly true to say that there will be no reduction of benefit whatsoever as the result of the first two quinquennial periods, but the Government, in the middle of the third 2194 valuation period, are going to take £2, 800, 000 per annum out of the scheme, plus the interest on that sum. Surely no one who understands the administration of the approved societies is going to argue that the benefits will be the same at the close of third valuation period as they are at the moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman turns round and says that the. total sum that will be payable from the State, although the proportion is reducedpro rata, will be still greater. That may be true, but I would point out that the increased population has something to do with that. The increased population must be brought into account in this connection. I am astonished, further, at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the approved societies are getting rid of their liability entirely in respect of all persons over 65 years of age.
§ Mr. DAVIESBut the right hon. Gentleman used those words a moment or two ago.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member will forgive me, hut I did not say "entirely "; I said only in respect of cash benefits.
§ Mr. DAVIESAccepting what the right hon. Gentleman says, let us pursue if further for a moment. It is perfectly true that the Contributory Pensions Act will relieve the approved societies of liability in respect of cash benefits for all persons over 65 years of age, but it does not, as I understand it, relieve them of paying additional benefits of the treatment type. Let us see where we stand on that score. Is it not reasonable to presume that treatment benefits of the kind provided in the Schedule of additional benefits will be very much more called upon in respect of persons who have reached the age of 65 than in respect of persons under 65? Let me deal with that point for a moment. Most approved societies have adopted one additional benefit. All those societies that are able to do anything at all are paying 50 per cent. of the cost of dentures and dental treat-merit. Other approved societies have adopted a second additional benefit, namely, optical treatment and appliances, and, in some cases, surgical 2195 appliances. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that the liabilities of approved societies, with what the actuaries call the increase of survivorship, must, in respect of persons over 65, increase, so far as I can see, for some years to come at any rate. Consequently, that ought to be borne in mind in the arguments. But there is another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman's that I cannot understand. He seems to think that no fault can be found with the Government for what they are doing. As a matter of fact, they are condemned out of their own mouths. Clause 3 of the Bill says—and this is the first time, as far as I am aware, in the administration of the National Health Insurance scheme, that any Clause of this kind has been inserted—
If on the valuation of an approved society or of a branch of an approved society it appears to the valuer that a deficiency will be disclosed,then a certificate will be issued. That gives the whole case of the Government away, because they apprehend, in their own scheme, that there will be deficiencies, and, in fact, the Actuary has told them that already. Now let me dwell upon the point—
§ Mr. BLUNDELLIf I may interrupt for a moment, I think the hon. Gentleman will strengthen his case if he quotes the further words of the Sub-section
has been made worse in consequence of the provisions of this Part of the Act.
§ Mr. DAVIESExactly. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would know that.
If on the valuation of an approved society it appears to the valuer that a deficiency will be disclosed, he shall forthwith report the case to the Government actuary, and on receiving such report the Government actuary shall proceed to estimate the amount by which the financial position of the society or branch has been made worse in consequence of the provisions of this part of this Act and then shall issue a certificate.
§ Sir K. WOODI do not know whether it is on order to discuss Clause 3 at this stage, because I shall have to make some reply. It is rather inconvenient.
§ The CHAIRMANI rather think the hon. Member was suggesting that the provisions of Clause 3 throw a certain light on Clause 1. If he quotes the provisions of Clause 3 as an argument relevant to 2196 Clause I, it will not be out of order, but, of course, he cannot discuss Clause 3 except in connection with Clause 1.
§ Mr. DAVIESI was only using Clause 3 as an argument. I want to make this point before I proceed to the next stage. The right hon Gentleman has tried to induce the House to believe that, in fact, although the money is going to be withheld from the approved societies it will make no difference to the benefits to be paid to the insured population. I will give him the case of a society with which I am familiar. On the first valuation it was only able to pay 2s. a week additional benefit by way of sickness benefit. if this measure is passed into law it will be in deficiency. See what will happen then. The Government will be able to make up the deficiency to meet the normal minimum benefits but the Society will not be able to pay any additional benefits whatsoever as the result of the third valuation. How comes it then that the right hon. Gentleman can say this proposal is not going to make any difference at all to the benefits now paid to the insured? It is absolutely wrong.
I want to touch upon another aspect of the question. Approved societies are able to pay a great deal of their additional benefits by virtue of the fact that they arc receiving good interest On their investments. The investment account is not entirely in the hands of the Treasury in this connection. The approved societies themselves can invest, and have been investing, part of their sums at as good a rate of interest as the Government itself, and consequently they ought to secure the benefit of good administration by way of their investment account. I wanted to make the point that in dealing with the £2, 800, 000 we must bear in mind not merely the loss of that sum but the loss of interest from year to year as well.
We cannot dispose of this Clause without referring to another point in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking of the Government clipping its hand into the pocket of the Treasury in regard to the medical fund. Earlier in the day he was not quite happy in regard to the representations made to him by approved societies, and he seems to think, and has tried to argue, that the approved societies really are not very critical of the 2197 action of the Government after all. This document has come to hand this evening. I presume other Members have had copies as well. It is the report of a conference held yesterday and called, not by the National Association of Trade Unions approved societies. A conference held yesterday representing 15, 000, 000 ïnsured people was called by the Friendly Societies and they passed the following resolution: I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has by way of answer to these people who administer the scheme.
That this Conference of all types of approved societies "—I presume that in "all types of approved societies "many members will be Conservatives. It would be very interesting to know what the Conservative members of these Approved Societies will have to say in regard to the Government's proposalcalled by the National Conference of Friendly Societies, protests against the passage of Clause I of the Economy Bill in its present form, prior to the report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance being considered, and regards the proposal to reduce the State Grant as a distinct breach of the pledge in regard to extended benefits contained in Section II of the National Insurance Act, 1924, and as fraught, with great injustice to the 15 million compulsorily insured persons.The right hon. Gentleman has tried to get the Committee to believe that there has been no breach of faith in this ease. Surely the men and women who administer the scheme and who represent these large bodies the Approved Societies—the Friendly Society movement and the Insurance Companies—cannot all be wrong in regard to a breach of faith. It is possible to suggest that we on these benches are wrong, but the representatives of these fifteen millions of insured persons cannot possibly all be wrong in this connection. I understand that they are unanimous on this point, that they think the right hon. Gentleman should not press Clause I, at any rate, prior to Easter, so that they may have a chance to consider the problem at their annual conferences, Several trade union Approved Societies are meeting this week-end, and it is only fair that they too should have a chance of considering the effect of this Bill upon their funds.2198 I will give the case of my own Society to show the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing. It is well to quote the case of a single society to show how the proposals will work out in practice. Our society paid last year in cash benefits £27, 935 and in additional benefits £3, 153. Over £30, 000 paid out by a Society of 33, 000 members! If hon. Members calculate what the reduction of the State grant means on £30, 000, they will see how much the 33, 000 members will lose in benefits later as a result of the third valuation. As far as I understand it—I have made a rough calculation—of the insured population, each one will be deprived by this Clause of 5s. 6d. per annum in future.
§ Mr. DAVIESThe right hon. Gentleman does not seem willing to accept the statement. He will find that. Another I am about to make will come true. It is said—I cannot vouch for the figure—that for the future the head of a family, who is an insured person and entitled to the benefits that ought to be payable, both in cash benefits and treatment benefits, will be deprived during the period of sickness of 8s. per week.
Earlier in the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary made a rather strange statement about. the work of the Consultative Council. He seemed to gloss over the idea that the majority was only 28 to 6 against the first clause of this Bill. I am a member of that Council. He said that the meeting at which the decision of the Council was taken was not a confidential gathering. Every document which I have received as a member of the Council has been marked "Private and confidential, "and I have never divulged to any person outside the Council anything that has transpired at the meetings. I was, therefore, astonished to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the meeting was not confidential at all. In fact, he has given away the secrets of the Council to-day. The vote of that Council by 28 to 6 against this clause ought to be an indication to the Government of the opinions of those who represent the approved societies of the country. Further, I shall be surprised if the Consultative Council continues its task after the exhibition that we have had to-day. If men are to be called upon to meet once a month or 2199 thereabouts to advise the Minister as to what he ought to do in connection with the administration of Health Insurance, and their decisions are not respected by the Minister, the Council is of no further use. The members of that Council ought not to be insulted. What has been done to them on this occasion is an insult.
I cannot understand the hurry in bringing forward this Bill. The hon. Gentleman gave away his case in another respect. When he was telling us that the Government were very kind to approved societies, he said, in effect, "the benefits are not going to be reduced; they will remain the same "; and then with the same breath he declared that when the Government tried to find ways and means of securing economy with the services of the country, they found this little nest-egg and they determined that they would get hold of it. That was the hon. Gentleman's own language.
§ Mr. DAVIESYou are better educated than I am. I thought we were to have a pillow fight to-night between the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the Minister. but it has not come about yet. It is all very well for the Minister to come and tell us now that the Government, when they looked around for economies, found this sum of money that they could get to relieve the Treasury, by which he meant the Income Taxpayers. But on their own showing, as soon as they came into office at the end of 1924, they appointed a Departmental Committee of Actuaries to inquire and report whether there could he an alteration in the basis of the finance of this scheme. They have been working ever since to find whether they can get some money from this scheme. The proposals of Clause 1 emerge as a consequence. The terms of reference of that Committee are a clear indication that when the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made the observation that he did some time last year, the Minister must have known then that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to take away moneys from this scheme. And by this Bill they are doing it.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that it was an actuarial Committee appointed by the Royal Commission, and that it reported to them?
§ Sir K. WOODOn page 332 the hon. Member will see that the report is addressed to the Chairman of the Royal Commission.
§ Mr. DAVIESThe terms of reference on page 330 say "I appoint "so-and-so, to be a departmental Committee or actuarial Committee to advise the Royal Commission, etc., etc. That may be a formality.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLMay I point out that the terms of reference are given by the Chairman of the Royal Commission.
§ Mr. DAVIESI am not going to press that point, but the name of the right hon. Gentleman is definitely at the end of the terms of reference, and I took it for granted that he appointed the Committee.
§ Sir K. WOODMy right hon. Friend appointed this Committee at the request of the Royal Commission, and the terms of reference which they suggested were adopted.
§ Mr. DAVIESI understood the right hon. Gentleman to contradict my statement that he appointed the Committee.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, I only disputed the deduction which the hon. Member drew from the statement. He suggested that I appointed the Committee in order to find means of getting more for the Exchequer. I then pointed out to him that the appointment of the Committee was incidental to the report of the Royal Commission and had nothing to do with the question of economy.
§ Mr. DAVIESIt is obvious therefore that we ought to have an opportunity of considering the whole problem. What the Government are doing is not to take the whole report into account, but to take only one or two points of the report to suit their own convenience. I am inclined to read the terms of reference after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. This is what they say
I appoint … to be a Departmental Actuarial Committee to advise the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance actuarially as to whether the present basic contribution … is in fact required for the existing benefits … or whether such 2201 a re-arrangement of the financial basis of the scheme could be justified as would reduce the amount allocated to the present benefits and leave a margin for other purposes.What are the "other purposes "Nobody could read into those words anything different from that which I read into them. Obviously there was to be a margin for other purposes, and here I come to the real point at issue. There is a margin; and as far as I understand the majority report of the Royal Commission, that margin was intended to, cover additional benefits in respect of dependents. They said so definitely. The right hon. Gentleman must excuse me for being suspicious in this matter. I am suspicious of all the actions of the present Government and particularly suspicious of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in this connection—or, I should say I am more suspicious still of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing through the right hon. Gentleman. The majority report. definitely stated that it would be well if the approved societies were allowed to pay out of that margin additional benefits in respect of dependents of insured persons. That would have been a good thing and, I believe, would have been welcomed by the approved societies; hut instead of paying those benefits the Government take away this sum of, £2, 800, 000 in order, I suppose, to reduce the Income Tax by a half-penny in the £. That is how I sum up the situation. We shall hear arguments in favour of this Clause and we shall deal with them in detail later on; but we protest against the Government taking an undue advantage of the approved societies in this connection. When the right hon. Gentleman says that approved societies had no right to expect this sum for good, let me put to him this question. If he were administering an approved society as I have been from 1912 to 1926 and the two-ninths in respect of all benefits and administration had been paid from 1912 to 1926 without any indication at all of a reduction, without any consultation as to a change of any kind, what would he think? I dare venture to say that, if he was an administrator of an approved society, and there was a Labour Government in office doing this, he would call that a breach of faith.2202 To sum up the points that I desire to make, they are as follow: The first is that the Government ought not to produce a Bill dealing with national health insurance unless and until they have considered the whole of the Report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance. The second protest that I make is that we have only just commenced yet, as approved societies, to pay additional benefits. There are many societies which determined, as a result of the first valuation, to pay additional benefits out of their surpluses, and they had to give up paying those additional benefits because they had not sufficient money with which to carry them on over the quinquennial period My own society is in that position. We have not sufficient money to carry on with the additional benefits which we determined to pay, and it is not right for the right lion. Gentleman to come here and say that to take this sum of money out of the scheme now will make no difference whatsoever. I daresay he will not he in office to reply to this question at the end of the third valuation period. After the action of the present Government in bringing this Bill forward, I feel satisfied that he will not be there.
I want, before I sit down, to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentlemen. One could imagine, from the Government's attitude, that all the approved societies in the country were paying additional benefits now. How many approved societies after the first valuation, were in deficiency? How many after the first valuation were able to pay any additional benefits at all? How many were compelled to call a levy in order to make up the deficiency after the first valuation? All the results of the second valuation are not out yet—approved societies have not received them—but I would like to know what proportion of those societies in respect of which valuation results have been received have found a deficiency, and how many have disposable surpluses. When the right hon. Gentleman gives those details, will he also give the insured population covered by the approved societies, both those that are in deficiency and those that are able to pay additional benefits?
The very last point I desire to make is this: The difference between the recommendations of the Majority Report of 2203 the Royal Commission and what the Government are now doing is fatal to the prospects of this Bill. The Majority Report says, very definitely, that no change should be made with regard to the insurance of men serving in the forces of the Crown. We shall deal with that later on, but I want to use it as an argument. The Bill says:
There shall be transferred to the Exchequer for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund "—
§ The CHAIRMANThat point is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Mr. DAVIESI was using it as an argument, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that they are not depriving any of the insured population of the present benefits which they are receiving. I should like to ask whether he is not taking money from this Fund which will reduce the benefits which ought to be paid under the present scheme to these people in the Army, Navy, and Air Force Fund. The whole of the arguments of the Royal Commission are against the Government doing what they are proposing. I desire to state that as far as the approved societies are concerned—and I feel sure we can speak on their behalf—they are determined to fight the Government on this issue, believing that the Government is not fair to them. They protest against the Government not having consulted them, when they have been consulted over almost everything else in connection with this matter in the past. On this occasion there seems to be a desire to ride roughshod over everybody, and the approved societies will take their stand on this issue. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we will pursue our objection to this measure at every point possible within the rules of this House.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI do not rise in order to express my views on this Bill now, because I have an amendment down which I hope to move later. I only rise in order to protest against the very unfair argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I venture to point out to hon. Members opposite that they are really injuring the cause they have at heart by adopting the arguments which some of them have put forward. I object to this Clause of the Bill just as much as any hon. 2204 Member opposite, and shall take an opportunity of doing so and explaining why when my turn comes, but to try to make capital out of the Actuarial Committee appointed by the Minister at the express request of the Royal Commission seems to me to be quite unfair, because it had nothing whatever to do with the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) or anybody except the Royal Commission themselves, I would remind hon. Members opposite that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead made his proposal it was I who opposed it, and not hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Well, it is a fact.
There is one other observation I should like to make, and that is, as Vice-Chairman of the Consultative Council which has been referred to so often, I do not think that that Council feel themselves insulted by the Ministers action in consulting them. I personally was unfortunately not able to be present on that occasion. If I had been I should have voted with the majority against the proposal of the Bill, but I do not think we are a body of men who would consider ourselves insulted because we had been consulted. We are an advisory body, and not a body of dictators.
§ Mr. WALLHEADDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that we have stated the Consultative Council was insulted by being asked their opinion? The statement was that they were not competent to speak on behalf of the whole of their members.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who suggested they were insulted, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton also suggested it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]
§ Mr. WALLHEADIt was said that the approved societies were insulted.
§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRThe hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell), whose services on behalf of the approved societies everybody in this House recognises, and who speaks with great authority on this question, has misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon 2205 Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said. What he said was insulting was not the fact that they had been consulted, but the nature of the consultation which took place—the fact that at the time they Mere consulted the whole of these proposals were in draft and had been adopted by the Cabinet and the fact that the Bill was already printed, and that their opinions in so far as they agreed with the Government's proposals were absolutely accepted but in so far as they disagreed with the Government proposals—even though they disagreed by so large a majority as 28 against 6—did not make any difference whatever to a single line in the Bill. I do not think, with all respect to the hon. and gallant Member that the points of criticism which he made against the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the front opposition bench just now really affect the broad general criticism which has been put forward from these benches. Although it is quite true that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead issued his threat against the surpluses of the approved societies, the hon. Gentleman protested, I think it is a little unfair to suggest that nobody on this side of the House played any part at all, because certainly a large number of Members both above and below the gangway protested forcibly at the time.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI did not say no one else would have protested. I only pointed out that I was the only one who did protest.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI desire to support the Amendment, because the Clause seems to me to hold out very serious prospects for the approved societies, and will very likely inflict an injury to the hopes of improving the health of the nation. After all, if I or any other hon. Member of this House found himself in straitened circumstances, surely the last economy he would make would be in his doctor's bill for himself and his family. Having grown up in the War, the lessons of the War have burnt themselves into my mind and consciousness, and, I believe, the mind and consciousness of many hon. Members. One of the vital lessons of the War, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, is that you cannot run an A1 Empire on a C3 population. I would apply that to the proposals 2206 which the Government are putting forward art the present time. We take great pride in our national finances, because they stand as strong and as stable. as those of any country in the world, and it would be a far prouder boast if we could claim that we were the healthiest nation in the world. It is because I think the health of the nation is as grave a concern as, and, in the existing circumstances, even graver concern than, the finances of the nation, that I rise to support the Amendment.
12.0 M.
The right hon. gentleman who spoke just now from the front Opposition bench pointed out to the Minister certain figures as representing the effect these proposals would have over the whole range of approved societies—figures, apparently, which the Minister of Health was not willing to accept. Although I do not desire to question them in the slightest degree, I will give to the right hon. Gentleman figures on a smaller scale, which, at any rate, he cannot controvert, They affect the particular society in which I happen to be most interested—the Rural Workers' Society of Scotland. They have worked out precisely how these proposals will affect them, and it transpires that the combined effect of the proposals would be that the society would suffer to the extent of £21, 770 per annum, or £108, 850 for a period of five years. Again, they quote the benefits, which they pay, and they say that the proposals of the Bill would necessitate, in the case of men, either an entire abandonment of treatment benefit, or a reduction of sickness and disablement benefits from the rates now paid to the ordinary rates, and in the case of women, not only the abandonment of treatment benefit, but a reduction of other benefits to the ordinary rates, It is clear that this will directly and substantially affect the health of the people insured in the society. The right hon. Gentleman may say "Why do you take that society? It is so easy to generalise from a particular instance. It does not apply to all societies."But as a matter of fact, this society is recognised as being the gilt-edged proposition of the insurance system. It is in by far the best financial position, and if these are to be the effects on the finances of this society, how infinitely more serious will be the effects on the finances of less favoured societies? There are 2, 000, 000 2207 members insured now in societies which pay only the minimum benefits.
I would like now to deal with a few of the arguments which the Minister of Health has brought forward in support of his proposals, and, after all, it is he who is responsible for them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said—and I differ from him slightly here—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible. Surely the Minister of Health is responsible for the finances of his own Department, and for the proposals which he puts forward as head of it, and the committee must hold him responsible. He said just now that the Bill effects no alteration in the benefits which will be paid in this quinquennial period until 1931, and that insured persons will not be deprived of any existing benefits. That is not a very valid argument, because it is a comparatively small point; the great question being what will happen in 1931. But there is one very important way in which the finances of societies will be affected immediately, and that is in regard to the powers of these societies, under Section 26 of the original Act, to contribute to hospitals. They have used those powers on a very considerable scale. The Scottish Rural Workers' Society contributes £9, 000 a year to hospitals, and these important contributions will he struck off. I put that point to the Secretary of the Federation of Rural Workers' Societies. Looking at the prospects in 1931, if these proposals come into operation, he told me, with a full sense of responsibility, and was supported by another official of the Federation, that they would have largely to curtail, or even to eliminate, these contributions. That will certainly affect the members of the societies, because if they do not contribute to the hospitals, naturally they will not receive from those hospitals the same benefits as they get now.
The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to show that no breach of faith was involved in these proposals. I think no part of his argument carried less conviction to the House. The other day he endeavoured to use in support of it paragraph 249 of the majority report of the Royal Commission. They say in that paragraph
In the pursuit of the task of reviewing the whole scheme of National Health Insurance, and considering what changes are 2208 desirable with a view to making the scheme of the greatest possible benefit to the insured community"—let hon. Members note those words "the insured community",we cannot take the view that we are limited by the necessity of adhering to any particular principles on which the scheme was set up.Obviously there is a very great difference in the position in which a committee has been appointed to consider the problem from the point of view of the insured persons, from that in which they have been appointed to consider the problem from the point of view of benefiting the taxpayer. It would be quite possible and justifiable for you to say you were going to vary the scheme in the interests of the people concerned, but not against their interests and in favour of the interests of somebody outside; undoubtedly, in the latter case, in my view, the charge of breach of faith lies because you cannot get over Section 37 of the Act in which is clearly laid down, that all surpluses shall be applied to the provision of additional benefits. The right hon. Gentleman compared the proposal that he has brought forward with that put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But there are two important respects in which the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman differed from those of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The material question is whether there was a breach of faith in either case. The reference in this respect made by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke a while ago from the front Opposition Bench, was, I think, to the point, and my right hon. Friend completely disposed of the possibility of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite returning to the charge at all, because he pointed out that under his scheme the Government contribution was in fact increased, and the members of Approved Societies did better than before. In the second place he carried with him the consent and approval of the approved societies. There is all the difference in the world between altering an arrangement that you have entered into with somebody with their consent, and altering it without their consent. It is quite clear that the arrangement now being altered is not only without the consent but against the strong protest of the other party to the bargain.2209 Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that no society would be brought into deficiency by these proposals. "We are not "he said, "going to throw any society into deficiency by the diminution of the State grant."But there is, in fact, as he pointed out in the sentence which came almost immediately afterwards, a Clause in this Bill which is expressly designed for no other purpose than to support those societies which fall into deficiency. It is not at all clear that the amount allocated will be adequate for the purpose. I should life to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think we can discuss Clause 3 in detail.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRAll I was going to observe was that it is very doubtful whether the money in the Reserve and Central Funds will be adequate to the strain likely to be thrown upon them by the operations of Clause 1. Then the Minister of Health referred to the relief to the societies that had been afforded by the Pensions Act. He said Mt by the passing of that Act the societies had been relieved, in the case of people between the ages of 65 and 70, to the amount of £37, 000, 000. If that is a relevant point, surely it should have been brought out on the Pensions Bill. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman, discussing this very point, said something very different—he was answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). The Committee will, perhaps, bear with me if I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said on that occasion. He said:
But is it certain that we can count upon the repetition of the surpluses that were accumulated down to the end of 1923? I beg the House not to take that as by any means certain. I beg them to understand that there are some rather disquieting features of which we have information which render it very unlikely that in future quinquennia the surpluses will be anything like what they were. Take one item, which is an animal charge or about £2, 000, 000 for doctors and drugs. There is at present a balance which has been accumulated, from which that is paid, which will come to an curl in 1926, and that charge of £2, 000, 000 will then fall upon the contributions and the, accumulations of £5, 000, 000, should they continue, will be at once reduced to £3, 000, 000 a year, even if the other factors remain the same. Then there are questions arising out of the rate of disablement benefit and sickness benefit, in both of which there are rather disquieting features. Again, I might suggest that the existence of so 2210 much unemployment means a reduction in contribution surpluses which will be found to have its effect upon the gross surplus.And that was only last year ! How volatile are the statesmen from Birmingham. If it is a virtue in a politician to possess agility, he need not fear comparison with the mascot of the Welsh regiment to which he referred in the earlier part of his own speech. Then the Minister of Health referred to the rate of interest on insurance funds. But, as a matter of fact, I have got the figures showing how that affects the society to which I have already referred—the Scottish Rural Workers. I find that from 1919 to 1925, the administrative expenses increased over and above with the assumed rate by over £28, 000, and they have received over and above the assumed rate on investments, approximately £31, 000, that is to say, they are only £3, 000 to the good. The ordinary society on a less favourable financial footing would have had nothing like this increase in the rate on their investments. They would have had a greater increase in the administrative expenses and therefore that factor would have outbalanced in the ordinary society the increase they would have got from their increased rates of interest. Then, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is only a fair thing that, as they have got so much more on their investments than they had a right to expect, they should now give up some of that in the way of a reduced Government contribution. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer used an argument the other day which certainly affects that decision. He said how unfair it would he to reduce the interest on War Debt and how unfair it would be to penalise one class of capitalists only. I think that that is a very good argument. Why should the man who has invested his money in War Loan suffer as opposed to the man who has invested in other things? But then why should these societies suffer? In cases where they were free, they were generally patriotic enough to invest in Government securities, Why should the fact that they and other societies that were compelled to invest in Government securities be now brought up against them? Why should that be held to justify a reduction in the rate of contribution which the Government is making, especially when the very circumstances that produced this higher rate 2211 of interest operated to increase the administrative expenses of the societies in a precisely corresponding degree?Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are never tired of boasting of the financial strength and stability of this country. They say that we are paying our debts to America and at home, and they are constantly telling us about the improvement in trade from week to week. Do not let us go on with the pettifogging methods of economy provided for in this Bill but let us go on paying the whole contribution which has been universally regarded as being rightly due to these people. Our object ought to be to maintain and improve the standard of health of the people of this country. I would remind the Government that when we were discussing the Budget last year there was a question whether we were going to get a reduction of 6d. or 1s. in the Income Tax, and we were told by hon. Members opposite and by the newspapers which support the Government that a reduction of 6d. was no use and would give no relief to industry? Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not admit the validity of that argument directly, he admitted it by inference because he so juggled with the figures to show that if you took into account the reduction on the supertax, and other factors, the reduction really amounted to 1s. What relief will the Income Tax gain from these proposals? It is something between a halfpenny and three-farthings and that is all we are going to get out of this measure which strikes such a blow at the prospects of approved societies. This policy reminds me of the celebrated individual called Robin Hood who gained quite a reputation in history by robbing the rich in order to give to the poor. This example was set by similar gentlemen before him and it has been followed by many other gentlemen of the same kidney. I daresay that it was very largely dictated by tactical considerations because—
§ The CHAIRMANThere seems to be a certain amount of confusion about these arguments.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIn those days it was a bold thing to rob the insolent baron, in order to give to the humble serf. But now wealth stands trembling before democracy at the ballot box, and the Ministry with 2212 invested courage comes forward to rob the poor to give to the rich. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to rob the approved societies in order to relieve the Income Tax and the Super Tax payers. He says he is not raiding the surplus. It is true he is not cutting a drain to take the water out of the reservoir, but he is cutting into an aqueduct which is bringing water into the reservoir and cutting it off before it gets there. The right hon. Gentleman was at some pains to show that he had not broken a pledge. His few supporters have not been convinced by him. In fact the only Member who spoke in favour of the Measure on the Second Reading distinctly said he did not attach much importance to that argument, and that, after all, very few Members of this Parliament were Members of the Parliament that gave the pledge. The Bill was hotly contested at the time and if any pledge was given no pledge, in his opinion, ought to have been given. To my mind that is a very dangerous constitutional argument. It is true that each Parliament, is sovereign and can do what it likes, but unless it pays the greatest respect to the pledges entered into by previous Parliaments it will bring Parliamentary institutions into unpopularity and deserved disrepute. The right hon. Gentleman said Members above the Gangway were a poor kind of Socialists because they were so wedded to vested interests and to funds that were allocated for particular purposes. They can speak for themselves. I think the right hon. Gentleman a poor sort of Conservative—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet is travelling a very long way from the merits of the question.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI was answering the argument used by an hon. Member in his speech. I understood we could range over the whole question in so far as it affects National Health Insurance. We are now discussing a Clause which affects National Health Insurance. I know there are Members on that side who agree with the particular principle we are putting forward in this Amendment. This is no Conservative, Liberal or Socialist Measure. It is not a democratic Measure. It is a purely bureaucratic Measure. It is the child of officialdom, conceived by ingenious officials who are directing the point of the economy sword which the Chancellor 2213 of the Exchequer is wielding away from themselves towards the approved societies. It has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, who is not only a distinguished Parliamentarian but the ablest bureaucrat of his time and generation. If he had been in Russia under the Czardom he would undoubtedly have been made Prime Minister. Democrats on all sides of the House will put health before the income tax payers, and I am convinced that there will be no benefit in saving three farthings from the income tax payer to compensate the nation for the threat which these proposals offer, not only to the members of the approved societies but to the hope of raising an I improving the general health standard of the country.
§ Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSThe more I consider this Measure the worse it seems to get. I had hoped that, as has been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion, the present benefits and the additional benefits which either have already been given, or have been sanctioned under the second valuation would, at least, have been safe until 1931. I think, however, it is obvious, on reconsideration of all the facts, that even the extended benefits are in present danger. I have been impressed, as all I am sure will have been who have come in contact with officials of approved societies, with the ability displayed in the carrying out of their work, and I think their opinions are entitled to very serious consideration. There is no doubt they believe that not only will the further extent ion of medical and other benefits be prevented by this Bill, but also that where they pay at present extended benefit and give extended medical treatment it will be impossible for them in many cases to carry on till 1931. The approved societies are faced with an immediate reduction of income. The facts the hon. Baronet gave in regard to the Scottish Rural Workers' Society are significant of many others. There will be an actual definite loss of income starting from the time this Bill becomes law.
There has not been very much said about the fact that the increased charge for medical benefit, which does not mean increased payment for the doctors, but is simply a transfer of the liability for the last increase from funds which the approved societies permitted to be raided 2214 two years ago, will involve a greatly increased expenditure by approved societies. Therefore, the reduction of the State contribution and the increased cost of medical benefit seem to make it inevitable that the valuable additional benefits given by many societies will either have to be modified or withdrawn altogether. Certainly societies which do not give them now will unlikely be able to give them in the near future. I should like to ask if this is really economy. Take the matter of the dental benefit, which has been given by a number of approved societies, but not by others. There can be no question about the tremendous value to public health of a dental service. Even from the point of view of economy, it would be very desirable that a full dental service should be given by every approved society. It not only prevents many forms of disease, but it gives also greatly increased comfort, happiness and efficiency to the individual, There is no question that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will prevent the extension of this dental benefit in the cases in which it is already given, and in other cases it will prevent its being brought into operation. The same applies to optical benefit, which is of very great importance for those who require that form of treatment.
Again, take the question of maternity benefit. Various societies have, been able to increase that benefit. At the present time it only amounts normally to £2 and that all goes either to the doctor or the midwife, and the person most concerned is only left with the baby to hold. I think it will be agreed that double the existing benefit, amounting to £4, which, in some societies, has been raised to £5 for the contributions of husband and wife if they are both insured, is about the least that is useful or desirable for maternity benefit. It is extremely important that we should get to the stage of giving that benefit at as early a time as possible, but that again is going to be prevented.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments has been in connection with the relief which is to be brought about by the contributory pensions scheme. This is supposed to relieve approved societies of a liability of 37, 000, 000. I have not heard it stated that, as against that, provision has been made for a reduction of reserve value 2215 and prospective income of societies to an extent roughly equivalent to the amount of that relief. According to Section 39, Sub-section (3) of the Contributory Pensions Act and para. 29 of the Government Actuary's report, reserve values standing to the credit of societies will be cancelled to the extent of £37, 000, 000: Secondly, the Health Insurance contribution has been reduced as from 1st January, 1926, from 10d. men, 9d. women, to 9d. men, 8½d. women. Also, after 1st January, 1928, societies will no longer receive contributions from members between 65 and 70, so it is hardly fair to use the argument that there is nothing to set off against the relief to approved societies in the case of contributors between the ages of 65 and 70.
The circumstances which brought about the higher rate of interest quoted, also, as a justification of the Government's proposals, also increased in similar proportion the expenses of administration.
One of the gravest charges against the Government. in connection with this matter is that they have gone against the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which contained among its members the Government Actuary, and which actually said that the payment by the Exchequer of its present proportionate share of the cost of benefits and their administration should be continued. We cannot escape from the fact that the proposals of this Rill are not an economy at all, but a very grave setback to social progress. It is bad enough to diminish the prospect of continued extra benefit such as the dental, optical and other benefits, but one of its worst effects is that this Bill postpones indefinitely the provision of specialist medical treatment. Practically all the witnesses before the Royal Commission put these benefits first, and the Royal Commission itself puts them first whenever funds are available. I do not think Members realise the tremendous importance which approved society officials and insured persons themselves attach to these services. Picture the position at the present time. If a person is well-to-do and his doctor is in attendance upon him, the doctor may come to the conclusion that a surgical operation is possibly required. Or he may have some doubt as to the diagnosis, and he suggests to the relatives of the patient. that he would like a second 2216 opinion. The relatives say, "Certainly."The doctor can go to the telephone, and call up a specialist, who comes in an hour or two, and the patient gets the full and immediate benefit of that specialist service.
What happens in the case of the insured person? The doctor is in the same difficulty and puts the same, question to the relatives, and asks them if they can afford the fee for Professor So-and-so or some other specialist, and the insured person's relatives say "No, we are sorry we cannot afford it."Then the doctor has to say "We shall have to try the hospital."But I have already pointed out during the Second Reading debate, that, so far as my own country is concerned (and I think the same conditions prevail in England) there is a waiting list in the six main Scottish hospitals of 5, 800 people who arc waiting for beds. The Committee which has just been considering the question of the Scottish Hospitals has reported that many of these people suffer as a result of their waiting and some even die because of the delay, while waiting for a bed to be provided. I do feel that this insurance medical service will never be anything but partial and very unsatisfactory until it includes the fullest possible benefits which modern medical science can give. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say as to the effect this measure will have on normal benefit, and on the small extensions which have already been made, it will be admitted that the prospect of a specialist service is indefinitely postponed. A new arrangement with the doctors is imminent and will take place at the end of this year, but supposing a composite arrangement might be made will it now be made so as to include a specialist service The additional medical charge, in view of the changed financial circumstances of the approved societies, would make their position impossible. I am afraid, therefore, that the specialist inclusive service we might have had next year must now be put off until some unknown time.
As the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) also pointed out, some approved societies have realised the importance of these specialist. services and have themselves actually made arrangements with hospitals, nurs- 2217 ing associations, dispensaries and other organisations for a certain amount of specialist service and institutional treatment for their members. These will probably be cut off at once because the grants are paid, not out of surplus, but out of the ordinary benefit fund. So the hospital problem, which is deplorably bad in Scotland and also in England, will be made a litle worse as the result of the cutting off of these donations. Altogether, I think it could be easily shown that if there was any money to spare in connection with this fund there are innumerable ways in which it could be spent, not only for the advantage of the insured people but also to make the fund what it was proposed to be at first—a full and complete medical service for the very humblest insurance contributors.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman this evening repeat many of the arguments which he submitted on the Second Reading debate, but I did not discover that he removed the suspicion held by many Members on this side about the very important facts which he advanced from time to time with regard to the Economy Bill. I am one of those who believe that whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, there is a breach of faith in the legalised robbery that is taking place under the terms of this Bill. The four main arguments submitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, perhaps, to be examined one by one, so that we can at least see what was behind the Chancellor's mind when he decided to introduce this Economy Bill. He told us on the Second Reading debate that the first main reason for dealing with the question of National Health Insurance was the fact that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill dispenses with the need for financial provision for those who are sixty-five or seventy years of age. He suggested that an economy of £2, 750, 000 would be quite justified on that ground. The question of the sixty-five to seventy years old person has been adequately dealt with and it seems scarcely necessary for me to repeat the arguments that have been submitted, but, as the movement of members is so great, possibly it will not be out of place to repeat at least the essential arguments. First, might I remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who 2218 is now in charge of the Bill that in future there will be no weekly contributions for members who are between sixty-five and seventy years of age. Secondly, on the introduction of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, a reduction was made from 10d. to 9d. a week for men and from 9d. to 8½ for women, and to that extent the contributions of all members have been seriously reduced, so that the particular class referred to in what the Chancellor declared to be the most recent and powerful fact seems to be dissipated in the light of that explanation. Then he says:
The second main fact is the rise in the rate of interest. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1926; col. 275, Vol. 193.]Well, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. J. Davies) disposed of that second main fact which appears to justify the Chancellor in economising to the extent of £2, 800, 000 per annum. Surely, if the rate of interest has increased because of peculiar circumstances during or subsequent to the war, certain other increases in administration would necessarily arise, and, as the increase for administration due to these peculiar postwar circumstances is pretty well similar to the increase in the rate of interest, the one thing cancels out the other. Although the Chancellor suggests that this increases the regular income from the invested funds by nearly £2, 000, 000 a year, he pays no attention to the increase in the cost of administration when he sets out to reduce the national contribution by £2, 800, 000 per annum. Therefore, it seems to me that, at all events, the first two main facts submitted by the Chancellor in no way justify the economies that are proposed. Then, he goes on to say:The third fact on which we rely is this: Ever since the beginning of Health insurance the State has followed the practice of meeting every liability which arose, in excess of the original actuarial calculation, out of public funds, hut at the same time we have followed the practice of leaving every unforeseen advantage which occurred on the figures, to enure to the benefit of the insured community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1926; col. 275, Vol. 193.]I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what the Chancellor referred to when he made this statement:Every unforeseen advantage which has occurred either during or subsequent to the War.2219 Did the Chancellor mean to imply that, because so many insured persons who had been contributors to this fund joined His Majesty's forces and, unfortunately, met their death on service, they could not possibly be recipients of any benefit from this National Insurance Fund? Is that one of the unforeseen benefits referred to by the Chancellor? If so, I should like to remind him that there is another side even to that situation. First of all, no Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, no Minister of State ought to suggest that there is unforeseen advantage arising from men who, serving their country, are killed prematurely, and no longer can be possible recipients of insurance benefits under any national scheme. While it may be true that certain men who had been contributors for a number of years no longer could be potential recipients of insurance benefits, there are hundreds of thousands of ex-Service men who have returned from the War less capable of following their normal work because their health has been considerably impaired as a result of their War service. That third fact of the Chancellor's is dissipated, and ought not to be used as a means of securing economies on these lines. Then, I think the fourth reason submitted by the Chancellor, and the only other reason, can be seen in his speech on the Second Beading of this Bill. The Chancellor went on to say:We have to think for the duration of this Parliament. We are, as I shall presently show, confronted every year with steady cumulative increases in expenditure and particularly in social expenditure. At the same time, there will certainly arise in this Parliament new needs and new services, and unless we gather up, where it is possible and proper, the resources at the disposal of the central Government, the closing years of this Parliament will see us utterly unable to meet any new needs without re-imposing harsh and harmful taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1926; col. 277, Vol. 193.]Therefore, it would be implied from this statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to continue, just as they did last year to exploit the unemployment funds, so this year to exploit the National Health funds, then some time later the other social services, so that in the last year or two of the Government's term of office they will be able to supply some of the new needs just before the time comes for them to appeal to the country. I want to bring 2220 before the Minister an individual case of an approved society that I think will dispose of some of the financial arguments he has used this evening. It is perfectly true to say that the effect of this Bill cannot disturb any of the additional benefits that accrue as the result of the first valuation. It is perfectly true to say that the Bill cannot disturb any of the additional benefits that accrue as the result of the second valuation. But what we do suggest that it is bound to do is that it will intercept the additional surpluses at the third valuation. To that extent not only will medical services, but also dental, optical, and special services such as nursing home services, be seriously jeopardised as a result of the withdrawal of this sum of money.In the case submitted by the deputation representing the rural approved societies which visited the Agricultural Committee of the House last evening, representing 70, 000 members, it was pointed out that the reductions under the terms of this Bill in the Government contributions are estimated to be approximately £21, 700 per annum. Added to the interest which would accrue for the period of five years, there is a reduction in the surplus available for distribution of £108, 000, and on the basis of 70, 000 members one can readily see that there is a reduction per annum per member of that society of 6s. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman nodded his head when the figure of 5s. 6d. was mentioned by another hon Member. But I should like him to reply to these figures, which are based on the 1924 terms. They are not theoretical figures, but are based on facts. If it is going to take away 6s. per member per year from this society, that is going to a considerable reduction in the medical and other services that can be given to the members of that organisation and when one remembers that there are approved societies at this' moment who can scarcely afford to give any additional benefits at all it is pretty obvious that they are going to be held down to the lowest minimum consistent with the original act.
If the Minister is not going to raid the existing surpluses but is intercepting additional future surpluses, then to that extent the medical services are bound to be reduced. I think this Bill—the whole Bill as well as various parts of it—is 2221 unworthy of the best statesmanship in this country or in any other country. Whether the workers of the country agreed or disagreed as to the commencement of the "ninepence for fourpence"National Health Insurance Act, I do believe that the majority of people recognise the value of the Act at the present time and instead of retarding the development of that Act, the nearest approach to an Al nation ought not to be retarded by a Conservative Government who are always telling us of their sympathy for the worker. For those reasons and for many others, I want to support the Amendment, believing that while the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has said that the present surpluses are not being raided, future surpluses are being made very precarious, well-nigh impossible, and the least that can be said is that the health services, the dental, the optical, the nursing home and other special services, are going to be made well-nigh impossible. They are services which the 15, 000, 000 insured members ought to he receiving and they are real additional health services.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Sir J. SIMONI have listened to the whole of the Debate on this Amendment, and am convinced that when the vote is taken, if it is based on the arguments that have been advanced, this Clause must be rejected. The Minister of Health is a most accomplished debater, as every Member in the House will admit. lint all the same, when the matter is boiled down it seems to me that it cannot be seriously contended that the Government has got any answer to make to the charge that has been made. First of all, there arises what some people have called a breach of faith. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a phrase that should be bandied about in the course of party controversy in the House. It is quite true that Parliament has the legal right and the power to alter provisions that have been made by previous Parliaments. I quite agree that o circumstances might conceivably arise where in a previous Parliament assurances have been given, circumstances might so change that on broad grounds of public policy it might conceivably be right to change the terms originally laid down. But after all, what do you mean when you raise this question of whether this does create a breach of faith? You have to consider the circumstances and it seems 2222 to me that the essential circumstances here thoroughly justify the House in that very extreme criticism. This is not a case like that of old age pensions, where the grant was a grant entirely on one side "without consideration "(as the lawyers say) from the other side. It would indeed have been a most monstrous thing, once a Parliament had ever carried a scheme of old age pensions, to withdraw it. I remember, as some other hon. Members no doubt remember, Mr. Balfour saying in this House that he would sooner see all sorts of steps taken by the State rather than that in any circumstances they should withdraw those old age pensions from anybody. That was a case where the House of Commons, on behalf of the country, was pledging public money without getting any actual promise in return. It would not have been a breach of any Parliamentary bargain. That is not the same as this present case at all. I remember the circumstances in 1911 perfectly well as also do many Members of this House no doubt. That session was a session in in which it seemed quite likely at first that this great scheme of National Health Insurance would be shipwrecked. It seemed so probable to the then Conservative party that Mr. Bonar Law was rash enough to announce that if he came into power he would repeal the Act tomorrow and had to write to the papers to explain that that was not what he meant. It was with great difficulty that the scheme was established, and it was done as the result of most elaborate and detailed consideration with two bodies—with the doctors and the approved societies. You might then as well come done to the House to-day and announce to the medical profession that you had decided to alter to the doctors' disadvantage the arrangement made with them as to say to the approved societies that you are doing that by them. The approved societies were not clamouring to work the scheme. Many of them looked at it with great suspicion and I think the present Leader of the Opposition took a view which was rather critical to the scheme and expressed it to the House. This was not being welcomed in every quarter as though it was an undoubted advance in which everyone was pushing the thing forward. It was established this country as a result. of give and take 2223 negotiations—as far as anything of that sort can be; by Parliament bargaining. The Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) took a leading part in all these transactions. If you had told the approved societies in 1911: "now I might as well tell you that we are to have a flat rate of benefit based on what is the actuarial equivalent of the benefits for a boy of 16, but in 15 years things will improve because reserves will be available, but I want to put in this provision that in 15 years' time Parliament will be perfectly free to reduce the contribution, "you would never have got this scheme at all.
While you cannot produce some document signed and sealed which would be called a contract as a result of Which these approved societies think the Government are breaking a bargain, the approved societies, who know this subject from A to Z, are convinced, every one of them, that that is what, in fact, Parliament is being invited to do. Can there be any question which more obviously satisfies the natural tests as to whether this is a breach of a. bargain? The approved societies gave something for the promise. They came into the scheme; they undertook to work it. To a large extent many of their traditional methods were at least overhauled. They had to accept a whole code of regulations and control to which they were not accustomed. They found the State claiming to come in and interfere in matters in which they had hitherto been their own masters, and they did this wholly from beginning to end on the distinct understanding as to the State contribution. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health more than once has made great play of the circumstance that two-ninths was not the original figure for men and women. But it is true that the whole of the actuarial calculations were based on two-ninths. Why women were at first treated in a rather different way was not because of the actuarial basis, but because the real reason was that the earnings of women were then, in many cases, so low that to take out of their wages 4d. was to take out more than they could stand. While the phrase used to be 9d. for 4d. in the case of men, in the case of women it was, as a matter of fact, 8d. for 3d. The 2224 consequence was that the State contribution was 2d., which was a quarter of the 8d. When the women were brought into line with the men you did not reduce the State contribution.
What is more to the point is that that change was made after many women had gone into the munition factories and other work and were earning bigger wages than before. The change was made with the assent and co-operation of the approved societies for the purpose of securing better benefits for their women members and in order that they might stand on the same basis with the men. There is no resemblance at all between the modification of the original arrangement made with the assent of the approved societies for that purpose and what is now proposed which is simply taking away the State contribution to some extent from what was the very basis and foundation upon which the approved societies were brought into the scheme. It does not necessarily prove that the criticism is right because there is such a hubbub amongst the approved societies, but it is a very serious fact because it is upon these approved societies we have to depend to work this scheme. If this were a Socialistic Government saying "Let approved societies get out, we will manage the whole thing according to purely bureaucratic principles from Whitehall, "it would be another matter. But this Government are saying "We want the approved societies to work the scheme."The Government have never, except in a formal sense, consulted them and they find themselves faced with protests from one end of the country to the other. These people. say we have been looking forward to increased benefits and at this moment you choose to take away £2, 800, 000. So far as there ever can be a case of departure from a clear mutual understanding, which was intended to be permanent, that is the case. The Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff-Cooper) said that 1911 was a long time ago, but these societies were invited to come into the scheme not for a year or two years, but as the permanent machinery by which the scheme was to be worked, and the circumstances may be such that after a certain period of time, thanks to this fund being what it is they will get a benefit which at first their members could not get. So far as it is a ques- 2225 tion of Parliament keeping faith with the approved societies, to my way of thinking I may say I do think this is one of those cases where Parliament without exposing itself to the reproach of breaking faith with an immense body of opinion relying on us being as good as our word, cannot alter the arrangement.
When you come to the secondary arguments used by the Minister of Health you see what they are. This time He did not employ the famous argument that money that used to earn 3 per cent, is now earning 5 per cent., because he is much too quick-sighted not to see what a hopeless argument this is. The approved societies have not chosen to invest in public funds. They are compelled to do it. They were told by the law what funds they had to put their money in. Here is a Government which says, to a particular section of the community which is compelled in many cases to put its money in Government funds, "You are the people whom we say we are justified in depriving of the fruits of your investment."It is not surprising that on second or third thoughts the Minister of Health has come to the conclusion that that is a cook that will not fight and leaves that argument out.
So much for a breach of faith. What about, the other ground which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested? He says it very unpleasant to have words like "breach of faith "bandied about, and so it is. Consider the matter on its reasonableness. Is it really reasonable? He says he was waiting for the report of the Royal Commission. It is a report which was only published at the end of February. It is a thing for which the approved societies themselves have waited. Unless I am misinformed one of the things which induced the approved societies to take on their own shoulders the extra burden of doctors' remuneration was that at the same time this inquiry was promised—I should like to be confirmed if I am right—the approved societies said it was time they had a proper inquiry to see in what directions the scheme should be extended or improved. Here it is. I hope I am not doing my fellow members a great injustice when I say there are possibly some of them prepared to vote for the Government who have not read this report. None of us can read everything. But consider where you are. The report contains a vast amount of important 2226 material. It shows that while nowhere is medical benefit defined as meaning such benefit as you can get from a general practitioner, nevertheless the construction has been put on medical benefit by the Insurance Commissioners that it is medical assistance of that general standard. The argument no doubt was that since any qualified doctor could be a panel doctor and since everybody in the scheme had his doctor, it was not an unreasonable view that what was meant was the sort of benefit which the ordinary general practitioner could give. Take the case of the servant in your own house. The principle reason why she is not particularly favourable to national insurance is that she does not like the idea of going to a panel doctor, and although the doctor says hers is a case for a specialist's advice she cannot have it.
The Commission say the most important thing you could do is to use these funds which are now becoming available to give to the insured person the right which all the rest of us have got, if the case calls for a specialist to have a specialist. Nothing would do more to satisfy the public about the working of national insurance or to promote national health than that. It is a great hardship on poor people that at the moment they have taken the help—no doubt honestly given— of the general practitioner they cannot take a specialist while the rest of us who have more money can take a specialist. The Government in substance are delaying the day when that can be done.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman has already suggested to hon. Members on this side that they have not read the report. Surely, had he read the report, he would know that the recommendations in respect of specialists cannot possibly be affected by anything in this Bill.
§ Sir J. SIMONIt is quite true it will need an amendment of the law to do it by amending one of the statutory benefits. But it still remains true that to the extent to which the Government by this Clause will take away the £2, 800, 000, they are reducing that which would otherwise be available. Of course they are; and they are postponing and delaying the opportunity to enlarge and complete the scheme which ought to be completed in respect of national health insurance. I 2227 am perfectly willing to be corrected if I am wrong on any detail, but the principle on which I am insisting is perfectly right and is not to be got over by a purely technical point. Let me take the second point—the additional benefits, of which there are fourteen. These in the original Act are part of the statutory scheme. They are not subsequent suggestions made by a future generation. Here you have the approved societies who have been able in greater or less degree to bring into play these additional benefits. Is it disputed that, if the Minister of Health carries his Clause, he is pro tantogoing to postpone the time when the various approved societies can bring into play those additional benefits? Is that denied?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman cannot put everything down to this £2, 800, 000. I have pointed out that he has mis-read the report. The report recommends that the £2, 750, 000 should he used subject. to the Governments' policy, and there is a paragraph in the report to that effect. Assuming it is not used for the purpose, they make a definite recommendation for what it shall be used for and he must not say that the benefits are to be delayed.
§ Sir J SIMONThe right hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair. I want to be quite clear. To the extent to which £2, 800, 000 a year will go, if the Government takes that money, it does pro tantodelay and postpone the opportunity for approved societies to bring into actual operation, such one or other of these additional benefits originally contemplated, and which they may wish to introduce. The Commission recommends as urgent and important one particular additional benefit, namely, dental treatment—the treatment of the teeth of the people. It is not too much to say that the Clause and which the Government are now at this hour trying to get through the House of Commons will have this effect, that it will delay and postpone the setting up in this country as soon as otherwise might he set up the effective operation of that additional benefit.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIn the first place dental benefit is now available as an additional benefit to the number of something like 11 million members. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said, 2228 I do not think he intended to convey this impression—that the Royal Commission recommended the Dental benefit as a particular benefit which ought to be taken first. That is not so.
§ Sir J. SIMONI think I said quite clearly that I was taking an exemple. If I made a wrong impression I gladly stand corrected. I do not want 10 misrepresent anything. But I do feel very strongly about this because I do think that what you are doing here—of course the Government's majority can do it—is breaking faith with the people. My last point is this. The Minister of Health cannot have it all ways. There is no doubt whatever that the people who drew up this report. intended and assumed that the present proportionate share of the cost of benefits in their administration should be borne by the State. The concluding paragraph in that part of the majority report shows it quite plainly. Here you have this particular provision in paragraph 153:
We therefore make the definite recommendation. … This implies that, in our opinion, there should be no increase at the present time in the rates of contribution under the scheme.Dealing with the position of the insured person the report goes on to say:We consider also that the scheme should be self-supporting subject to the payment by the Exchequer of its proper proportionate share of the cost of benefits and their administration.I find it quite impossible to think in this concluding paragraph, the Commission in its report is in any way supporting or encouraging the taking away or the reduction of that proportionate contribution. It is really designed to recommend changes on the basis that that proportionate contribution remains the same. Here is a thing which nobody can believe is a coincidence or accident. The Minister has studied this subject minutely and when he introduced his Widows' and Pensions Act he dealt exhaustively with this class of service. He has had quotations from his speech quoted again and again in this Debate. But it is an extraordinary coincidence that the moment when it is found out that it will be neither a breach of faith or on other grounds unfair, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes this £2, 800, 000 from societies because he is at his wits end and must do something to 2229 balance his Budget. Everybody knows perfectly well that this is a desperate effort to get money somehow, so that the Budget after Easter may be presented without new taxation, and that the people who have to stand this exaction are people to whom Parliament gave a certain assurance.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDAlthough the Debate has continued for a few hours, I am sure that nobody will say that a moment has been wasted, because we want to consider it from the point of view of the people affected. This first clause of the Bill is probably the most important of all the Clauses. There are others still wry important. I wish to associate myself with practically everything the right hon. and learned Member has said. Certainly in so far as he has dealt with the question of a breach of faith, promise, agreement, contract, whatever it may be, it is a serious breach of an understanding that was made very definitely. It is an understanding that was made very definitely, which, had it not been made, the Bill would never have gone through at all. I say that very categorically, because I happened to be one of those who happened to be responsible for the negotiations that were carried on at the time. I then led the Labour party in the House, and through the Labour party, very important negotiations were conducted with that Government and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon. It was on certain agreements and certain pledges that the trade unions and the benefit societies came into the scheme. May I say first of all very briefly, taking the case as I see it, that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell), who referred to his having be 3n the sole voice that was raised when the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) raised this question first of all, I think his memory has betrayed him. It is quite true that on 2nd July, when an Third Reading of the Bill was under discussion the hon. Member alone spoke, because it was towards the end of the debate and nobody else could get in. But his memory has played him false regarding the other debate when the position we took up and are now taking up, was quite clearly laid down.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI referred to the occasion on which I spoke, not the occasion on which I did not speak.
§ Mr. MacDONALDQuite naturally, but I would remind the hon. Member that the occasion on which he did not speak preceded the occasion on which he did speak. The position is this: Section 4 of the Act of 1911 is a contract. As I have said, the trade union movement was very doubtful as to the benefits of this scheme. It was an unknown land. The friendly societies, with whom I have not so much to do, were also very unfriendly, but the line of argument taken up by the Government in the House of Commons was this: If you come in and if you agree to pay your share of the insurance which we consider to be necessary, we will supplement your payments in order that certain benefits may be assured. The trade unions said: is this going to be a tripartite scheme? and the Government said yes. When the agreement was made, and when Clause 4 was finally settled it was left in this way, that a benevolent Government, having surveyed the state of national health, came to the conclusion that a national scheme to protect and promote that health was necessary, that the scheme should be based upon insurance and that the parties to the insurance should be the workmen, the employers and the State. So far as their obligations were concerned these three were on terms of absolute contractual equality. If this contract is to be valid it has to be valid with the consent of the three parties. Now we are in this position that of the three parties only one has the initiative of action—the Government. It has come here to say: "Of our free will we have decided to change our contributions."It is no question as to whether the change will or will not affect the benefits. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it will affect the benefits. It is admitted. You cannot take money away and say you are as rich after as before.
Let us take it by stages. The right hon. Gentleman is, I know, in a very difficult position. The countenances of his supporters behind him are troubling him, but he cannot make the case that having taken £2, 800, 000 for this purpose or having reduced his payments into the insurance fund by that amount., the insurance fund is as good a property of the owners, the beneficiaries under that fund, as it was before. You cannot contend that, and that is the position. In 2231 1911 the bargain was: We three shall go together. We offer certain benefits. We know that those benefits are to be over-insured on the present rate of contribution, but the over-insurance will be valued at certain periods. When the over-insurance valuation has been declared the surplus will be absorbed in extra benefits, some of which are declared, and some of which are undeclared. The Government say: "We find that the over insurance is considerable, and that as a matter of fact a great deal more can be given for the money than is being given."Then, having been assured of that, it says, not as it ought to have said: "We will bring that case before our two partners in the insurance—the workmen and the employers—and we propose to say to them: We are going to reduce our contribution because the extra benefits should go on."They do not do that. They say: "We do not care about the employers. We of our own free will and our own initiative and not as partners in a triple agreement but as a separate entity are going to decide that our insurance payment is going to be reduced while the insurance payment of the others will remain at tile former standard."It means in regard to the insurance payments from workmen and employers which entitled them to higher benefit than they got, that the Government, having discovered what the valuation was, ask the workmen and employers to continue to pay the uneconomic payments while they themselves take the advantage by a reduction of the payments. Really, that will not do. I am perfectly certain that already hon. Members opposite are allowing their minds to consider the consequences of a policy of that kind. It is a most extraordinary thing that the State should use its authority to break bargains or contracts—use what words you like—when convenient to them. It is not a question of fairness. It is a question of convenience.
The closing words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) about the extraordinary coincidence of two things—the issue of a Report of a Royal Commission and the needs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—are certainly a matter of very grave reflection, and hon. Members who are going to vote for this Clause had better clearly understand 2232 that by that vote they are declaring that a Parliamentary majority can tear any contract into a thousand shreds and regard every bargain as a mere sheet of paper. "But, "says the right hon. Gentleman, "I am not taking balances, and I am not touching the pool; we are only stopping the flow into the pool, so that when the next valuation comes there will not be so much in the pool and extra benefits will have to be curtailed."What does that mean? Is there any difference between that and touching the pool from an insurance point of view? I am sure that a good many members of this House have taken the precaution to insure themselves against certain eventualities. Has any one of them ever insured himself in, say, a mutual insurance society without calculating what the possibilities of the insurance were as well as the actual benefits promised to them? As a matter of fact an insurance implies possibilities, and to deprive an insured person of possibilities that were held out to him when he entered insurance on the ground that the actual accumulated funds, the£s. d., as it were, the actual balances shown on the books at the time of the alteration are not being reduced—that is not., if I might say so, an honest and a full consideration.
In this case the insurance is ninepence for fourpence, or whatever it was—so many pennies from the workers, so many pennies from the employer, and such and such a proportion from the State. That is going to be. the insurance that is going to enable the people of the country as a whole to enjoy the benefits of medical attendance and the grouped social services round about, and it has gone on, and the State offers that as a benefit The State did not merely offer doctors' attendances as a benefit. The State offered medical attendance and drugs and so on, plus possibilities. The possibilities were to be valued and whatever happened to the valuation—whether there was to be a surplus or a deficit—the insurance that was to be given was the value of fourpence, fivepence, and two-ninths at a given time.
The Government are stepping in and saying: "I am not touching your balances in 1926; whatever is realised is going to remain; but I am compelling you, the beneficiaries whom I have driven into this compulsory insurance by my 2233 pledges and by the agreement I came to, I am compelling you to go on paying your part of the insurance while I am going to deprive you of the realisation of the possibilities of your payments on the original contract, because it does not s[...]it me to go on keeping my part of the obligation."That is a very accurate statement of the situation. When I held up the mirror handed to me by right hon. Gentlemen opposite so that I might see my own face in it, I thought it was possible that I might do a thing like this, that. I might break contracts, rob, and go to people or classes or groups that had accumulations of wealth, and raid it. I never believed it of myself, but sometimes one is deceived in oneself, and it has been asserted so often by right hon. and hon. Members opposite regarding us that I am not at all sure, standing as I do begging them to be honest and to fulfil their contracts. If they are poor and poverty-stricken and must retrench and take away the £2, 800, 000, let them go like honest, straightforward partners in business to their partners and do it only after agreement with them. If the sum credited to each individual insured person is greater than is necessary to entitle him to what you consider a reasonable amount of benefit, then he is as entitled to have h s contribution reduced as you are to have your contribution reduced.
I take the three partners: the workmen, the employers and the State. The three of them ought to have reductions if there is going to be reduction at, all. That, to me, is the principle of the thing. I have not followed this since those days of 1911, when we had very difficult negotiations, and when the Labour movement was very much divided as to whether it would take this on or reject it altogether. But my right hon. Friends round me have kept a day to day contract with the working of this, and they have produced facts to the Committee, which I think must have, impressed the Committee, of the working of it and of the effects on the working of the scheme of the withdrawal of the £2, 800, 000. But I am interested in this departure in political policy. I think it is an exceedingly bad departure. I think the beginning is very easy and that it is very easy to continue it. It is very easy to apply it in other directions. The House of Commons claims this authority, as I suppose it 2234 will this morning, and hon. Members will be brought into the lobby to give the Government a majority in favour of this. Very well, you have set the principle, you have given an example. We are prepared for a principle of breach of principle which you say is honest, which you say is wise, which you say is justified in view of State necessities. Very well, I hope somebody will not come after you who will apply the same principle to such a wide extent that it will mean a thorough discrediting of the whole credit of the State.
§ Sir K. WOODThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has, at any rate, added a new phase in the discussion we have had to-night on the question of pledges. The Committee will remember that this afternoon the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Bo roughs (Mr. Lloyd. George) put their case against the Government on the ground that there. were some statements made in the course of the discussion when the 1911 Act was introduced into the House of Commons which were being flagrantly overlooked to-day. It is a very curious thing that both these right hon. Gentlemen and, I suppose, most hon. Members of the Opposition had a very long time to look up these speeches, but at any rate from my own. point of view I have not head a single statement this afternoon which hears out any of those allegations. I heard most of the speeches, and I have also had an opportunity of looking them up. The pledges given to the societies in 1911 were two. One was that, as a result of their good management and efficiency, they would get any surpluses and enjoy the benefit of them. The second was that, if they cared to form themselves into different groups and, say, a lot of good lives banded themselves together into a society, then they should have the advantage of that selection. But in the statements that have been read to us this afternoon somebody has endeavoured to impose a third suggestion which was never made at any time, or given in this House, or has been borne out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby this afternoon—that whatever your surplus may he, and whatever the basis of the actuarial arrangements of the Act may be, these were to be retained as a neces- 2235 sary consequence. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) has added a third one. In this case he is not resting his case on any of these statements, and I am not surprised at it, but on a section in the Act of Parliament.
A statement was made to the Royal Commission by a gentleman—whose name I will mention later—when there was no question whatever of any such issue coming before the House, when he was urging, as far as these surpluses were concerned, that they should belong to insured persons as a whole. There were four gentlemen present. He said:
We suggest that Parliament was entitled to assume from the Actuaries' report that over the whole insured population the contributions would exactly square with seven-ninths of the costs of the then normal rates of cash benefits and medical and sanatorium benefits, and that, therefore, the pledge, in so far as any legislation can be a pledge for all time, did not contemplate any surplus over the whole population. We cannot agree that the claims of societies as a whole in this respect extended beyond the expected expenditure in the aggregate upon normal benefits. We suggest that the obligation of the State does not really extend beyond providing the necessary initial paper reserves to enable people of all ages to pay the flat rate contribution for the normal rate of benefit; indeed, we suggest that that was the sole purpose of the State grant on benefits originally. We say further that, had Parliament known that over the whole insured population the normal rates of benefit could have been purchased for a lower rate of contribution, the statutory contribution would have been that lower rate.2.0 A.M.Let me tell the Committee who it was who made that statement. It was made by Mr. Kershaw, the President of the National Association of Trade Union Societies, who was accompanied by three of his colleagues. Therefore at any rate, so far as the judgment of those gentlemen was concerned, there was no question whatever about the position of Parliament, and he was the first to recognise that obviously if Parliament enacts a Clause of that kind they could always alter it.. He stated the exact position of Parliament. and the Societies at the time the 1911 Act was introduced. It was based on conjectures. Owing to the good management and efficiency of the Societies, the Minority Report says the very huge surpluses are accounted for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon 2236 has forgotten what the predominant partner in this partnership has done over a very extended period. This partner has done two things. On several occasions he has altered the finances of this scheme altogether. I was very surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, talking about alterations in the scheme because the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) described it as one of the alterations of the Act. lie said that the House would understand that in coming to the conclusion about the alteration of benefits those who were promoting or were behind the Act of 1918 had to say to the approved societies that were in surplus: "We are going to take something from you. You were told that you would have the full benefit not merely of your intermediate but of your deferred benefits, which would come in in 20 years. We arc going to reduce the sinking fund, which will shift into the distance the deferred benefits."It was en that basis, the hon. Member for South Shields said, that the agreement was come to prior to the Act of 1918 which resulted in the sinking fund being diminished so that the ultimate benefits would be put back. No one, therefore, can get up and say that the finances of this scheme have never been altered, because on two very vital occasions the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs altered them himself. If you sum up the position of partnership and what has happened since 1911 the fact is that whenever there has been a deficiency in this fund it is the State which has found the money. If you are going to deal with fairness and equity you must consider that in the course of this scheme, since 1911, the State has found no less than twenty four extra millions of money. I do not think any one to-day can say that the other contributors have been treated unfairly or are being treated unfairly with the proposale now being made. If you assume that there is a partnership there is a very big balance upon the side of the State. In connection with the contribution, I may say that on the part of the other two parties—the employers and the employed—their contribution has been reduced already. Some doubt—and I confees I was amazed to hear it—has been thrown upon the financial stability of 2237 the approved societies as a consequence of these proposals. All sorts of hazy ideas have been expressed. Figures of an altogether unverified character have been read out and the Government Actuary's report has been ignored.
An hon. Gentleman asked me some questions about the insurance fund on the first valuation. The figures are striking as showing the strength of these societies. At the end of the first valuation there Was a net surplus of over £17, 000, 000. He asked me how many societies had surpluses—9, 745 societies and branches had surpluses comprising, I think, some 13, 000, 000 members; there were 10 cases of societies covering a membership of only 3, 249 in which the assets and liabilities exactly balanced, and there were deficiencies in 28 societies and 397 branches with a membership of only 32, 320. The total amount of deficiency in these societies was only £80, 919. In only four cases was the contingency fund insufficient to meet the deficiency.
§ Mr. R. DAVIESWill the hon. Gentleman say whether £17, 000, 000 is disposable surplus.
§ Sir K. WOODNo I do not think the whole of it was disposable. A certain portion is to be reserved and balances go forward. That does not take away from the strong position of these societies. What the Government actuary says is:
Taking the results as a whole no student of social conditions can fail to be impressed by the financial strength of the position of National Health Insurance and the capacity of the system to administer some of the most urgent needs of the industrial population.I hope no Member will leave this House thinking that these benefits have been in pe[...]il, or are in peril to-night. I think it is desirable, in conclusion, to fate exactly what this scheme means to the finances of the societies. In the first place, the surpluses which have accrued to the societies on 21st December, 1925, are left absolutely undisturbed. No society will be placed in the position of having to deprive its members of any benefits whether statutory or additional which a society contracted to provide under the second valuation, or would have been able to provide under the second valuation, by the changes we are now to make. In other words, it is not until December, 1931 that anything found in the financial arrangements of this scheme will affect the finances of the societies at all. In that 2238 year it is perfectly true it must make a difference by the amount in question, but I would like to read what the Government actuary himself says about the surpluses of these societies in future, for all sorts of wild statements have been made that the societies are never again to have any more surpluses; that when this scheme comes into operation it means no additional benefits in the future, that the insured population must content themselves with the ordinary benefits under the Act—an absolutely mistaken idea. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Actuary's Report he will see in paragraph 33 that he says:Surplus funds will continue to arise.There is every probability, as far as one can speak at this time, that in the third valuation the surpluses of these societies may very well be as large as they are to-day. I remember very well that at the end of the first valuation many members of societies and members of Parliament thought that was going to be the end of surpluses of approved societies, whereas at the second valuation surpluses were nearly double. I would say to hon. Members that in voting for this proposal they are voting for a necessary proposal, having regard to the conditions in which we are living—a very modest one, one which, I think, will not affect the surpluses of the societies as they are to-day. We all desire to see these surpluses continued. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley pictured some servant going to the panel doctor and not getting some specialist treatment. I want the Committee to understand there is nothing in this proposal to prevent the Government carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in that respect myself am hopeful that so far from their being a. reduction of benefits we shall shortly be able for the first time in this country to give specialist treatment, as outlined in this report, to the insured people in this country. I would say that while we all of us dislike having to cut down the funds of any institution we are taking a step which at this moment is vitally necessary and will not do any great or irretrievable harm to the societies.
§ Mr. SKELTONMight I ask whether, in the hon. Gentleman's view, this reduction will not increase the number of societies showing a deficiency on the valuation of 1921?
§ Sir K. WOODNo, Sir; so far as I can see certainly not. If the hon. Member reads the actuary's report on the Bill he will see that special provision is made to deal with the very few cases of societies liable to go into deficiency as we shall be able to explain when we come to the Clause concerned.
§ Mr. SKELTONCan the hon. Member estimate the number of societies that will go into deficiency?
§ Sir K. WOODAccurate figures cannot of course be given, but provision is made.
Mr. THOMASThere is at least one advantage to be learned from the last speech. It is that at last Members on the opposite side of the House are beginning to understand not only what we are discussing but what is going to be the effect of it, The very pertinent and pregnant question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and not answered, is what is disturbing Members not only on that side of the House but on this side as well, but curiously enough it is left to this stage to get the newest explanation. The Government now say "It is true we are going to rob you, but you will not discover it for five years."At last we have got this admission.
§ Mr. WESTWOODOn a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to undress himself in this House?
Mr. THOMASI do not think the Committee will be so interested in that kind of proceeding. We have always urged one simple proposition, that by taking £2, 800, 000 from this fund the approved societies must suffer. The way they are suffering is this. Remember this is a fixed amount every year. When the third valuation takes place—and when the hon. Member refers only to the second valuation he means that pending the third valuation no additional benefits will be paid to anybody—there will be five times £2, 800, 000 less to be distributed to the members. He knows that, so far as he and his party are concerned, in five years' time they will not have to meet the difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Optimism!"] No, common-sense, added to stupidity of hon. Members opposite on this Clause. It is quite true, he says, they will not discover it for five years, and when they do it will be the other people's duty to put it right. I ask now what I asked earlier. What do hon. Members 2240 opposite say to listening to extracts from reports of which they never heard before—extracts from a Royal Commission report which this House has never had an opportunity to debate? You have heard in the last sentences of the hon. Member's speech that the Government do contemplate doing something in conformity with the Report. It is the first time we have heard it, and we hear it at 2.15 in the morning. Here is a quotation from the Departmental Actuaries' Committee to the Royal Commission. These are the people quoted as authorities. They are appointed by the Minister to give actuarial advice. Here is the answer to the question just put:
We are, however, constrained to point out that the imposition of new burdens would result in increased deficiencies where deficiencies now exist.In other words, they state plainly and bluntly that in 10 per cent. of societies, in which it is admitted there is a deficiency, this proposal of the Government would increase the difficulty. They go on to say:Or in the creation of a deficiency where on the present basis a surplus would have appeared. As the valuation reports have shown, the societies vary widely in their financial position and only margins which have emerged on the present basis have protected a number of them.In other words, it is only the margin which is now being taken away which has kept some of them straight.The further expenditure contemplated by our terms of reference necessarily involves the reduction of these margins and this is bound to have adverse results on the solvency of the weaker units. It is impossible to form any definite opinion as to the membership of the societies which the new burdens would place in difficulty, one of the difficulties of the position being that the numbers would grow as the surpluses hitherto carried forward in sub-normal cases became exhausted and the full price of the new charges had to be met without the possibility of assistance from this source. We are led to expect that, after making the best estimates of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burden would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent. of the whole insured population.Ten per cent. of 15, 000, 000, that is their estimate—not 300, 000, as somebody said from the other side. I am quoting from the Actuaries' Report to the Royal Commission. Then they go on to say this:This is a grave prospect, and although the machinery of the central fund is sufficient, we believe, to meet the situation, 2241 we do not think we are going beyond our duty in inviting the Royal Commission to consider the effect upon the credit of the whole system of the adoption of changes such as might produce deficiency to the e dent here indicated on the valuations of the societies—even though the means of subsequent adjustment existed and were ample for the purpose.I am entitled now to answer for the benefit of hon. Members opposite what the Minister refused to say. One of his strong supporters said: "Will you really tell me what are the numbers?"And after some hesitation he said: "I believe 300, 000."I am speaking within the recollection of the House. At all events, I w ill take the estimate of the Actuaries' Report, and say that is the best authority. Now, says the hon. Member, look what the predominant partner, the State, has done? The original Act provided 10s. per week sick benefit, which was increased in the existing Act to 15s. per week, and this was the 9d. for 4d.—10s. originally provided increased to 15s. That is sick benefit. I presume there is no one who is going to argue that this is too much. Taking the cost of living as it is to-day, 72 per cent. above pre-War, above the time when this contract was entered into, the value of the 15s. is just 8s. 9d. per week, or 1s. 3d. less than the original Act provided. Taking disablement benefit, there is a difference of 8d., both to men and women, and on the maternity benefit there is a difference of 6s. 9d. Then we have the hon. Gentleman getting up and saying to the House: "Remember what the predominant partner has already done."Yes, he has succeeded in creating a situation that
§ makes the original bargain 1s. 3d. less than it was when they entered into it. Then he proceeds to argue that the State is justified. I would like him to answer a simple question put by the Leader of the Opposition. The simple question he put is this. Does he remember any amendment to the Insurance Act where two partners were not consulted? Has there been any amendment of the Insurance Act affecting the administration of the Societies where both parties were not called into consultation long before anything was presented to the house of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman need not answer, because the simple answer is: He knows none; and he knows perfectly well that he himself has been a party to many negotiations prior to a Bill being introduced. We are entitled to ask why this change to-day. It can only be attributed to the silent majority, but I again repeat there has been no answer. You have violated every pledge. You have ignored the approved societies. You have said to them in substance: You do not count. If that be your position, will you go to consult your constituents upon the amendments which you are going to vote upon. That is all we ask. We are content to be judged by that result.
§ Mr. Chamberlain rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put: "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes 121.
2245| Division No. 110.] | AYES. | [2.27 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Briscoe, Richard George | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) |
| Alnsworth, Major Charles | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Davidson, Major-General Sir 1. H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Buckingham, Sir H. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, cent'l) | Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Butt, Sir Alfred | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Elliot, Captain Walter E. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Campbell, E. T. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) |
| Atkinson, C. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. |
| Balniel, Lord | Chapman, Sir S. | Fermoy, Lord |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Fielden, E. B. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D. | Frasor, Captain Ian |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Collox, Major Wm. Phillips | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Couper, J. B. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Ganzonl, sir John |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Courthope, Lieut-Col. Sir George L. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Gee, Captain R. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Goff, Sir Park | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Grace, John | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sandon, Lord |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macintyre, Ian | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Greens, W. P. Crawford | McLean, Major A. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Grotrian, H, Brent | Macmillan, Captain H. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Gunston, Captain Q. W. | Makins, Brigadier-General E | Skelton, A. N. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Malone, Major P. B. | Sianey, Major P. Kenyan |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Meller, R. j. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Merriman, F. B. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Montell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Stanley, Cot. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C, | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Henderson, Capt.R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H | Murchison, C. K. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Neville, R. J. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Templeton, W. P, |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Nuttal, Ellis | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Pilcher, G. | Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Horlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Radford, E. A. | Wells. S. R. |
| Huntingfield, Lord | Raine, W. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Ramsden, E. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Rentoul, G, S. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Jacob, A. E. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Kindersley, Major G. M. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Wise, Sir Fredrio |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Ropner, Major L. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Lamb, J. O. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Rye, F. G. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Salmon, Major I. | |
| Loder, J. de V. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Looker, Herbert William | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Major Cope and Captain Margesson. |
| Lougher, L. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gillett, George M. | Lunn, William |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro) | Gosling, Harry | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mackinder, W. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | MacLaren. Andrew |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Groves, T. | Maxton, James |
| Barnes, A. | Grundy, T. W. | Montague, Frederick |
| Barr, J. | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hardie, George D. | Palin, John Henry |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Harney, E. A. | Paling, W. |
| Briant, Frank | Harris, Percy A. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Broad, F, A. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. |
| Bromley, J. | Hayes, John Henry | Purcell, A. A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Buchanan, G. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hirst, G. H. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Clowes, S. | Hirst, w. (Bradford, South) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Compton, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Connolly, M. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Siesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Cove, W. G. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Snell, Harry |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Kirkwood, D. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Dennison, R. | Lansbury, George | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Duncan, C. | Lawson, John James | Taylor, R. A. |
| Dunnico, H. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Garro-Jones. Captain G. M. | Lindley, F. W. | Thurtle, E. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Livingstone, A. M. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Townend, A. E. | Westwood, J. | Windsor, Walter |
| Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Whiteley, W. | Wright, W. |
| Varley, Frank B. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Viant, S. P. | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) | |
| Wallhead, Richard C. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Williams T. (York, Don Valley) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) | Warne. |
| Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
§ Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted."
2246§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 209.
2247| Division No. 111.] | AYES. | [2.37 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro) | Hardle, George D. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Ammon, Charles George | Harney, E. A. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Harris, Percy A. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Siesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Barr, J. | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, Ronnie (Penistone) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Snell, Harry |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, G. H. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Broad, F. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Bromfield, William | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Bromley, J. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Buchanan, Q. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Thurtle, E. |
| Charleton, H, C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Clowes, S. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Townend, A. E. |
| Close, W. S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Collins, Sir Godirey (Greenock) | Kelly, W. T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Connolly, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lansbury, George | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Crawford, H. E. | Lawson, John James | Warns, G. H. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lee, F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lindley, F. W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Livingstone, A. M. | Westwood, J. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lunn, William | Whiteley, W. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | MacDonald, Rt. hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Dernison, R. | Mackinder, W. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Williams, Dr. J. H. (LIanelly) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Montague, Frederick | Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gibins, Joseph | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Wright, W. |
| Gosling, Harry | Palin, John Henry | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Granted. D. R. (Glamorgan) | Paling, W. | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. w. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Charles Edwards. |
| Guest, J. (York, Hernsworth) | Sakiatvala, ShapurJi | |
| NOES. | ||
| Actand-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James r. | Brown, Brig -Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Buckingham, Sir H. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Albery, Irving James | Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Edmonson, Major A. J. |
| Alexander, Sir Wu. (Glasgow, cent'l) | Butt, Sir Alfred | Elliot, Captain Walter E. |
| Allen. J.Sandoman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. | Campbell, E, T. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Applin, colonel R. v. K. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.) | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Fermoy, Lord |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Chapman, Sir S. | Fielden, E. B. |
| Atkinson, C. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Balniel, Lord | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E, |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Bamston, Major Sir Harry | Couper, J. B. | Ganzonl, Sir John |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Gee, Captain R. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Crookshank.Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Goff, Sir Park |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Grace, John |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Macintyre, Ian | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waller E. | McLean, Major A. | Sandon, Lord |
| Gunston, Captain D, W. | MacMillan, Captain H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Malone, Major P. B. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Manningham-Bulter, Sir Mervyn | Skelton, A. N. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Margesson, Captain D. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Meller, R. J. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Merriman, F. B. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. B. M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley) | Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R, (Ayr) | Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. G. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Moreing, Captain A. H, | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Murchison, C. K. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Hoare, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Neville, R. J. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Nuttall, Ellis | Templeton, W. p. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Thorn, Lt-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Tryon, Rt.- Hon. George Clement |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Pilcher, G. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Huntingfield, Lord | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Radford, E. A. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Jacob, A. E. | Raine, W. | Wells, S. R. |
| Kidd, J. (Linilthgow) | Ramsden, E. | Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Kindersley, Major G. M. | Rentoul, G. S. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Rice, Sir Frederick | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Ropner, Major L. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Wood, E.(Chest"r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Looker, Herbert William | Rye, F G. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Lougher, L. | Salmon, Major I. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Major Cope and Captain Bowyer. |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell.)
Mr. BECKETTI want to ask permission to move now that the Committee should report Progress on the ground that we have—
§ The CHAIRMANMr. Blundell.
Mr. BECKETTOn a point of Order. Am I not allowed to give my reasons for wanting to move to report Progress?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not doing it in proper form.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "shall"to end of the Sub-section. and to insert instead thereof the words
have effect as from the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, as if the following words were added at the end of the Section except in the case of additional benefits when the whole cost of such additional benefits and the expenses of the administration of such additional benefits 2248 shall be derived from the surplus which is certified by the valuer to be disposable in the manner provided in this Act.'I would like to say one or two words on the words proposed to be left out before I explain the meaning of the words that I propose to insert. A great many arguments have been put forward against the provisions of this Clause. Some of the arguments were good, and some of the arguments were indifferent, but, as I approach this matter entirely from a national health point of view and not at all a political point of view, I am not much concerned with arguments as to the alleged breach of faith. What I am concerned with is the effect that this Clause will have on the scheme of national health insurance. I have listened most carefully to the speech of the Minister of Health and I am sure that all the statements that he made were strictly accurate, as they always are, but he did not say anything which reassured me and my hon. Friends as to the effect that these Clauses would have on the future of health insurance. It is quite 2249 true that no one anticipates that there will be any reduction of benefits prior to 1931, but those of us who have taken an active part in the working of the Health Insurance Act feel quite convinced that there must be a very considerable reduction of benefits after that date. Speaking for myself, I have had the best figures I can obtain got out by societies with which I am connected, and they all tend to show that there must, be, even in the very best societies, a very considerable reduction in benefits in 1931, and there must be, accordingly, a progressive reduction after that date. With regard to the quotations from the Actuaries' report made by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I do not wish to repeat them, but I would remind hon. Members that one of them pointed out that the actuaries estimated that the effect of this Bill would be to put societies containing about 10 per cent. of the insured population into deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman also quoted various other passages from the report of the Actuaries to the Royal Commission indicating the serious consequences that might ensue if the proposals that were being put forward were adopted. The report of the Actuary was based on the assumption that the Government were going to continue to pay two-ninths, and also on the assumption that, though the margin was going to be used for new purposes, it would still remain in the National Health Fund.Therefore, I submit that the condition proposed by this Clause is even more serious than the condition contemplated by the Actuary's report. It must obviously be much more unsafe if you actually reduce the Fund than if you use some of the monies in the Fund for other purposes. What the actuaries say about the effect on the credit of the whole system of insurance if a large number, or even a considerable number, of societies are put into deficiency, is that it must have a very bad effect on those who are banded in the approved societies, and upon the credit of the whole insurance scheme. I would also point out that under this scheme the making good of these deficiencies that a-e anticipated will he provided for by the other approved societies: and, pro tanto, their funds will he depleted. The 2250 actuaries in their very carefully worded report call attention to the fact that the growth of new surpluses will be materially checked. There are all kinds of ways of checking the growth of anything. If you drive a motor car up a steep hill without changing gear, its speed will be gradually checked, and eventually it will stop. I venture to suggest that that is what is going to happen to the surpluses of the National Health Insurance Fund.
3.0 A. M.
The Amendment which I Wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is one which will give the State a considerable saving of money, quite comparable with that effected by the proposals of the Government. But it will not affect the basis of the scheme, and from the point of view of the approved societies will be infinitely preferable, quite apart from the fact that it does not take money away from them. If hon. Members will come with me for a moment to the farmyard, I will give them an illustration, because farming is a subject with regard to which I am more at home. The modern farmer who is producing milk divides the rations of his cows into two parts—the maintenance ration to keep the cow in good condition and in good health and to provide, say, a gallon of milk, and the productive ration which is given according to the amount of milk the cow is yielding. If the farmer were asked to economise in the rationing of his cows he would, of course, object on the ground that it was not good economy, but if he did have to do so, he would economise on the productive ration rather than on the maintenance ration. Now, the Minister, under these proposals he has put forward, proposes to attack both of the rations of the approved societies. Not only is he attacking the productive rations of the cow but he is also removing some of the maintenance ration at the same time. If it is necessary for the Government to get some money from the approved societies—and I am quite willing to accept the assurances of the Government that that is necessary—I think that they should take it from the productive ration and not from the maintenance ration of the approved societies. What I suggest is that the Government should continue to pay the 2/9ths contribution towards the cost of the statutory benefits and that when that is done the Government 2251 should have no further liability, and any additional benefits should be paid out of the funds of the societies themselves. That means that the Government would save a considerable sum of money without upsetting the finances of the approved societies. They would save, according to the actuary's Report, £1, 200, 000 in the year 1926–1927, £1, 500, 000 in the following year, and thereafter an average of £1, 200, 000. Those figures are taken from paragraph 2 of the Report of the Government Actuary, (Command Paper No. 2603). There would be a further saving in addition for the benefit of the state. The margins that have been referred to by the actuaries reporting to the Royal Commission are estimated to be able to purchase benefits to which the Government contribution would amount to £500, 000 a year. That comes from page 4 of the same Command Paper. Therefore, the Government would save under these two headings £1, 700, 000 a year and, in addition, I do not propose to oppose the saving the Government effect on the cost of stamps—£200, 000 a year. Therefore, as my amendment stands, the Government will save £1, 900, 000 a year, and in the year 1927–1928 an extra £300, 000, as compared with £2, 800, 000 under their own scheme. From the point of view of the approved societies the advantages will be very great. The basis of the Act would not be interfered with. From the point of view of the State an automatic increase of the State grant would be entirely checked. The Government have several times referred to the automatic growth of statutory funds, always growing and always drawing more money from the State. Automatic growth will cease and the Government will get considerable advantage without wrecking the Health Insurance scheme as it stands at present. It will allow some societies to make surpluses and be able to continue additional benefits which, I very much fear, they will not be able to do after 1931, unless some change is made in the present proposal. Again, and it is a very important point, no new deficiencies will be created. One of the most objectionable features of the Government proposals is that they deliberately create deficiencies, although means are provided for making them good. If this proposal be accepted, 2252 there will be no need to discuss Clause 3. It will automatically disappear because no new deficiencies being created there will be no need to make them up. By striking out Clause 3 there would be no need to raid the Central Fund as proposed in the Bill. Approved societies regard the taking of this money in order to make good the deficiencies of other societies as a raid on their surpluses. It may not be so to a large extent, but the principle remains and it is objected to by the approved societies. If the Government could see their way to accept this proposal, I believe they will meet with a great deal of agreement amongst the members of the approved societies. Surely it must be worth a good deal when they are bringing in a Bill which is bound to be unpopular, if it can be brought in, not perhaps without protest, but with more or less of an understanding so that it will not be made a long standing grievance.
Treatment benefits are, in the opinion of those well qualified to judge, going very largely to disappear under the scheme as put forward. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has probably washed his teeth at least once a day as long as he can remember, but in that respect, until perhaps recently, he was one of the minority. I do not believe that until comparatively recent years, a large part of the population ever took care of their teeth. I once asked a sergeant what kind of a man a recruit was, and the reply was, "A most respectable man, sir. Cleans his teeth, sir."The Minister in his speech stated that dental treatment was now being extended to 11, 000, 000 insured persons. If a large number of these people will no longer be able to take advantage of this treatment, it will be a step back in our social service. It seems to me that the Conservative party have really a special interest in this matter. It was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) in a debate not long ago that the Conservative party stands for the maintenance of private enterprise, and for private enterprise making profit. It is, therefore, necessarily committed to the protection of the masses of the population in a very particular way. I think that another Conservative principle comes in at this point, and that 2253 is the maintenance of the character of our people. There is no scheme which more than the Health Insurance scheme helps to develop the character of the people. Under that scheme the insured people manage to a large extent their own societies. Through that management they acquire a wider citizenship than they would have otherwise; they take a greater interest in civic life and that leads them to take part in municipal affairs and other activities. Anything that is going to damp the ardour of the men carrying on this work for no salary or nearly always when a salary is paid a nominal salary, will be a disastrous thing for the progress of our country. The Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, the greatest of all friendly societies with the greatest prestige, has intimated that they would be prepared to accept this Amendment as a settlement of the question, if they lead other societies will follow.
§ Major GLYNThe Amendment has been put down on the paper in order to draw attention to how those in friendly societies can contribute their share towards the need for economy, and yet, permit the credit of the societies to remain unimpaired, and for this reason I hope that the Government will not turn down this Amendment without most careful consideration. By this Amendment, the smaller rural societies, which are usually extremely well administered, will be saved from going on the deficiency list. It will he recollected that in 1911 when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) held a conference of the: Rural Societies, special emphasis was laid on the importance of rural workers coming into the scheme and deliberate promises, as I think, were given which have been kept up to now. I feel very strongly that, whatever arrangements are contained in the proposals of this Economy Bill for making good deficiencies in societies, that will not compensate members who belong to them and who will undoubtedly feel that the credit of their society has been damaged.
The other reason why I consider it important that this matter should be considered by the Government is that our party stands for thrift and private enterprise and we do stand for trying by every means we can to raise the social conditions of the country. Those of us 2254 who sit for rural constituencies feel that in those agricultural areas where the rate of wages is not high, although it is as high as the industry can afford, it would be absolutely disastrous if anything were done to make it more difficult for the men to carry on their daily existence. Those of us who realise what the agricultural labourer's wife does with the small amount of money which comes into the house cannot but have the greatest respect for her. Two societies in my constituency (the views of whose representatives I have heard recently) heartily support this amendment. It gives an opportunity to members of friendly societies to do what they can and I would like to say for my part if it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget to reduce further taxation, I would far rather he maintained his taxation and did not carry on this part of his economy proposals.
Mr. THOMASA statement has been made by the Mover of the Amendment that he is acting with the authority of the Manchester Union of Oddfellows.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLYes.
Mr. THOMASThis is the resolution sent to me by them:
The Board of Directors of the Manchester Union of Oddfellows Friendly Society met in London yesterday to consider the Economy Bill, passed a resolution protesting against the proposal to diminish the State grant, the effect of which would be to penalise a section of the community who are compelled to be insured so that another section not insured may benefit. They further urged that the Government pledge of 1912 should be redeemed in full, and that the extension of benefits proposed by the Royal Commission should not be delayed indefinitely, if not rendered wholly impossible, as would be the case if the policy now proposed is to be adhered to.Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that there has been a conference this week where all the friendly societies were present as well as the trade union and industrial societies and that the resolution quoted here is only one of many which were adopted? What is the hon. Member's authority?
§ Mr. BLUNDELLMay I read the resolution?
Copy of Resolution adopted by the Directors of the Independent Order of Odd-fellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society at a Special Board Meeting held at the Bonnington Hotel, London, on Monday, 29th March, 1928.
§ Mr. BLUNDELL
Economy Bill.That while confirming the opinion expressed in their previous resolution that no variation in the original contract under the National Health Insurance Act should be made the Board of Directors are prepared to support the scheme outlined by Mr. F. N. Blundell, M. P. for the Ormskirk Division, for the amendment of the Economy Bill, and that every effort be made to urge the Government to adopt the amendments with the view of their substitution for the Government's present proposals for the abolition of the two-ninths State Grant and substituting therefor one-seventh in the case of men and one-fifth for women contributors.I may say the whole board of directors attended this House the day before yesterday, and repated these declarations to me personally and to eight of my friends.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy lion, and gallant Friend the Member for the Abingdon Division (Major Glyn) expressed the hope that the Government would not turn down this Amendment without due thought. I can assure him that I would not think of turning down any Amendment without due thought, but more particularly one which comes from the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division (Mr. Blundell), because he is recognised as an authority who has studied this question, and has rendered great services to the scheme, without being actuated by any political or personal motives in this matter. Before I come to examine the proposal which he is making, I want to take notice of some observations which he made at the beginning of his speech when he referred to the passage of the Actuaries' Report which had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I think my hon. Friend did not really, if I may say so, quite appreciate the force of the paragraph to which reference has been made. I am not quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated it. The Actuaries in this paragraph spoke of a possible increase of societies which might be thrown into deficiency and spoke of that event as being due to certain new burdens. The new burdens were the assumption of the full cost of medical benefit and the utilisation of the rest of the margin, which they had found, in some way or other 2256 which was to be determined by the Royal Commission. It does not make the slightest difference so far as deficiency is concerned whether the margin were to be used for extended benefit or for economy. The effect is exactly the same of removing a. certain amount out of the available margin. Therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk was mistaken in saying that if the proposals in the Bill were passed the effect would be even more serious than the Actuaries contemplated. Th effect would be the same. They say:
We do not think we are going beyond our duty in inviting the Royal Commission to consider the effect upon the credit of the whole system of the adoption of changes such as might produce deficiency to the extent here indicated on the valuations of the societies.What do they mean by that? They mean that if it were disclosed to the world that there had been a great increase in the deficiency of societies that fact would generally injure the credit of the societies as a whole, and they therefore went on to make a proposal which they thought would avert the danger. The proposal they make is not to take the funds of other societies as my hot. Friend suggested. It was to utilise the Reserve Suspense Fund for this purpose. I want, finally, before I leave this point, to remind the Committee that the Royal Commission themselves had before them this report of the Actuaries. They had before them the remarks of the Actuaries and also the proposals which were made before them. The Commission, having all this before them, were satisfied that they were safe in recommending that the margin left over should he used for extended benefit, and ample provision was made by the proposals of the Actuaries to meet any difficulties. If the Royal Commission was justified in that conclusion we are justified in the proposal we are making to the Committee.I now come to the hon. Member's Amendment. It is one which in one sense is really startling. It proposes to maintain the two-ninths as the State's contribution to normal benefits, but it proposes to abolish entirely the State contribution to additional benefits. This is an Economy Bill, and, therefore, my hon. Friend will not misunderstand me. In the White Paper which accompanies the Bill there is a 2257 little summary at the end of the various economies which, it is hoped, may be effected by this Bill, and by our proposal it is expected that we shall find £2, 800, 000 a, year. What is going to be found by my hon. Friend's proposal? I call the attention of the Committee that it does not begin to operate until July, 1926. Therefore, it does not begin to save money as from the beginning of this year, but only about halfway through. Consequently, we shall not get as much in the first year out of the proposals as we shall get in subsequent years. In the first year, I am told, we shall save £1 300, 000, as against £2, 800, 000 subsequently. From the financial point of vie w I am going to lose, if I accept my hon. Friend's proposal, £1, 500, 000 in the first year out of my £2, 800, 000 and £1.000, 000 a year after that. I think my hon. Friend will admit that, looking at it from that point of view, the proposal is not exactly inviting.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI think my right hon. Friend is rather under-estimating the amount of my proposals. According to the Actuaries' figures, they are £1, 700, 000.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am taking the figures that are given to me by the Actuaries. I do not think my hon. Friend will find in the Actuaries' Report any actual figures, but it is the advice given to me by the Actuaries that I lose £1, 500, 000 in the first year and £1, 000, 000 a, year after that. Let me next look at the proposal from another point of view. The first thing I notice is that to carry it into effect it would be necessary to reconsider all the existing schemes of additional benefits which are in operation. All of them have been calculated on the assumption that the State is going to help these benefits. We should therefore have to suspend benefits now in operation, have to stop them, have to withdraw them and calculate afresh on a new basis whether these particular schemes of additional benefits are practicable or not. That seems to me to be at the very outset an extraordinarily difficult position to take up. It is one thing to say that your proposals may mean that in five or six years you will not get something you are getting now; it is quite another thing to say you must now give up something you are enjoying and you must allow your present benefits to be curtailed.
2258 There is another difficulty. It should be remembered that the proposals of the Bill for the reduction of the State contribution do not make the same reduction in the case of men as in the case of women. The reduction in the case of women is really only one-forty-fifth part of the present contribution, but my hon. Friend is proposing to abolish the grant both in respect of men and women so far as additional benefits are concerned. Of course, he may say, "Ah yes, what I lose on the women I gain on the men, "and if all were composed of equal numbers of men and women that might possibly enable us to get over that particular difficulty. But my hon. Friend knows that that is not so. There are instances of cases where societies are entirely composed of women and other cases of varying proportions between men and women. A proposal of that kind would bear much more hardly upon women than upon men, and might give rise to numbers of inequalities and unfairnesses. Then, my hon. Friend says, that it would be worth while to confront many difficulties and, perhaps, many inequalities in an arrangement of this kind if thereby you could get complete agreement, an agreement with the approved societies which would remove from their mind all sense of bitterness and enable them to accept the proposals as they stand. I agree. But is my hon. Friend in a position to tell me that this does represent an agreed solution? I know he is not. I will accept what he said about the position of the Manchester Unity, but it is not to be taken as representing the society as a whole. As a matter of fact. I have information that the rest of the society is dead against the proposal. We have not a proposal that can be said to be calculated to produce the harmony which we all desire. May I point out a still further difficulty. The hon. Member knows that the valuations of the societies do not all take place at the same time. For purposes of convenience they are divided into groups, one of which is valued one year and the next group in the succeeding year. Now what has happened in the case of the second valuation? The first group was valued in 1922 and the benefits which were assured and which were possible as a result of the surplus disclosed by the valuation began last July. The second group of societies 2259 was not valued until 1923, and the additional benefits will not come into operation till next July. How is it going to work? It is not to operate until next July so that the first group of societies has not only the State contribution, but the unreduced contribution on a year's basis, and the second group will have the State contribution reduced from the very beginning of the operation of their benefits. That seems to me to create an injustice between one group of societies and another. Already there has been some soreness among the members of the second group who thought the earlier group got some advantages, and in addition were able to get a, reduced contribution which was denied to the second group.
It seems to me again that this proposal will press with particular hardship on rural societies. In the early stages of the National Health Insurance Act we heard how the rural workers at that time said that the rate of sickness was less than that of the workers in the industrial towns, and that therefore they ought to have a reduced rate of contribution. What has taken place? They were told it would not matter, that they would have to pay the same contribution for the same benefits in spite of their lower sickness rate, because they would get a bigger surplus than other people, and also the State contribution. Therefore they would he able to get additional benefits to the full value of their contribution. What are they going to say if we abolish the State contribution? Will they not say they are being deprived of one of the advantages of which they were assured? Then there is one other difficulty. We have heard it stated over and over again that if there was a definite promise made to the societies, it was that they should have the full benefit of their careful management. Careful management does not simply mean office work under special supervision, and seeing that the clerks do not make mistakes. It means particularly that the carefully managed societies make proper investigations into all the claims presented to them, and take great care not to pay benefits to members not properly entitled to them. In order to see that the statutory conditions are complied with it is necessary that 2260 they should have sick visitors to go round and see whether the man who is claiming to have sick benefit is complying with the conditions, does not go out an hour too early in the morning or stay out an hour too late at night, and does not take remunerative work. Again, the services of the regional medical officer are brought in to supplement the opinion of the local doctor, and in every possible way well managed societies try to make certain that they are not paying away benefits to people who are not entitled to them, and paying them away at the expense of honest members.
The result is that by careful management these societies accumulate larger surpluses than the societies who are lax in their management. To say now that we are going to abolish the State contributions on the additional benefits arising out of the surpluses and confine the contributions to benefits under the Act seems to me to be the absolute negation of all fairness and all propriety. For taking care that they do not pay claims that ought not to be paid you are going to penalise them and make them receive a smaller contribution from the State, as against people who have not made proper investigations. That seems to me to come nearly to a breach of the pledges given, and I would also say this—that it is not only the past that we have to think of in this matter. It is not only the injustice between one society and another. We must also think of the future. We have to consider that the incentive to good management is the fact that it means the accumulation of surpluses. If you are going to take that away you pay away money in statutory benefits and the tendency will be for societies to spend their money in normal benefits. Therefore, on financial grounds, and on moral grounds, it seems to me my hon. Friend's proposal—although I fully recognise the excellence of his intention, which it does not seem to me to carry out—does not represent a practicable scheme. I think that people are too pessimistic about the future of the societies. The reserves of the societies are partly contained in paper values and partly in cash.
Now as the redemption of the reserve value goes on, there is a constant transference from the paper reserves to the cash reserves, and that means an increasing amount of reserves is all the 2261 time earning the higher rate of interest. That is another factor which is going to make for greater prosperity in the future. I do not know that I can hope that the arguments I have used should remove all the fears which my bon Friend has expressed. I can only say that, for the reasons I have stated, I cannot accept his proposal as it stands. Perhaps he will have another shot. Perhaps, after the criticisms I have passed on this proposal, he will reconsider it. I assure him I am not closing my mind to any modification in the Bill which does not. go to the root of any of its vital principles. To cut the saving in half is obviously more than I could be expected to accept, but if he can suggest some way of covering the proposal which will go some way towards meeting the fears he has expressed and at the same time will not cut away my savings until they are no longer perceptible, I shall be glad to discuss matters with him.
Mr. THOMASI beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary situation we are in at this, moment. There are 15, 000, 000 insured persons and we have just heard from the Minister that if his hon. Friend will see him arid make a proposal that is going to satisfy, not the Oddfellows but the 15, 000, 000 insured persons, then he will be prepared to consider it. Had he not better see the people who can speak? The Hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) cannot. The right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure, wants to consult those who will speak with authority. He half hinted in answer to the first proposal that the hon. Gentleman not only could not bind anybody but that he knew he could not bind anybody.
Mr. THOMASThat being so, surely we are reaching a stage now where we ought to be bargaining. The right hon. Gentleman says quite clearly that if he was satisfied that any proposal he could accept would be accepted by the majority of approved societies, then he would be 2262 prepared to consider it. I put it to him that it is not to the hon. Member for Ormskirk that he has got to direct that message. This curious fact emerges. The directors of the Oddfellows' Society, we are told, have agreed to a proposal in this House of Commons—and please observe they are the directors of the Society, the people who are administering the Society, who are supposed to know all about it—and now we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the biggest riddling of their own proposal that has been administered in the House.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLI think the right hon. Gentleman is doing the Manchester Unity directors an injustice. The proposals may have been riddled, but the Manchester Unity preferred the proposals to those of the Minister.
Mr. THOMASI suppose the Manchester Unity know much more about the administration of the Society than you do, and the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the effect of your proposals on the administration. I am drawing attention to the fact that, so far as they were concerned, they have preferred them to the other. The right hon. Gentleman points out that they would be absurd and ridiculous in practice. I was tempted to look favourably on this proposal when I heard that it meant £1, 300, 000 less, because if I am going to be robbed I prefer £1, 500, 000 than £2, 800, 000. But I do submit that the debate has now reached that stage where, if the Minister wants agreement, there is an opportunity open to him, but it is not for him to reach agreement with any Member who cannot speak with any authority, but it is for him to reach agreement with those who have got to administer the Act, and that is the approved societies as a whole. Therefore in order to give him that opportunity and to save Members from being more confused in choosing between their friend behind and the Minister on the Front Bench, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report. Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 200.
2265| Division No. 112.] | AYES. | [3.47 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Harney, E. A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlilsbro') | Harris, Percy A. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G. (Momnouth, Abertlliery) | Hayes, John Henry | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burniey) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Briant, Frank | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Broad. F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Clowes, S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thurtle, E. |
| Cluse, w. s. | Kelly, W. T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kennedy, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Compton, Joseph | Kirkwood, D | Varley, Frank B. |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury, George | Viant, S. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawson, John James | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Crawfurd, H. E, | Lee, F. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley. F. W. | Warne, G. H. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Livingstone, A. M. | Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne) |
| Davies Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Westwood, J. |
| Day, Cotonel Harry | Mackinder, W. | Whiteley, W. |
| Dennison, R. | MacLaren, Andrew | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Duncan, C. | Maxton, James | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Dunnlco, H. | Montague, Frederick | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily) |
| Glbbins, Joseph | Morris, R. H. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Glliett, George M. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe) |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Giamorgan) | Palin, John Henry | Windso Walter |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Paling, W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Purcell, A. A. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Hardie, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Charles Edwards. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Courtauid, Major J. S. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. sir George L. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley) |
| Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Davidson, J.(Hertf"d, Hemel Hempst'd) | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlifrid W. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Atkinson, C. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Balniel, Lord | Eden, Captain Anthony | Holt. Capt. H. P. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Everard, W. Lindsay | Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Blundeli, F. N. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Hudson, R, S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Fermoy, Lord | Hume, Sir G H. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Fielden, E. B. | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Jacob, A. E. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Gee, Captain R. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward | Goff, Sir Park | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Grace, John | Loder, J. de V. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Lougher, L. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mac Andrew. Major Charles Glen |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir f. (Dulwich) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Macintyre, Ian |
| Cope, Major William | Hammersiey, S. S. | McLean, Major A. |
| Couper, J. B. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | MacMillan, Captain H. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Herelord) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Ropner, Major L. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Huggins-Brise, Major E. A. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Rye, F. G. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Meller, R. J. | Salmon, Major I. | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Merriman, F. B. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dswerth, Putney) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K, P. |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sandon, Lord | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Moreing, Captain A. H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Murchison, C. K. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Wells, S. R. |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Neville, R. J. | Shepperson, E. W. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Skelton, A. N. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Smith Carington, Neville W. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Smithers, Waldron | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wood, E.(Chestr, Stalyb'dge A Hyde) |
| Pilcher, G. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E.) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Stanley, Lord (Fytde) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Radford, E. A. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | |
| Raine, W. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Ramsden, E. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Major Hennessy and Captain |
| Rentoul, G. S. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Bowyer. |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sury, Ct'ts'y) |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLIn view of what the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said as to his willingness to co-operate with us and others who speak for the approved societies in finding a settlement that may be acceptable to the societies and to the Minister, as I understood him to say, and in view of the criticisms the Minister made on the point concerning women's societies—which I must confess I had overlooked, and which I must admit to be a solid criticism—although I cannot agree that all of his criticisms were equally sound, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
§ Mr. HARNEYAm I in order in saying that I object to this withdrawal?
§ The CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary. Objection has already been taken.
§ 4.0 A.M.
§ Mr. HARNEYI assume that such observations as I would have liked to have made upon the Amendment are now open to me. Now, I for one would, of course, have been very glad if the result of this Debate had been that the approved societies were saved the whole £2, 800, 000. In the absence of that, I should have liked to have seen them saved part of the sum. I think it is necessary before we can form a clear judgment as to whether the whole amount, or part of the amount, should be abstracted, to know the principle on which any amount at all should be abstracted. Now, there cannot be any ques- 2266 tion about this. The Clause of the Bill provides that £2, 800, 000 a year is to be taken from somebody. What is it we are really debating about to-night? During the four years I have been in Parliament I never had experience of an all-night sitting until this one. It is not really for the love of the game I am here.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member may be approaching the question of ordinary and additional benefits, but it seems that his course is parabolic.
§ Mr. HARNEYI think, Mr. Hope, I was quite in order in laying the foundation of the thought that the reason for this Debate is that we are discussing a subject of the very greatest gravity. I hope I will be able to deal with it in detail, but the most important feature is that this Bill which is brought forward under the name of an Economy Bill, takes £2, 800, 000 from somebody. Who is that somebody? Is it the gentlemen of accumulated riches, is it the great bodies of rich insurance societies from which that £2, 800, 000 a year is to he taken? It is to be taken from a corporate entity that has been formed to dole out health benefits to the very poorest classes of the community. Is it any wonder that we all should have got into a state of exhilaration.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. and learned Member is indulging in hyperbole. He had better keep to the Amendment.
§ Mr. HARNEYSince apparently neither my Friends—[Interruption].
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in Gs place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
2268§ Question put, "That the Question be put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 114.
2269| Division No. 113.] | AYES. | [4.5 [...].m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Neville, R. J. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Gaff, Sir Park | Nuttail, Ellis |
| Aibery, Irving James | Grace, John | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Grattan- Doyle, Sir N. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Plichor, G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Pownail, Lieut. Colonel Assheton |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Radford, E. A. |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Raine, W. |
| Atkinson, C. | Hammersley, S. S. | Ramsden, E. |
| Balniel, Lord | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Hartington, Marquess of | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, ChWy) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Haslam, Henry C. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Rye, F. G. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hills, Major John Waller | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sandon, Lord |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Hume, Sir G. H. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Huntingfield, Lord | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Jacob, A. E. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cobb. Sir Cyril | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Klnioch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cope, Major William | Lamb, J. Q. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Couper, J. B. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George n. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Courtaurd, Major J. S. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Loder, J. de V. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Looker, Herbert William | Sugden. Sir Wlifrid |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro) | Lougher, L. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Templeton, W. P. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George clement |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Macintyre, Ian | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovli) | McLean, Major A. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | MacMillan, Captain H. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Makins, Brigadler-Generel E. | Wells, S. R. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Malone, Major p. B. | Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Meller, R. J. | Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D, | Merriman, F. B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Fermoy, Lord | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Fielden, E. B. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Moore, Lieut.-colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wood, Sir Kingstey (Woolwich, W.). |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Moreing, Captain A. H. | |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gee, Captain R. | Murchison, C. K. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord |
| Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Nelson, Sir Frank | Stanley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Attlee, Clement Richard | Batey, Joseph |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Beckett, John (Gateshead) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Barr, J. | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bromfield, William | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bromley, J, | Jenkins, W. {Glamorgan, Heath) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Buchanan, G, | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Clowes, S. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Kennedy, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Kirkwood, D. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lansbury, George | Thurtle, E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lee, F. | Townend, A. E. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lindley, F. W. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dennison, R. | Livingstone, A. M. | Viant, S. P. |
| Duncan, C. | Lunn, William | Wellhead, Richard C. |
| Dunnico, H. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Mackinder, W. | Warne, G. H. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | MacLaren Andrew | Watson, w. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Gillett, George M. | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gosling, Harry | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morris, R. H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Groves, T. | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, David (Swansea. East) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Paling, W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hardle, George D. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe |
| Harney, E. A. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Harris, Percy A. | Purcell, A. A. | Windson Walter |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Saklatvala, Shapurjl | |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesday) | Barnes. |
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word twenty-six, ' in page 1, line 13, stand part of the Clause, "put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Miss WILKINSONI beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "twenty-six ", and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-eight."
I regret in moving this Amendment that I am not able to speak with the high spirits of the previous speaker. I wish to point out—
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI have not gathered which of the two Amendments the hon. Member is moving, and whether the first is cut of order.
§ Miss WILKINSONI am moving, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13. In doing that I do not want it to be taken that we on this side approve of the idea that this Bill should come into operation in 1928, but we hold that it would be better than 1926. When this Economy Bill was first thrown at the head of a startled country, it created a general feeling of dismay. There was a feeling in the country that the Bill was being rushed, and subsequently the Government have done 2270 nothing to allay that feeling. Sir Thomas Neale has recently said:
The Government is rushing the Bill through before Easter so that people shall not have time to understand it and protest. They are rushing it through to prevent people understanding how they are being robbed.That is not the speech of a mediocre orator in Hyde Park, but the considered opinion of one of the greatest insurance authorities of to-day. I take it that the Bill is based on the Report of the National Health Insurance Commission, yet the Commission itself points out thatWe could have wished that more evidence could have been forthcoming from insured persons. While we took such steps as were practicable we recognise the difficulty of securing evidence which is truly representative.When you come back to the Commission's report itself you find that it states that it has not had sufficient evidence before it to come to its conclusion; therefore I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself is really comfortable about this Bill, whether he does not think that, instead of rushing it through in the next week or two, especially in rushing it through at this early hour of the morning, he ought not to get into touch with the approved societies, and still more with the membership of the approved societies, and find out what they think of 2271 it? The Government ought to consider whether agreement cannot be reached, and in suggesting this two years' postponement it is to give the right hon. Gentleman really the very barest minimum of time to get into touch with the members of the societies. May I quote the Minister of Health's own statement of yesterday afternoon? In answer to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), he said in any case the scheme would have to be reviewed. I think there are a good many people who will agree that, on the basis of the experience of the last few years, the scheme will have to be reviewed. But in what way? Surely not in this very hurried, hastily patched-together scheme, in an attempt to secure a few hundred thousands for a desperate Chancellor of the Exchequer who gave last year £10, 000, 000 back to the Super-tax payer. On page 292 of the Report of the National Health Commission it is stated:The first point to which we wish to draw attention, the lack of co-ordination in our social services, is one which has been the subject of comment in many quarters. We desire in this place to point out the inconvenience and by implication the waste which it occasions. In a sense this question may not be within our terms of reference, but it is impossible to survey the field of Health Insurance without realising that the problems of health insurance are closely interwoven with wider questions from which in fact they cannot be divorced … On the possibility of co-ordination, on the alternative methods and machinery of operating a co-ordinated scheme we have received no evidence or only incidental evidence, and on all such matters we express no opinion. But we desire to emphasise that there is here a problem which calls for urgent consideration. It may be that in a co-ordinated scheme different machinery would still be necessary for the administration of different sections of the work undertaken, but prima facie it appears reasonable to assume that an economy of expenditure and of effort would be effected by viewing the problem of social insurance as a whole and not sectionally.I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that this Bill being rushed through as it is before Easter, before any time has been taken to consult the approved societies, when the country as a whole has not had time to discuss it, when there is a general feeling of bewilderment all through the country, whether he would not be well advised to take two years extra in order to come to some understanding. The greater part 2272 of the saving of this scheme will not operate till 1931. That gives the right hon. Gentleman time to consider the whole matter fully, and to go into it in order to produce a scheme which will have a reasonable basis. I was accused—a dreadful accusation to be hurled against any Member on this side of the House—that in the speech which I made in introducing the Factories Bill I had made a sound Conservative speech. I have not yet recovered from the effect of that accusation. I want to suggest to the present Minister of Health that he might return to the sound doctrines of his own party in this most contentious Bill. I do not think he has any conception of the feeling that is aroused in the country by this Bill. He would do very much better by taking the two years as suggested by the Amendment in order to find out what the electorate is really thinking about. I feel the Government may have a shock in a forthcoming by-election.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think the reference to by-elections is in Order.
§ Miss WILKINSONBy-elections will come in the two years that are suggested by my Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANIf by-elections come, the hon. Lady does not suggest that by-elections should affect the judgment of Members of this House?
§ Miss WILKINSONI wish to point out that we want consultation. We want time to have consultation. I believe that it will not be a question of a by-election, but of a General Election.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Lady must confine herself to the Amendment.
§ Miss WILKINSONIt is necessary to bring home to the Minister of Health the vital necessity of these two years. He will find it extremely difficulty to justify in the country this Bill if he refuses the short period mentioned in the Amendment. The Bill affects about 15, 000, 000 people, and these 15, 000, 000 people have the right to be consulted before their benefits are taken in this way, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can justify rushing this Bill at the fag end of a very severe Session. I feel justified in asking him to go further into the matter, and to take two years to consider the whole question, to consult the 2273 approved societies, the membership of the approved societies, and to produce a Bill which will really command assent.
§ Sir K. WOODI regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. [An HON. M EMBER: Why not'? "]. We discussed the question of the postponement of the Cause, and it has been rejected by the Committee. We also discussed the Amendment that the Bill should be left open until after the next General Election. That was also rejected by the Committee. The proposal now is that the Bill should be postponed for two years, but as the purpose of the Bill is to effect a saving immediately it would not be practicable from that point of view to postpone it for two years.
Mr. THOMASWe certainly are en-tilled to complain, as I now complain, against the inadequate reply to the reasons given in favour of the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for best Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). It is quite true that the hilarity of a number of hon. Members opposite prevented them from appreciating the eloquence of the hon. Member, but those of us who listened to her speech feel justified in saying that the Minister himself ought to have replied. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister will reply! "] The interrupter says the Prime Minister will reply and I agree that the importance of this Bill would even warrant the intervention of the Prime Minister. I therefore associate m3 self with the remarks of the hon. Member who interrupted. I believe the Prime Minister ought to be here. Unfortunately, he is not, and I dare say that if I move to report Progress even on the ground that he is not here it would be difficult to carry the Motion, though if he is in bed I do not want to get, him out of it. I will therefore make the best of the material that is here. If the Minister himself feels that he is so tired and jaded and worried that he cannot reply and puts up his Under-Secretary we are entitled at least to a better reply. I ask the Committee to consider seriously the difference between the present Amendment and the two previous ones. The first Amendment asked for a postponement of this Clause until after the Easter recess. The reason given by the 2274 Government against the acceptance of that Amendment was that so far as Easter was concerned there was a. Report stage and the Third Reading to be carried through. The next Amendment was to postpone the operation of the Clause until after a General Election. The Government reply to that is: "No, we are afraid to consult the electors. We are afraid of giving the people an opportunity. We know perfectly well that if we delay it until after a General Election it will never be introduced."I think my right hon. Friend will admit that is the short case against the Amendment. You have refused the postponement over Easter or to defer it until after a General Election. Surely you have no right to consider £5, 600, 000 against the interests of 15, 000, 000 people. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is used to having so many millions about him, worry about £5, 000, 000?
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give a better reply than he has given. Is it not conceivable that if you accept this Amendment we may come to a bargain? We may, for instance, agree that you ought to have a General Election and then we would have an opportunity within two years to test this question. For these reasons I feel that it if; not only a good Amendment, but I think the Committee will agree that a grave injustice is being done if it is not accepted. It is not treating the Opposition properly and it is not fair to them to keep us here all night because someone has to look after these insured people. If, in our anxiety to do what you ought to be doing and in our anxiety to protect these people, we are kept here until this time of the morning, we are entitled to some response from the Government to the request made. If a more reasoned reply is not forthcoming, much as we regret trotting about the Lobbies, I should have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to go into the Lobbies.
Mr. BECKETTIt is not good enough to tell us that, because the more sweeping Amendments to the Bill have been rejected, this small and modest request should also be turned down. It is like saying that because you cannot do everything you must not do anything. I suggest that, after all, that has been 2275 said from both sides of the House in this Debate that the proposal to defer the Bill for two years does involve a very serious question of principle which ought to be considered. We have a very large number of comparatively poor people who have managed by the election of adequate persons to manage their affairs and by the accumulation of small subscriptions per head to get a substantial sum. We are always told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that if there is one thing we ought to be careful not to interfere with by legislation it is the habits of thrift, initiative and enterprise in that capital which is so much needed for the conduct of the country. I suggest that in this Amendment we give hon. Members on the other side and the people in the country an opportunity of seeing how serious it is to upset the principle that, when working people by their own initiative and ability in administrative affairs, by their belief in the word of the British Government and employers, have made a success of their undertakings, that although you regard every other form of capital as sacred, working-class capital accumulated in small sums is not sacred. You are certainly, as the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition said, setting a precedent which will be followed to the disadvantage of other interests besides working-class interests in the future. In this Amendment we are not for the moment trying to resist you on the main principle. We are realising that we are a small and insignificant opposition against your reserves, and because of that we are modifying our request. Although we have not been beaten in the battle of wits, we have been beaten in the battle of feet continually during this late sitting, and, knowing that we cannot get the larger things for which we have been pleading, we are now modifying our request to say to you: "Do give your
§ selves an opportunity of getting this matter carefully considered."
§ If the party on these benches considered its best interest in the country, without considering anything else but pure partisan advantage, we would not press this Amendment, because it will be, more than any other of the sins you have committed, the one which the people of this country will hold against you. We are not merely considering opportunities for discrediting Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is so busy devising schemes to discredit your party that there is no need for us to do it. We are pleading for this against our own party interest because we believe you are doing tremendous injustice to the enterprise of private and individual people.
§ Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said nobody will feel any bad effects until 1931. Then why not wait until 1928 to bring it in? If it is true in one direction, it is true in the other. The saving, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said—is so small—less than gentlemen on the other side throw away with hardly a moment's debate when we are discussing the Estimates of the fighting services. I most respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he has not given us anything at all. I remember on another Bill of which he had charge, although he was just as adamant all night long, as dawn began to creep into the skies he did make one or two concessions, and I suggest, if the sun is bringing kindness into his heart, that this would be a most suitable Amendment for him to reward us with for our night's labours.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in. his place., and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put: "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 114.
2279| Division No. 114.] | AYES. | [4.45 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Balniel, Lord | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Barnston. major Sir Harry | Brown. Brig Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Blades, Sir George Rowland | Burgoyne, Lieut. Colonel Sir Alan |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Biundell, F. N | Burton, Colonel H. W. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, w. Derby) | Boothby, R. J. G. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward |
| Appiln, Colonel R. V. K. | Brass, captain W. | Campbell, E. T. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Briscoe, Richard George | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cope, Major William | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Couper, J. B. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Rye, F. G. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hudson, R S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Courthope, Lieut. Col. Sir George L. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Huntingfield, Lord | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Patney) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Jacob, A. E. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Kindersley, Major Guy M, | Sandon, Lord |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovli) | Lamb, J. Q. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Shepperson, E. w. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Loder, J. de V. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Looker, Herbert William | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E | Lougher, L. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Smithers, Waldron |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harm n | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Macintyre, I. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Frasar, Captain Ian | McLean, Major A. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Framantic, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H. |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Malone, Major P. B. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Gee, Captain R. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sugden, Sir Wilfred |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Margesson, Captain D. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meller, R. J. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Glyn. Major R. G. C. | Merriman, F. B. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton). |
| Goff, Sir Park | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Grace, John | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Gratean-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Wells, S. R. |
| Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Murchison, C. K., | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Neville, R. J | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Nuttall, Ellis | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Haslam, Henry C | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | Pilcher, G. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Radford, E. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Raine, w. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Ramsden, E. | Bowyer. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Rentoul, G. S. | |
| NOES | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Day, Colonel Harry | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Dennison, R. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Duncan, C. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Barnes, A. | Dunnico, H. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Barr, J. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Batey, Joseph | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Gillett, George M. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gosling, Harry | Kennedy, T. |
| Briant, Frank | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Broad. F. A. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lansbury, George |
| Bromfield, William | Groves, T. | Lawson, John James |
| Bromley, J | Grundy, T. W. | Lee, F. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lindley, F. W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hardle, George D. | Livingstone, A. M. |
| Clowes, S. | Harris, Percy A. | Lunn, William |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hayday, Arthur | Mackinder, W. |
| Compton, Joseph | Hayes, John Henry | MacLaren. Andrew |
| Connolly, M, | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Maxton, James |
| Cove, W. G. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Montague, Frederick |
| Crawfurd. H. E. | Hirst, G. H. | Morris, R. H. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.). |
| Oliver, George Harold | Smith, Rennle (Penistone) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Palin, John Henry | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Watts-Morgan, Lt.Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Paling, W. | Stamford. T. W. | Westwood, J. |
| Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. | Stephen, Campbell | Whiteley, W. |
| Potts, John S. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wilkinson. Ellen C. |
| Purcell, A. A. | Sullivan, Joseph | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Taylor, R. A. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Sakiatvala, Shapurji | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thurtle, E. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesnury) | Townend, A. E. | Windsor, Walter |
| Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Varley, Frank B. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Viant, S. P. | |
| Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Wallhead, Richard C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Warne. |
§ Question put accordingly, That the word 'twenty-six' stand part of the Clause."
2280§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 115.
2281| Division No. 115.] | AYES. | [4.55 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Meller, R. J. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Gee, Captain R. | Merriman, F. B. |
| Albery, Irving James | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Glyn, Major H. G. C. | Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. C. R. |
| Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby) | Goff, Sir Park | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Grace, John | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Morcing, Captain A. H. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Murchison, C. K. |
| Balniel, Lord | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Neville, R. J. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hammersley, S. S. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Booth by, R. J. G. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hartington, Marquess of | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Brassey. Sir Leonard | Haslam. Henry C. | Pilcher, G. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Radford, E. A. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Raine, W. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.c.(Berks, Newb'y) | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Ramsden, E. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hennessy, Major J. R G. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hills, Major John Waller | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Rye, F. G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Sandeiran, A. Stewart |
| Cope, Major William | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Couper, J. B. | Huntingfield, Lord | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Cuurtauld, Major J. S, | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sandon. Lord |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Jacob, A. E. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwldt) | Kidd, J. (Llnlithgow) | Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Kinclersley, Major G. M. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Skelton, A. N. |
| Davidson, J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Lamb, J. Q. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Loder, J. de V. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Looker, Herbert William | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lougher, L. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Maclntyre, Ian | Streatfeild, Captain S. H. |
| Fanshawe, Commander Q. D. | McLean, Major A. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Fermoy, Lord | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Fielden, E. B. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Malone, Major P. B. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Thorn, Lt.-Col. I. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Margesson, Captain D. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Wallace, Captain D. E. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | |
| Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wells, Sir Fredric | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Wells, S. R. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) | Bowyer. |
| Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. | Wood, E.(Chest'r. Staiyb'dge & Hyde) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Harney, E. A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Harris, Percy A. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfreo (Wednesday) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayes, John Henry | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Banes, A. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bare, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Briant, Frank | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brand, F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Butt) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Clowes, S. | Jones, J. J. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thurtle, E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kelly, W. T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kennedy, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Compton, Joseph | Kirk wood. D. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Connolly, M, | Lansbury, George | Viant, S. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawson, John James. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lee, F. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, F. W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Livingstone, A. M. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lunn, William | Westwood, J. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Whiteley, W. |
| Dennison, R. | Mackinder, W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Montague, Frederick | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morris, R. H. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gillett, George M. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Palin, John Henry | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Paling, W. | |
| Groves, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.- |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Purcell, A. A. | Warne. |
| Hardle, George O. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
§ Mr. SKELTONI beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after the word "effect, "to insert the words
and until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall have effect.I need not assure the Committee that the Amendment I now move is not one which needs elaborate examination of figures or anything of that sort. It approaches the question of Clause 1 of the Economy Bill from another angle, and that angle is this: That the restriction of the State contribution should be regarded as a temporary expedient in time of financial difficulty and should not be regarded as a permanent policy of the State with regard to the friendly societies. We on this side of the Committee are agreed, and temporary financial necessities of the State make it absolutely necessary to support the provisions of the Economy Bill with regard to the insurance societies, 2282 so far as this financial year is concerned, and, no doubt, the one after. I think it would be absurd to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive this economy for one year only. I do not think it is absurd to ask him at the end of two years to reconsider the question of whether the financial situation has so much improved as will enable us once again to return to the full amount of the State contribution.The date, therefore, I would fix for the return to the old standard would be 31st March, 1928. It is clear from what has been said that at the moment, putting it at its lowest, that the greatest dubiety exists as to what will be the actual effect of the diminution in the State contribution. My own view is that we cannot go far wrong if we accept the figures of the Government actuary. The risk that societies embracing 10 per cent. of the insured should suffer deficiency is 2283 a very real one; the risk that societies able to give additional benefits might no longer be able to do so is also a real one. A question which appeals most to me, however, is that it may be, except at a long distance ahead, impossible to carry out improvements in the medical service. It is clear that the Royal Commission regard the building up of specialist medical treatment as a most important matter for the welfare of the people of this country. Obviously it must be that a health insurance scheme, which gives nothing but general practitioner benefit to the insured people, is a health scheme which has not reached full maturity. I beg, therefore, to suggest to the Government and the Committee that it is an advisable and practicable way to deal with the situation to take account of the temporary difficulties of the Government for the next few years and at the end of that period to review the situation and, if possible, to return to the full scale.
I am not one of those, and I do not think there are many on this side of the House who have used the words "breach of pledge."My own view is that in matters of domestic legislation Parliament cannot make or break pledges because it is all powerful. If hon. Members think the matter out they will find that is a proper statement. But whether it is a broken or unbroken pledge that is not really the question. The real question is, Are we running the risk of postponing an improvement in the health service of this country? If we are running any risk, let us minimise it. Let us reduce the period of restricted contributions to the lowest possible extent. Finally, with regard to the course I propose to adopt. I shall be very happy if the Government are able to accept this Amendment and assure the country that their present restricted policy is a temporary one. I should be happy, but less happy, if some compromise were arranged with the friendly societies, but if the Government find it impossible to accept my Amendment I do not propose to divide the Committee upon it. But as far as I am concerned, I propose to give my vote against and not in favour of Clause of the Bill. I do not think it is as it should be that the Unionist party should permanently abandon the higher scale of contribution without making at least 2284 effort when times improve of getting back to it and holding out a hope to the country that that return may he possible within a few years.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend in moving his Amendment stated that he himself was convinced that the proposals of the Bill were necessary for purposes of economy during the present year, but he said he did not desire to see the proposals made permanent. I am sure that all of us hope that the reasons which have made economy so necessary to the nation at present may not be permanent, and that, whenever more prosperous times come, the State will undoubtedly have at its disposal resources which it can use in further social service. But what guarantee has my hon. Friend that in the particular year he chooses the necessity for economy will pass away? He has given no reason. According to his Amendment, in 1928 the contribution of the State automatically goes back to 2/9ths, and if, therefore, the increased contribution was not justified by the financial conditions of the State at that time it would he necessary to introduce amending legislation. If, on the other hand, it is found that in 1928 or any other year conditions are such that it is possible for the State to increase its contribution, and if it is felt that is the best way in which the resources of the State can be utilised then you can alter the provisions of this Bill, and therefore nothing is gained by the proposal of my hon. Friend. I am afraid in spite of the fact that I think two or three times in the course of our discussion it has been stated that the proposals of the Royal Commission in regard to extended medical benefit are not in any way affected by the proposals of the Bill, he still repeats the old story that they will be postponed by the Bill. After all, if he will read the Report he will find it is not the Commission's view that that particular benefit should be financed out of the margin of contribution.
Mr. THOMASWe have just heard a very characteristic reply from the right hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend behind him. After nearly 10 hours' Debate, it is still emerging that, notwithstanding the repeated statements of the right hon. Gentleman, his friends behind him are not yet satisfied. They feel with many of us, in fact all of us, 2285 on this side that it is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman continuously to get up and say: "These people are not affected."The hon. Gentleman made reference to the medical benefit. This is the Clause referred to by him in the Report, page 123:
Proposals for extending Medical Benefit. The first of the questions to which we now turn is that of the extension of the scope of medical benefit. In Chapter V we have indicated the nature of the evidence directed to this question, evidence which leaves in our mind no doubt that this extension should come first in any order of priority of proposals and that such an expansion should be made if or as soon as the necessary financial resources are.I ask the Committee to put the only possible interpretation on that Clause. It is this, to my mind. We recognise, say the Commission, that there is nothing so necessary as an extension of medical benefit. Then they give reasons and give the direction in which this should take place. But they say, "While we believe this is urgent, while we would press it, we do recognise that there is a question of finance."They say, "Immediately the financial position can be met."The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the position given by his hon. Friend behind him, who asked, "What chance is there of the 10 per cent. of societies, with known deficits, giving effect to this Clause? "There has been no answer given to that.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINAs the right hon. Gentleman has read part of a paragraph on page 123 of the Report, and is trying to make out from that paragraph that the Royal Commission recommended extension of medical benefit to come out of part of the margin, I direct attention to paragraph 262 on the next page of the Report:
We have indicated in Chapter IX a financial method by which a generous provision of expert out-patient services can be made available without entrenching on the margin in the present contribution disclosed in Chapter VII, which margin we propose, as will be seen in Chapter XI, should be applied in another important direction.
Mr. THOMASMy right hon. Friend should read on—
We have indicated in Chapter IX a financial method by which a generous provision of expert out-patient services can be made available without entrenching on the margin in the present contribution disclosed in Chapter VII which margin we propose 2286 (as will be seen in Chapter XI) should be applied in another important direction. This method of providing the necessary funds has, as we consider, the additional merit that it at the same time reduces that disparity of resources between the various Societies which has evoked adverse criticism in so many quarters. But whether the cost of an extended medical benefit is met in this or in some other way, such extension should, as we have said, receive first and immediate consideration. Without it, indeed, the limitations of medical benefit remain the most obvious weakness in the whole scheme of benefits under National Health Insurance.That being the weakness of national health insurance, what chance is there for the 10 per cent. of societies. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment apparently has not been answered on the points of criticism he made. He intimated quite clearly that he did not propose to divide. We will save him any difficulty in that connection. We certainly will do our best to limit the evil effects we believe will follow the Government's proposals, and if the hon. Member is so apprehensive he will be able to square his action in moving the Amendment by the opportunity we will give him and not to run away.
§ Mr. SKELTONI said I did not propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment, but I propose, as far as I am concerned, to vote against Clause 1. It is not a question of running away.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI do not know whether the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) is happy over the Bill.
§ Mr. HARNEYWe are all happy now.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYHowever happy they may be on the Liberal Benches, I must say there is nothing in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman which tended to increase my happiness in any way. The reason why I attached my name to this Amendment is that I dislike the whole of this Clause 1 from first to last. I do not see in the least how you can gel away from it however much you may argue about figures and quote reports, and it is more or less an attack upon the approved societies. If you take the effect upon the rural workers of approved societies of Scotland, the Benefit Fund is going to suffer to the extent of over £20, 000 a year. That money has to go somewhere, and it is bound to affect sooner or later the beneficiaries or the members of the various societies. There 2287 is no need to repeat the arguments that have been made over and over again, but the vital sickness, disablement, maternity and treatment benefits are all bound to be effected later on, and, what I think is still more serious, these societies which are in a deficit at the present time, by 1931 will be over the edge altogether, and the effect on their morale is bound to be very considerable.
That is why I view this Clause with great apprehension. It ought to be reconsidered very carefully before we finally commit ourselves to this policy. Some of the arguments that have been previously addressed to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have only tended to increase one's apprehension, and when he mentioned the Pensions Act the other day my dismay was complete. The Pensions Act was introduced with a great flourish of trumpets, but they are laying themselves open to the charge of plundering. The health of the nation is a prime charge. A great deal has been said that we are a C3 nation. We want to prevent our becoming a C4 or C5 nation in the future, and anything that touches health insurance and approved societies ought to be very carefully watched before we commit ourselves. The only justification for this Measure is national economy, and that is the only real defence of this Clause that can be put forward. But I urge the Government to remember, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is not going to make or mar his power as a Minister of Finance by a comparatively small economy of one or two million pounds in a Budget of £800, 000, 000. In the next two or three years we have the enormous amount of £3, 000, 000, 000 of 5 per cent. War Loan for which we can have the option of floating a Conversion Loan in 1929. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer can issue a Conversion Loan which will make 1 per cent. reduction in interest on that loan alone, we shall save more than £20, 000, 000 in the annual revenue. It is a pity to make too much heavy weight in an expenditure which only involves a saving of one or two millions. Retrenchment merely left alone as such has never in the past, and, I hope, will not be in the future the policy of the Unionist party. Wise expenditure is 2288 thrifty expenditure and is a very much better policy. I very much doubt whether this is the wisest policy of expenditure. The reason we move this Amendment is to make it clear that we do not regard it as a permanent feature of the national economy. We would like to see the matter raised again. We want to try to get an agreement which is satisfactory to all concerned.
§ Mr. HARRISI want to congratulate the hon. Member on the very shrewd speech he has made, which might well be listened to by the Minister of Health. Recently I congratulated the Minister on his ability in piloting Bills through the House of Commons, and I said so because he had the wisdom to make concessions. But we have been sitting for nearly three-quarters of the day, and he has not made the slightest concession. Here is an opportunity of making one and bringing about a certain amount of confidence among the people who are watching the passage of this Bill with the greatest anxiety. There are plenty of precedents to limit a proposal of this kind to two years. There is the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, the Rent Restriction Bill, and a great many other Bills passed for an emergency. All the Minister has to do is to come down to this House in two years' time and ask for a short Bill to renew its provisions. The impression must be given outside that economy is being used as an excuse to destroy the spirit of the Health Insurance Act, because hon. Members opposite must not forget they have a very bad reputation in regard to health insurance, though the Minister of Health may be an exception. We cannot forget that when the Health Insurance Bill was originally introduced in 1911 it met with the strongest opposition from the party to which hon. Members belong. We were told the whole Bill was a fraud, that there would not be any benefits, that there would not be any money in the Act to make it financially sound.
I remember very well in 1911 a certain by-election in the constituency which I now represent when the Bill was condemned at every street corner as a fraud, a delusion and a trick. It was condemned on every side. I remember my friend Mr. Masterman losing his seat because of the Insurance Bill. He even lost more 2289 than one seat. After all these years Members opposite come along and tell us that the Act is a success, that it is financially sound and they want to raise fields with it to bolster up other schemes. If they believe in the principle of health insurance, the least they can do is to make this proposal temporary for two years. If they do not like to make concessions to Members on this side, the least they can do is to back up loyally those who keep their Government in office. The principle of the Bill was never mentioned two years ago. The Insurance Act we were told was to be extended in every way. The Government have no right at half-past five in the morning, with the light coming in through the windows, to make a Bill of this kind permanent. It is the let April and that is a very bad omen. I say to the Minister we are prepared to sit here to-morrow and Friday also if necessary.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI support the Amendment, and congratulate the hon. Members who moved it and seconded it upon the proposals they are making to effect a compromise between the Bill as it stands and the feeling they have, which is shared on this side of the Committee, that these proposals are taking away from the health resources of the nation. Although we on this side of the Committee are not convinced that the emergency is such that a single penny should be taken away, we are prepared to support this Amendment as something in the right direction. It will have this considerable effect, that, although it does mean a loss to the funds of the societies of something like £5 000, 000 or more, yet notwithstanding, if this Amendment be carried, that loss will be only of that amount and will not go on indefinitely. We have heard a great deal about various schemes which are going to be thwarted if this money is taken away, but let us remember for a moment what the actual recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Health Insurance is on this matter. What the Commission definitely propose is found on page 152. What they say is:
Finally, however, we came to the conclusion that the second place in our recommended extensions should be given to the prevision of allowances to the dependants of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit, and that extended provision for maternity should be given the 2290 third place, with the result that it cannot be included in the extensions which will become immediately practicable under the financial readjustments which we recommend in Chapters VII and IX of our report.What does that actually mean? It means that they do recommend these dependants' benefits to be an immediate benefit which they wish to see secured. If we turn to page 142 we find exactly the benefit they contemplate with regard to this Bill. They say there aretwo other possible plans either of which could be financed within the present contributions. These are (1) an addition of 3s. a week to the sickness benefit in respect of a wife and an addition of 6d. in respect of a child, one-half of these rates being provided during the payment of disablement benefit, (2) an addition to the sickness benefit in respect of either a wife or a child of 2s. a week with a proportionate addition of 1s. a week to disablement benefit.We have here the definite proposal which the scheme of the Bill is taking away. If the proposals are not carried or the Amendment be put in its place we shall have in the future this dependants' benefit which a majority of the Royal Commission on Health Insurance recommends. What we are confronted with today is the alternative of saving this £2, 800, 000 to the Exchequer or this dependants' benefit which is recommended by the Royal Commission on Insurance. I feel certain it will be a very serious thing if the 14, 000, 000 or 15, 000, 000 people who are anticipating additional benefits and who have obtained in the case of sickness this 2s, a week for one of their dependants have their hopes frustrated in order to save this sum which the Chancellor will no doubt put to saving at some future date on the Income Tax.I suggest that, if the Minister is not able to meet us by withdrawing this very objectionable Clause, he should meet his own followers by accepting this very practical arrangement. The Minister has said: "What difference does it make? "He says it is just the same thing whether you put this Amendment forward or not, because in two years' time, if the Amendment is carried, you will have to bring in a Bill if you want to continue the reduction to one-ninth, and if you do not carry the Amendment you can bring in a Bill in order to restore the two-ninths at that time. We all know it makes all the difference in the world whether the Minister has to come forward with an- 2291 other Bill or if the Clause simply stands. But if it be true, as the Minister says, that it makes no difference, why should he not accept this Amendment?
The great objection I have to the whole of this legislation is that I regard it as a capital levy of the worst kind. There are two kinds of capital which are vital to the life and prosperity of this country. One form of capital is material wealth, and the other form, which is certainly not less important, is human wealth.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)This does not seem to be relevant to the Amendment.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think you will see that I am coming to the question which is before the Committee. What I was pointing out was, that human capital was of the greatest importance of all. The capital levy on material wealth was not to destroy or reduce that capital but merely to transfer its ownership, but this Bill and this Clause, if it is carried in its entirety, will do a great deal to destroy the human capital which is so essential to the life and prosperity of the country.
Persons who are above the poverty line and persons who have some little means —one of the things they think most about is how they are going to give to their children a standing in life, because they recognise that the human capital which they can give to their children is much more important than giving them a little money as time goes on. Therefore they spend on the health and education of their children everything they can afford. They give them a good doctor and a good dentist, and fresh air and holidays after they have been ill in order to recover their health, and they recognise that in so doing they are not merely benefiting their individual children, but they are benefiting the State. It is for that reason that the State has recognised that it has a share in this question of national insurance. National insurance was not invented merely as a means of giving doles to individuals.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI thought the hon. Member said he was going to show me that this had something to do with the Amendment.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe connection with the Amendment is direct. If this Amendment be carried, the amount of money that is taken away from the human capital of the nation is restricted to the £5, 000, 000 that would be lost in the two years. But if that Amendment be defeated, we are thrown back upon the Clause in the Bill—that is to take away £2, 300, 000 every year continually from the resources which are at present going to make the human capital of the nation. I do suggest that, just as the human capital of the nation consists of the health and life of its citizens, and seeing that well-to-do parents spend money on their children in that way, so we, as representing the people as a whole, are concerned to see that the full amount be secured in order to keep the health and life of the people in the best possible condition. If this Amendment be defeated we are going to reduce the margin which is available for supplying the additional health and life of the people in various ways. It is going to be detrimental to the human capital of the country, and therefore most serious and damaging to the prosperity of this nation.
§ Mr. J. JONESSome of us do not profess to be experts in these matters. All we know is that sometimes we have to pay into these insurance societies under the promises given to us by people who ought to know better. When the National Health Insurance Acts were going through Parliament, all sorts of promises were made to us by those who are supposed to know all about it. The workmen were eventually compelled to pay, not because they liked it.. A large number of the organised workmen of this country did not agree with the Act in its original stages, and opposed it for all they were worth. As a consequence, it took a great deal of propaganda by some of the workers' leaders to get them to accept the principle of national health insurance. It went so far that in some places there were actually strikes, but eventually the opposition died down on the strength of the promises that were made. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that got to do with the Amendment? "] It has got everything to do with it. We are discussing now the application of this Bill and the taking away from some of the 2293 people of this country the funds that we were led to believe they were going to get.
What has been the argument of hon. Members opposite who are supporting the policy of the Government to-night? The argument has been that so far as they are concerned no pledges have been broken. The actual reality is that £2, 800, 000 are being taken away. How can you take £2, 800, 000 away from a fund and leave the fund as it was? I am not clever at figures, but I can understand that if you take £2, 800, 000 away from a common pool into which workmen, the employers, and the State have each contributed, you cannot do so year by year without eventually depleting the fund. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question !"] Figures cannot lie. Well, of course, that is the only thing you can say: "Question!"I am giving you the facts; I am sorry I cannot give you the sense to understand them. In so far as my hon. Friend over there is concerned, I will give him all the opportunities to reply that he likes. I will be prepared to meet him in his own constituency on this Bill. As soon as this Bill becomes known to the workers, no one of you will be able to swear you have a safe seat—not when you have to face the people who pay the bill. In every Bill that was passed during the War a limit was placed on the possibilities of exploitation against the people.
The Amendment is to limit the operation of this particular Measure for two years. What have hon. Members opposite been doing in connection with the Rent Restriction Act? I hey have been shouting for its immediate repeal all the time. What for? So as to allow private enterprise to have the opportunities of exploiting the people. This is to be a permanent Measure to take from the workmen's pocket £2, 800, 000 if the present Parliament is allowed to continue and unless a Parliament with more sense is put in in their place. This is one of the most contemptible Measures that has ever been introduced into any Parliament. You want to save money. Surely, you can find better means of saving money than by taking away from the workers money that has been promised them. Hon. Members opposite have said on public platforms what a splendid thing this national health insurance scheme was, and what accumulated funds would 2294 result from good management, and what benefits would accrue from careful administration. Why, the workmen would be able to go to the Continent like some of their masters do. They could go and take a cure at Wiesbaden or at Homburg. I have heard propagandists of the Conservative party praising the National Health Insurance Act up hill and down dale. The Parliamentary Secretary has been one of them himself.
Instead of taking the money from the people who have got it, you are going to pinch it from the people who have not got it. [Laughter.] Oh, yes; it may be a joke to my hon. Friend, because his sense of humour is rather deficient. But I want you to understand this, that what you are taking from the workers now is not the immediate benefit, but the reward for their past efforts for immediate opportunities. These people have no right to come to this House of Commons and ask for these powers. We are asking for the support of hon. Members to this Amendment because it is a limitation of this Act to two years. In two years you will have taken from the workers, in round figures, £5, 000, 000, which you have no right to take. It will be taken from the pockets of the poor for the benefit of the rich. Surely, you ought to be satisfied with chat. Is the nation so poor that it has got to attack one of the best services for dealing with the needs of the common people? In the East End of London, where we have managed our friendly societies efficiently, we have been told that we are going to have certain extended benefits as the result of the valuation that has taken place in connection with our administration.
This Bill means that what hopes we had in consequence of the better administration of the Act have simply gone west. For the sake of a few paltry millions, not the cost of one battleship, this is to he done. You would sooner take from the workers this money rather than scrap some of your unnecessary extravagance at the other end of your administrative authority. I am very glad, from the personal and political point of view, that you are doing this. It will lose East Ham election for you. As soon as the workers get to know what this Act means—the workers, who are compelled to pay by law—they will 2295 realise that you are committing an act of theft against the working men. We are going to fight this for all we are worth, and this Amendment which is only a compromise—and I am personally opposed to the whole thing—is to place a limit on the rascality of the people who are going to rob the poor.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 115.
2297| Division No. 116.] | AYES. | [6.0 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Albery, Irving James | Grotrian, H. Brent | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyfon) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Alexander, sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Allen, J. Sandaman (L'pool, W-Derby) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Pilcher, G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Hammersley, S. S. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshetan |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Radford, E. A. |
| Astor, Ma]. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Hartington, Marquess of | Raine, W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Ramsden, E. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Haslam, Henry C. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Brass, Captain W, | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Rye, F. G |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hills, Major John Waller | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel sir Alan | Holt, Captain H. P. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sandon, Lord |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R.. Sowerby) |
| Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt. R.(Prismith.S) | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sheffield. Sir Berkeley |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Huntingfield, Lord | Shepperson, E. w. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Jacob, A. E. | Sianey, Major P. Kenyon |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril. | Kidd, J. (Linilthgow) | Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Kinde-sley, Major Guy M. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Copt, Major William | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Smithers, Waldron |
| Couper, J. B. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Somerville. A. A. (Windsor) |
| Courtauld, Major I. S. | Lamb, J. Q. | Stanley, Col. Hon. R. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(LindsBy, Gainsbro) | Loder, J. de V. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Looker, Herbert William | Streatfeild. Captain S. R. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lougher, L. | Strickland, sir Gerald |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempsfd) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Macintyre, Ian | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Dawson, Sir Phillo | McLean, Major A. | Thomson, F. C. I Aberdeen, South) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macmillan, Captain H. | Vaughan-Morgan. Col K. P. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Malone, Major P. B. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wells, S. R. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Meller, R. J. | Wheler, Major sir Granville C. H |
| Fielden, E. B. | Merriman, F. B. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Gee, Captain R. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wood, S. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Wood, E. (Chesfr, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Murchison, C. K. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Goff, Sir Park | Nelson, Sir Frank | |
| Grace, John | Neville, R. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.- |
| Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Harris, Percy A. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Alexander, A V. (Sheffield. Hiltsbro') | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barnes, A. | Hirst, G. H. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Snowdan, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Briant, Frank | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Bremfield, William | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| S'omley, J. | Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Thurtle, E. |
| Clowes, S. | Kennedy, T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kirkwood, D. | Townend, A. E. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lansbury, George | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Varley, Frank B. |
| Connolly, M. | Lee, F. | Viant, S. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lindley. F. W. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Crawfurd, K. E. | Livingstone, A. M. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lunn, William | Warne, G. H. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhougton) | Mackinder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddts) |
| Cay, Colonel Harry | MacLaren, Andrew | Westwood, J. |
| Dennison, R. | Maxton, James | Whiteley. W. |
| Duncan, C. | Montague, Frederick | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Dunnico, H. | Morris, B. H. | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Gillett George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gosling, Harry | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypoot) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, G, H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Purcell, A. A. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Hardle, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Hayes. |
| Harney, E. A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
§ Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted."
2298§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 189.
2299| Division No. 117.] | AYES. | [6 8 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fire, West) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morris, R. H. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilltbro') | Groves, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Grundy, T. W. | Newman, Sir R H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery) | Hardle, George D. | Palin, John Henry |
| Barnes, A. | Harney, E. A. | Paling, W. |
| Barr, J. | Harris, Percy A. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Pethick. Lawrence, F. W. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hayes, John Henry | Potts, John S. |
| Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Rt, Hon. A. (Burnley) | Purcell, A. A. |
| Briant, Frank | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Radlord, E. A. |
| Broad. F. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Bromley, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Brown, James (Ayr and But) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Buchanan, G. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | John. William (Rhonddi, West) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Clowes, S. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Siesser, sir Henry H. |
| Compton. Joseph | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Connolly, M. | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, Rennle (Penistone) |
| Cove, W. G. | Kennedy, T, | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Kirkwood, D. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lansbury. George | Stephen, Campbell |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawson, John James | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lee, F. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lindley, F. W. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Dennison, R. | Livingstone, A. M. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Duncan, C. | Lunn, William | Thurtle, E. |
| Dunnico, H. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mackinder, W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Gillett, George M. | MacLaren, Andrew | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Gosllng, Harry | Maxton, James | Varley, Frank B. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Montague, Frederick | Vant, S. P. |
| Wallhead, Richard C. | Whiteley, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Warne G. H. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) | |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Westwood. J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) | Hayes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Grace, John | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Neville, R. J. |
| Albery, Irving James | Greene, W. P. Crawlord | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leylon) | Grotrian, H. Brent | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Pilcher, G. |
| Ashley, U.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Hammersley, S. S. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Raine, W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Hartington, Marquess of | Ramsden, E. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Haslam, Henry C. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Boothby, R. J G. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxi'd, Henley) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Henderson, Lieut.-Col V. L. (Bootle) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Heneaye, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p. | Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Rye, F. G. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Herbert, Dennit (Hertford, Watford) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C R. I. | Hills, Major John Waller | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Mafor H. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brown, Brig, Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Holt, Captain H. P. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Sandon, Lord |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel I. H. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby) |
| Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.) | Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hume, Sir G. H. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Huntingfield, Lord | Sianey, Major P. Kenyan |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Smith, R. w. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jacob, A. E. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cope, Major William | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Couper, J. B. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F (Will'sden. E.) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland) |
| Courthope, Lieut-Col. Sir George L. | Lamb, J, O. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Crookshank, Col. C. dt W. (Berwick) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Cronkshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Streatfeild. Captain S. R. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Loder, J. de V. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Looker, Herbert William | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Lougher, L. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Templeton. W. p. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, YeovIl) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J, G. (Dumbarton) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Macintyre, I. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | McLean, Major A, | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Macmillan. Captain H. | Water-house, Captain Charles |
| Elliott, Captain Walter E. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Wells, S. R. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Malone, Major P. B. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Meller, R. J. | Wilson, n. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Merriman, F. B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M- | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Statyb'qe & Hyde) |
| Gee, Captain R. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Gibbs, Col. Ht. Hon. George Abraham | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Moreing, Captain A. H. | |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | TELLERS FOR THE N0ES.- |
| Goff, Sir Park | Murchison, C. K. | Lord Stanley and Mr. F. C. |
| Thomson. |
Mr. THOMASI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have now been debating this very important question for a long number of hours and I venture to say that there can 2300 be no Member who has taken part in all-night sittings but would frankly admit there never was such a long sitting where the Debate was so relevant, so well conducted and free from temper on either side. But it is also significant, and I do 2301 not think the Government or any Government can quite remember an occasion where for so long a period their strength was giving out and ours increasing. I am quite sure that many as have been the shocks felt by the Government Front Bench during the last few hours, nothing could have equalled the blow of the last Division. If that be the difficulty of the Government supporters, what is likely to be their position when the new shift books on? The all-night shift will be going off and the new team will arrive. Again we are thinking of the approved society members. What would be their fate if a new shift comes on knowing nothing about the case merely to act as a voting machine?
After all, this question does not finish with this Clause 1, and whatever our views on the question may be, we at least ought to keep in mind the millions of people involved. They will expect fair and adequate consideration, and it should be duly considered by the House of Commons when everybody was fit to discuss the position seriously. I submit we have reached a stage now where there can be no benefit for the Government to continue. When the House reassembles we come straight back to this particular Bill. What is the object of the Government in pressing any Clause in the Bill now? What do they gain by it? I will tell you my own view. They are afraid of the after effect of the interval on some of their own supporters. For this and many other reasons which I am sure ought to commend themselves to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, I beg to report Progress.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman thinks that the strength on this side is steadily diminishing, whereas that on his side is increasing. That being so; it can only be out of motives of kindheartedness towards us that he makes this Motion. We on this side are not at all grateful for his assistance. We feel quite able to carry on the struggle as long as may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman need not flatter himself that he is going to bluff us. We are prepared to fight him, and we are prepared to beat him. I suggest that he should drop these tactics of obstruction.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDOn a point of Order. Is the expression we 2302 have just heard a Parliamentary expression?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt has constantly been ruled in this House that it is in order.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSThe right hon. Gentleman has very truly said that he can wear us down in numbers. No one will deny that for one single moment. We are astonished after having listened to him dealing with Amendments moved from his own side hour after hour since six o'clock that he hurls this across the Floor of the House at six o'clock in the morning. We are riot thinking of numbers, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman there is something more to be considered than even the members of the approved societies. There is the dignity of the House of Commons. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Debate has been a very real Debate; from four o'clock to seven a very sharp Debate took place. Then from seven to eight and from 11 to one o'clock the main question was debated, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). From one o'clock to about five several Amendments were moved by hon. Members on the opposite side to which the right hon. Gentleman replied at great length. No one took exception to his doing so, yet at this hour of the morning he hurls this insult across the Floor. It is not what we have been led to expect from the right hon. Gentleman while he has been piloting other Measures through the House of Commons. I appeal to him that it would best serve not only the interests of the House of Commons, but. the interests of the approved societies outside if he accepted the Motion for the adjournment moved by my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTOn a point of Order. May I ask what is the meaning of the word "debate "in Standing Order 22, which does not allow a Member of the House who has moved to report Progress to do so a second time during the Debate?
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid I have no notice of that.
§ Mr. HERBERTMay I ask whether this Motion is in order in view of the 2303 fact that the right hon. Member for Derby has previously moved to report Progress?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIROn a point of Order. The Motion has been put from the Chair by Captain FitzRoy.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think I can go back on what has already been done.
§ Mr. MacDONALDI am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has used, the word "obstruction, "but if he refers only to the present instance then my point goes. From a quarter to four until now we have been seriously discussing the Bill. The Clause before the Committee is very important, and one which ought to receive the very serious consideration at the hands of all Members of the House. When the Government made its first plans, they demanded four Clauses before we rose for Easter. Then they stated that they wanted two. In four and a-half hours' time the House is to meet again to discuss the adjournment of the House for Easter, and I suggest that it would be better if we left off now where we are and come back after Easter to give this Clause a final revision. We have finished all the Amendments. It is really not obstruction. We want to know where we stand.
§ Mr. PALINThe right hon. Gentleman says that it is obstruction. I would like to remind horn that there are at least a score or two dozen Members on this side of the House who have been trying to take part in the Debate, and have not had an opportunity. They have got up for every Amendment, for this question is frightfully important to them, in view of the number of people whom they represent and who are implicated in the Bill. I think it comes badly from the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances to say we have been guilty of obstruction. It does not give a fair opportunity to Members like myself and a couple of dozen others who wanted to contribute to the Debate and have not had an opportunity. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has ever got up in the course of the Debate to move the Closure because there has been repetition or because, the contributions to the Debate have been irrelevant or trifling. The 2304 least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to let the House go home and come back to the Debate refreshed.
Mr. BECKETTI think the Motion to Report Progress was badly needed. The difficulties his own supporters found themselves in over this unfortunate Bill which the right hon. Gentleman probably through no fault of his own is sponsoring, has made him vent his ill-nature upon Members on this side of the Committee. I believe hon. Members on the other side of the Committee are in the same position as ourselves. We have had representations from trade unions, friendly societies, commercial enterprises, individuals in our constituencies, strongly urging that we should put certain facts forward in the House. Next to me I have the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) who, no one in this House will deny, has had great experience of workmen's societies under the Health Insurance Act. The hon. Member to my knowledge has been sitting in this House almost the whole time of this Debate and has not been able to voice the view which many thousands of these contributors have sent him here to give. I would suggest in face of these facts and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has spent long periods in answering trifling matters raised by his own supporters and has spent hardly any time in answering the difficulties raised from these benches, that to rise at 6.30 in the morning and say, "We have superior numbers, and if you want a fight you can have it, "is contrary to the traditions in which English public business is carried on.
Victory does not by a long way always go to the big battalions. It is well known in British history that that is not so. I will venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he cares to take that line and stamp the Prussian jack-boot at us, although I am a comparatively new Member of this House, I have seen sufficient to know that 20 determined men and women can give even your swollen majority a bad time indeed.
§ The CHAIRMANI have no "swollen majority ".
Mr. BECKETTIf I am not in order, Mr. Hope, in alluding to the swollen majority, I may perhaps be allowed to allude to their swollen heads. Although I will admit that sometimes Members on this 2305 side of the House allow their indignation on some particular Measure to make them rather outspoken, I think hon. Members will give us credit that we have not resorted to any methods except strictly orderly and Parliamentary methods in carrying on the Debate. Personally I am glad of that. I should not like to see any minority in this House attempting any other methods, but if you get a majority so contemptuous of methods of British fair play, that at the least opposition they start blustering, it is asking for trouble.
§ Mr. HARDIEAs one who has been in attendance in this Debate from the start, and who represents that group which has lot en unable to get into the Debate, I wish to say that the methods of the Minister are the methods of the gag Minister. When we come to deal with large changes that are involved in a Bill like this it only shows that when the gag is used and when discussion is curbed, there is something the Government, with their big majority, are trying to get through by preventing the Opposition from bringing before the public that which they seek to hide. If there had been any sense of fair play on the part of the Minister of Health, he, instead of using that characteristic cynicism and making idiotic attempts at humour, would have been manly enough to allow a full and fair discussion of all the Amendments that were sincerely placed on the Paper. When a Minister brags about his numbers, it gives him the stamp of a coward.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not a Parliamentary expression.
§ Mr. HARDIEThen I withdraw it, and put another word in its place; you can guess what it is. There are such things, we are told, as the great sports-manlike spirit of the English country gentleman and of the town gentleman of Birmingham, but there has been no spirit of sport shown in the methods adopted to-night. When you claim to be a great man and—
§ The CHAIRMANI did not claim to be a great man.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf the Minister of Health had been as great as you are, we should have had a greater sense of justice throughout this Debate.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not sure that it is in order to pass encomiums on the Chair.
§ Mr. HARDIEI will not withdraw that, because the opportunity does not come very often when we want to and can pay the tribute. There is no other Member of the House, perhaps, that deserves more tributes and gets less. I cannot say that that is giving praise; it is only telling, the plain truth. If the same character had been manifested by the Minister of Health, we would not be pleading for justice. We would have got justice if he had been as fair-minded as the Gentleman who now presides. If there is a man in this House with a sense of justice, it is the present Chairman.
§ The CHAIRMANAlthough this is very pleasing, it does not seem to be relevant.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf the Minister had a sense of justice to let us run on, we might convert him to some of the things that he is preventing us getting to by the gag.
§ Mr. D. HERBERTOn a point of Order.
§ Mr. HARDIEWhat do you want?
§ Mr. HERBERTI want to ask whether the discussion generally of the question of the Closure has anything to do with the Motion at present before the Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member is referring to the Motion far the Closure that has been accepted by the House, it has been continually ruled that that it is not in order.
Mr. BECKETTArising out of that point of Order. Is there any limit to the number of points of Order a Member can raise?
§ The CHAIRMANNo.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRSeeing that we are discussing an Economy Bill, would it not be a good thing to have the lights turned out, as it is daylight?
§ Miss WILKINSONAnd may I raise a point of ventilation, to ask if we could have some windows open?
§ Mr. HARDIEIt is a pity if we are going to get less light, because I think the other side want all the light they can 2307 get. If a huge principle such as is involved in this Bill is going to be burked in this way, it simply means that the whole of the work that you are doing now will require to be done over again in a very short space of time. The great bodies that create public opinion on these questions are not going to be crushed by any decision by gag. All these societies are made up of working-class people, and we feel that because it is the working class there is going to be the gag on every effort that is made to deal with each point in detail. Here we have the principle that has always run through the Tory party—taking away from the poor and giving to the rich. What this Bill is aiming at is simply to in one way decrease taxation on the rich and take more from the poor. Because we have got a dud and stupid Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not in order.
§ Mr. HARDIEI take back those words, and say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most inefficient and incompetent man to deal with national affairs when he has got to the state where it is necessary for him to rob the people of their savings. That is what it means—robbing people of their savings. If we are going to get this sense of justice running through this Debate from now on, you may be quite cure that you are going to get all the trouble that any party can have.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 112.
2309| Division No. 118.] | AYES. | [6.50 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Eden, Captain Anthony | Jacob, A. E. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Kidd. J. (Linlithgow) |
| Albery, Irving James | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Everard, W. Lindsay | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Fermoy, Lord | Lane Fox, Col Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Fielden, E. B. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) |
| Balniel, Lord | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Looker, Herbert William |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lougher, L. |
| Blades, sir George Rowland | Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Blundell, F. N. | Gee, Captain R. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Maclntyre, Ian |
| Brass, Captain W. | Goff, Sir Park | McLean, Major A. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Grace, John | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Manningham Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Meller, R. J. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Merriman, F. B. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hammersley, S. S. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.) | Hartington, Marquess of | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Haslam, Henry C. | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | Nelson. Sir Frank |
| Cope, Major William | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Neville. R. J. |
| Couper, J. B. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Hills, Major John Waller | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Plicher, G. |
| Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Radford, E. A. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Raine, W. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Hume, Sir G. H. | Ranisden, E. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Huntingfield, Lord | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Roberts, Samuel (Hereford Hereford) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Water house, Captain Charles |
| Ropner, Major L. | Smithers, Waldron | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Roggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Somarville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wells, S. R. |
| Rye, F. G. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Salmon, Major J. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay} |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Sandeman, A, Stewart | Streatfelld, Captain S. R. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Sanders, sir Robert A. | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Sandon, Lord | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Templeton, W. P. | |
| Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Captain Margesson and Lord |
| Skelton, A. N. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Stanley. |
| Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wallace, Captain D. E. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Harris, Percy A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hayday, Arthur | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Short. Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson. T. (Glasgow) | Sinclair Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Briant, Frank | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Clowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Thurtle, E. |
| Compton, Joseph | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury. George | Tewnend, A. E. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawson, John James | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lee, F. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, F. W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Livingstone, A. M. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lunn, William | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Warne, G, H. |
| Dennison, R. | Mackinder, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, J. | Westwood, J. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Montague, Frederick | Whiteley, W. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morris, R. H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Gos[...]lng, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Groves, T. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Windsor, Walter |
| Grundy, T. W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Potts, John S. | |
| Hardie, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.- |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
2310§ The committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 190.
2313| Division No. 119.] | AYES. | [7.0 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Clowes, S. | Gillett, George M. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Cluse, W. S. | Gosling, Harry |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Compton, Joseph | Grenfell. D. H. (Glamorgan) |
| Barker, G. {Monmouth, Abertillery) | Connolly, M. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Barnes, A. | Cove, W. G. | Groves, T. |
| Barr J. | Crawfurd, H. E. | Grundy, T. W. |
| Batey, Joseph | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Beckett. John (Gateshead) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hardle, George D. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Harney, E. A. |
| Briant, Frank | Day, Colonel Harry | Harris, Percy A. |
| Broad, F. A. | Dennison, R | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Bromfield, William | Duncan, C. | Hayday, Arthur |
| Bromley, J. | Dunnico, H. | Henderson, Ht. Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Buchanan, G. | Gibbins, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Thurtle, E. |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Oliver, George Harold | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Palin, John Henry | Townend, A. E. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Paling, W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Potts, John S. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Kelly, W. T. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Warne, G. H. |
| Kennedy, T. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lansbury, George | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Westwood, J. |
| Lawson, John James | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Whiteley, W. |
| Lee, F. | Sitch, Charles H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Lindley, F. W. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Livingstone, A. M. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Lunn, William | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Stamford, T. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Mackinder, W. | Stephen, Campbell | Windsor, Walter |
| MacLaren Andrew | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Maxton, James | Sullivan, Joseph | |
| Montague, Frederick | Taylor, R. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Morris, R. H. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Major Cope and Captain Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Ainsworth. Major Charles | Gee, Captain R. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Albery, Irving James | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Meller, R. J. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Merriman, F. B. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Goff, Sir Park | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Grace, John | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Balniel, Lord | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Grotrian, H. Brent | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Murchison, C. K. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Neville, R. J. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hammersley, S. S. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hartington, Marquess of | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Haslam, Henry C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Henderson,Capt.R.R.(Oxford, Henley) | Pilcher, G. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Radford, E. A. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Raine, W. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ramsden, E. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Richardson Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hills, Major John Waller | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Hogg, Rt.Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Ropner, Major L. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Holt, Captain H. P. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Rye, F. G. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Couper, J. B. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Huntingfield, Lord | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Jacob, A. E. | Sandon, Lord |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Kidd, J. (Linilthgow) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Davidson,J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sheffield, sir Berkeley |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lamb, J. Q. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n&Kinc'dine.C.) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Loder, J. de V. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Looker, Herbert William | Smithers, Waldron |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lougher, L. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Stanley, Col. Hon.G. F (Will'sden, E.) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Fermoy, Lord | Macintyre, Ian | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Fielden, E. B. | McLean, Major A. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Tasker, Major R. Inigo | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Templeton, W. P. | Wells, S. R. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Wallace, Captain D. E. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | |
| Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Wise, Sir Fredric | Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith. |
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after the word "words "to insert the words
in respect of all persons who, under the National Insurance Act, 1911, enter the national insurance scheme as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.This would apply the provisions of the Bill only to new entrants, and would not affect the benefits paid to those who were in the scheme before the date mentioned. This is a very important Amendment. I know perfectly well that Amendments handed in at the last moment are sometimes regarded with a certain amount of prejudice as being hasty and ill thought out. This Amendment on the other hand was perhaps, handed in a little late precisely because it has been carefully thought out. I need hardly say for my part and for my hon. Friends who sit here that we are strongly opposed to applying the proposals in this Bill even for new entrants. We think the provisions should not be allowed to pass into law, but we do say if they are to be applied at all it would be real breach of faith for those old entrants who have been 18 or 20 years in the scheme if they are now to be deprived of the prospects which were held out to them when the scheme was started. This Amendment contains a principle which is so obviously fair that the Minister can hardly fail to accept it. If he refuses, it will win the support of Members on all sides.The right hon. Gentleman himself formerly asked two questions, first, were the proposals a breach of faith, and second, if not, were they fair? I put a third question: Is it a statesman-like thing to do? Is there any real financial or economic benefit sufficient to compensate for the injury to health? My last question does not arise on this Amendment, but I submit there is a clear breach of faith in the case of these men. Everyone from 16 to 60 was put on a flit scale of benefit and contribution, and it was one of the great points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd 2314 George) when he introduced the scheme that it was particularly favourable to the old men. That exposed him to the attack: "Your scheme is very favourable to the old men, but what about the young men? Surely it must be correspondingly unfavourable to the young men. "That argument was used widely in the House of Commons, even by hon. Members who are now Members of the Government. "'Why, "they said, "the Hearts of Oak will do as much for the young men as you are proposing to do. "The answer was quite simple. It was quite true that for the first 18 or 20 years, until the period during which the Sinking Fund was to be repaid had worked itself out, these benefits which the young men could expect would be small in relation to the premiums they had been called on to pay. But, it was answered, when the deficiency period has been worked off the young men will leap the whole of the benefits which are rightly promised because the Government contribution of two-ninths will still continue and it was on the strength of these assurances that the schemes was successfully launched. Now these rights have matured and we are entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposals will still further postpone the time when these benefits can be paid.
§ Mr. TAYLOROn a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, is it possible to provide the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir Gerald Strickland) with a mattress?
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs any attention being paid to the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans)?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThis Amendment will guarantee to the young men what they were led to expect. The hon. Member for East Perthshire (Mr. Skelton) was so little convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that there had been no breach of faith, that the only reason he could give for ignoring that argument was that if there had been a breach of faith it did not matter. His argument with regard to the commitments of previous Parliaments is undoubtedly sound 2315 in theory. But if Parliament disregards the commitments by previous Parliaments it will undoubtedly bring Parliamentary institutions in this country into disrepute. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the Amendment, what prospects have the young men under the scheme?
I will again quote from a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made in this House on the 22nd July last year. He was replying to the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) that employers' and employés' contributions should be reduced each by one penny. At that date he was not prepared to do what will be done by the Economy Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I was anxious because I was not certain whether he (Sir R. Horne) was contemplating that in future it would lie possible to reduce the contributions while still retaining the additional benefits which are being declared by the societies as the result of surpluses accumulated in past quinquennial periods or whether he proposes to do away with those additional benefits and use the money which would be required for that purpose to reduce the contributions."[Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member to proceed.
§ Miss WILKINSONWe are encouraging him.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
It would be a retrograde step …
§ Miss WILKINSONOn a point of Order. May I point out that the hon. Member is reading this very important matter so quickly that those who are anxious to follow cannot understand him. Can we ask him through you, Mr. Chairman, if he would mind reading it a little more slowly?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Lady is so ready of hearing that I am sure she can follow.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThe part that I was reading was this:
It would be a retrograde step in the efforts which we have been making to improve the general health of our people, and incidentally of course, it would leave its injurious effect upon the finances of the societies because those additional benefits are in the nature of preventive measures and are therefore reducing the calls on and the liabilities of the approved societies. He may say that he believes it would be possible to reduce the contribution without reducing the additional benefits.2316 I would point out there is a very close analogy to the proposals which I am making in the recent practice of the present administration. When they recently decided that they would have to reduce the pay of the fighting services they decided it was only fair to pay the present rates of pay to men serving and to reduce the rates only to new entrants. I am far from saying that I shall be satisfied with the Bill even if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment, but it would remove one grave injustice. If he dismiss the charge of breach of faith, and thinks we have failed to bring home this charge, let him fall back upon the other question, and ask is it fair that these young men who have been paying excessive contributions should be called upon to receive reduced benefits? I feel this Amendment must commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. If it does not so commend itself, it must be due to some lack of advocacy on my part. I have given my grounds for hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it. If he does not accept it, we shall certainly divide the Committee upon it, and I hope we shall receive the support of all sections of the House.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe Amendment to which the hon. and gallant Baronet devoted so much thought and care can only mean that the reduction in the rate of contribution will be confined to persons coming into the scheme from 31st March next. It is a. broad description of the Amendment, which is a wrecking Amendment, and I cannot accept it. The effect of the hon. Baronet's proposal will be to postpone that relief for a generation.
§ Mr. TAYLORWill someone pay attention to the bon. Member opposite who is asleep?
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANMay I also call attention to the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans)?
§ The CHAIRMANHon. Members seem to be under the impression that it is out of order to sleep in the House. That is not so, so long as it is done with due quietness.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESOn a point of Order. Is the Committee to understand 2317 that it is not out of order to sleep in the House? If so, will proper accommodation be provided?
Mr. THOMASThe right hon. Gentleman considers the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet to be a wrecking Amendment. We are not responsible for it and therefore I am not called upon to answer whether that is its intention or not. Perhaps a Member of the hon. Baronet's party will reply on that point. I will, however, give reasons why we feel compelled to support it. If we were satisfied that it was a wrecking Amendment—and I should like to know more about that—it is probable we would have to reconsider the situation, but on its merits I would put this to the right hon. Gentleman: We have alleged, and he has equally strongly denied, that this Clause represents a breach of faith. We put forward that claim on the ground of what we believe to be a bargain made when the 1911 Act was put through the House. That is solely the ground of our claim, but if this Amendment is carried any new entrant in the scheme will know the exact situation. He will know that he cannot say he is treated unfairly or that any bargain was made on his behalf. He may say: However much I disagree with the State in other Measures, I have no complaint so far as this Measure is concerned. That is a reasonable proposition and must commend itself to many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman has enough experience to know that he should address the Chair. I am not sitting there.
§ Mr. HARRISThe proposal has been made to protect the Government from the implication that they have broken faith with the men and women who have subscribed to the Insurance Act. These men and women were induced to do so upon the understanding that the State was to make this contribution on a certain basis, and it is not fair to make this Clause retrospective, and thus interfere with the rights that have been assured to the subscribers to the Act for a great many years. The proposal made by the hon. Baronet is of a broad practical nature, and provides for the future. New entrants 2318 will understand on what conditions they are insured. They will understand that the contribution of the State is decreased, and that they have to depend on their own contributions for the benefits to which they are entitled. I think it is very unfortunate that to-day is the 1st April, and that a proposal put forward of a practical kind should be treated with contempt and passed aside with a few words. This morning's papers state that the deficit on the Budget is £14,000,000. The Government is spending a whole day collecting a few pounds out of the poor in the country for the benefit of the rich.
§ Miss WILKINSONIt is said by hon. Members on the opposite side, when various Resolutions dealing with their interests are under discussion, that above all things the pledge of a Government is sacred. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that certain expenditure was to be regarded as sacred. He detailed the interest on the War Loan that he regarded as sacrosanct. But surely in this Amendment we are dealing with a matter of simple commercial morality. In 1911 the people who were then receiving under £160 were compulsorily insured. They were told they would have certain benefits in respect of certain contributions and that additional benefits would be paid to them if their societies were properly managed. If that were done by a private insurance company, the law of this country would insist that, so long as the scheme was solvent and there was not actually a deficit on the funds, the obligations that were made at the time the policy-holders took out the policy must be carried out. If the Minister of Health had said that, as regards existing societies and existing policy-holders, the societies were bankrupt and that the actuarial calculation was such that it was literally impossible to pay the promised benefits to those who had entered, then, I think this House, while realising the very serious nature of the situation, would have had to say that owing to a faulty actuarial calculation or, as in the case of the unemployment insurance fund, to a situation that had arisen that was quite outside the purview of those who drew up the original tables of benefits, then reductions would have to take place. But here exactly the contrary has taken place. You have the Minister of Health coming like a chairman of directors to the people represent- 2319 ing the shareholders and saying that the business has succeeded beyond all expectation, and that as a matter of fact the surplus is far in advance of anything that was contemplated. I should say that a chairman of directors who came before his shareholders and put this glowing picture of a surplus before them and then followed it up by saying: "Therefore we are going to reduce the dividends "would have an extraordinary reception from his shareholders. That, I suggest, is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
We are continually reading in the papers of companies that, having produced an excellent surplus, proceed to distribute bonus shares to their members. I suggest that in this case the Minister is in exactly the position of a chairman of directors who produces a large surplus and, instead of offering bonus shares to his shareholders, proceeds to say he is going to reduce the dividend. But because we are dealing with people whose income is under £250 a year and people who have not got the political pull that the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman have got, then we have this extraordinary breach of ordinary, decent, everyday commercial right. As regards the people who are actual shareholders, the people who have paid in their money under a pledge of the Government and have been told they were going to have additional benefits, these people are now told that instead of having the benefits of the surplus they are going to have a reduction of dividend, a reduction of their additional benefit. If any ordinary company was doing this, people would impugn the honour of the directors. Surely we are not going to have a condition in which the honour of the State is impugned.
We are dealing with people who cannot protect themselves. If people are in an ordinary commercial company and have this kind of sharp trick used against them, they are at least able to protest and leave the company or proceed against it for damages. We are in the position that if a man refuses to pay his insurance contribution he can be taken to the Police Court and punished. We are dealing with people who have no option whatever, people who have the whole force of the State against them to force them into insurance, and they are now 2320 told that after all these years the State is going to use its tyrannical power in order to cut down the amounts due to them. Why is it? One could understand it if it were some great national emergency. Heaven knows, these 15,000,000 people have sacrificed far more than Members on the other side have done, but that was in a time of national emergency. Why are they being asked to sacrifice now? It is in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget could hand back £10,000,000 to the Super-tax payers of this country. No matter how he tries to excuse it, nothing can get away from that fact which, so far as my colleagues on this side of the House are concerned, is going to be rubbed in with salt on every platform in the country. In order that the people best able to pay taxes shall have a rebate of £10,000,000 a year in Super-tax, we are to have the Minister of Health coming here saying that those to whom the country's word has been pledged since 1911 are to be robbed in this way and forced into the Police Court and punished if they protest against it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am delighted to find so many hon. Members awake in this House. I have reason to support this Amendment, because it seems to me that it enables the Committee to do justice to the people to whom these promises were made. I am one of the very few men who voted against the Insurance Act when it became law originally, and I did so because I took no stock of, and had no faith in, the promises—the lavish promises—that were made as to what would be done with these surpluses when they accumulated. I am speaking in the presence of a good number of hon. Members who were in the House at that time, and there is not one of them but was carried away by the picture of a new England, a new Scotland, and a new Wales that was going to be the result of this National Health Insurance. We were to get rid of slums, we were to spend no more money on public health. It was all going to be done because this wonderful scheme was going to accumulate money to enable everybody to get at the moment they needed it all the medicine, all the sanatoria, and all the treatment they required. Precious few of those things have happened. Occasionally my faith in my own judgment of 2321 15 years ago has at times wavered, and when I knew that my hon. Friends had appointed a Royal Commission it seemed to me at long last that the people who had been paying were to get some of the wonderful things that were promised them. I have sat through this Debate, and the one thing that has struck me most is the cynical impudence of the Minister of Health and his assistant—the cool, contemptuous manner in which they have treated every argument put up.
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot allow the hon. Member to use the word "impudence."
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask, then, if "insolent" is a Parliamentary expression, because I will withdraw the word "impudence "without any hesitation.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not an unparliamentary expression.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWell, then, I will say the cynical insolence with which the right hon. Gentleman has treated every argument put up. It was once said in this House, and I am not sure that it was not said during the figure juggle that took place over the original Bill, that figures cannot lie but that liars can figure. The most extraordinary thing to me is that in this juggle of figures the only thing that emerges is that the people who have been forced compulsorily to pay into this fund on condition that the State was to do certain things, are to be now faced with the fact that the State does not intend to carry out its obligations. One lot of figures has been set against another lot, but when all is said and done, £2,800,000 is going to be saved from somewhere. It is going to be saved out of the health of the men and women and children who become chargeable to these funds. No one has attempted in any sort of way to controvert that. Therefore, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and his colleagues are making truth of the statements that were made by Sir James O'Grady and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) and several more of us who voted against the Third Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill on the ground that it would not work and that the Government of the day did not intend that the benefits which they talked about would follow.
2322 Well, now, we have an explanation of it here this morning, and the justification of it all is that the nation is so poor. I spoke from this Box amid continual interruption about a, fortnight ago, and one hon. Member opposite after another—colonels, majors, admirals—all shouted out something about the ex-service men and honour of our country. The great bulk of the people who pay into this fund, and whom you are going to plunder and rob, are men who served in the Army across the seas and at home. You are going to pay them back by robbing them of a miserable £2,800,000. If you are not ashamed of it, I am. The right hon. Gentleman, like me, gets his meals regularly, and has a decent home, and, therefore, I suppose, he has never known, as I have never known, what it was to be ill with a wife and family and only 15s. coming in to take care of them on and to feed them. People like me are continually told, so, too, are the Communists, that they degrade and dishonour this country. I say you are degrading and dishonouring this country by robbing and plundering these men and their dependants in the fashion you are doing. There has never been a more barefaced and audacious betrayal of men than has taken place in this House to-night. If it stood alone, it would be bad enough. But when you know that in this City of London, the richest city in the world, ex-service men were bludgeoned and kicked and battered—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not in order on this Amendment.
§ 8.0 A.M.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI will not pursue that matter further, except to say that this House and this Government is lost to all sense of shame or decency in their treatment of the victims of the social system and of the War for which they were responsible. This proposal we are now discussing is, I say, the most iniquitous of them all, because an unemployed man has got his health, for a time at least, at any rate. But these people are the people who will be sick and will become infirm and almost helpless. It is for £2,800,000—that is all that you are going to save. To hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk, one would imagine that there was no other 2323 means by which we could make economies. There are plenty of ways we could have suggested for economising if the Government wanted us to do so, but it seems to me, regarding this Government, that when they look round to try and discover where they can save money their eyes immediately go to the most helpless of the population they never raise their eyes any further than the poorest of the poor. If they are in earnest in all their talk about social reform, in all their talk about love, peace and brotherhood for the working people, if they really believe that these men who went out and fought, some of them side by side with hon. Members opposite, are heroes, and are worth what supporters of the Government said they were worth at the time, I cannot imagine how any one of the party opposite, if really sincere, can vote for this wretched Bill. I cannot understand the mentality of the men who do these sorts of things. Hon Members opposite say that people like me are preachers of class hatred. It is they who create class hatred by this kind of legislation, and if it is persisted in I am certain of this, that they will have class bitterness and class hatred of a sort they will be surprised to find. The
§ people of this country it was once said have been asleep. When they wake they will be hungry, and not to be fed on the Government's humbug of promises and on the cant and hypocrisy of the brotherhood of the trenches. They will find their intellectual food, raise themselves in an army and overthrow for good and all the infernal system of capitalism the party opposite are upholding here to-day; that they are upholding for the purpose of enabling the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that is relevant.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt was once said that "Britain was a paradies for the rich and hell for the poor. "This Bill is going to make it more a hell for the poor—it is intended to do so—and it is intended to help the rich to keep the paradise that they have robbed and plundered for.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put: "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 106.
2325| Division No. 120.] | AYES. | [8.3 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey.Gainsbro) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Ainsworth Major Charles | Dalkeith, Earl of | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Albery, Irving James | Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootle) |
| Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Balniel, Lord | Dawson, Sir Philip | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. sir D.(St. Marylebone) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Everard, W. Lindsay | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Fermoy, Lord | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fielden, E. B. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Ganzoni. Sir John | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Gee, Captain R | Jacob, A. E. |
| Burgoyne Lieut.-Colonel sir Alan | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Goff, Sir Park | Lamb, J. O. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Grace, John | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Loder, J. de V. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Looker, Herbert William |
| Chapman, sir S. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Lougher, L. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Cope, Major William | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Luce, Major-Gen, sir Richard Harman |
| Couper, J. B. | Hammersley, S. S. | Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Hartington, Marquees of | Macintyre, Ian |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | McLean. Major A. |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Ramsden, E. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Rentoul, G. S. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Malone. Major P. B. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Margesson, Capt. D. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Meller, R. J. | Rye, F. G. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Merriman, F. B. | Salmon, Major I. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hu1l) |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C. | Sandon. Lord | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Moreing, Captain A. H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Wells, S. R. |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Bowerby) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Murchison, C. K. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Shepperson, E. W. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Neville, R. J. | Skelton, A. N. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & S Hyde) |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Smithers, Waldron | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F. (Will'sden.E.) | |
| Plicher, G. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Major Sir Harry Barnston and |
| Radford, E. A. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Captain Viscount Curzon. |
| Raine, W. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardle, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Harris, Percy A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt, Hon. Charles W. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Thurtle, E. |
| Connolly, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Lansbury, George | Townend, A. E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lawson, John James | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lee. F. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lindley, F. W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Livingstone. A. M. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lunn, William | Watson, W. M. (Duntermline) |
| Dennison, R. | Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Westwood, J. |
| Dunnico, H. | MacLaren, Andrew | whiteley, W. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Maxton, James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Montague, Frederick | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Gillatt, George M. | Morris, R. H. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Gosling, Harry | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Palin, John Henry | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Paling, W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Hall G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
2326§ The committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 180.
2329| Division No. 121.] | AYES. | [8.10 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Connolly, M. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Broad, F. A. | Cove, W. G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Bromfield, William | Crawfurd, H. E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Bromley, J. | Dalton, Hugh |
| Barnes, A. | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) |
| Barr, J. | Buchanan, G. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) |
| Batey, Joseph | Cluse, W. S. | Day, Colonel Harry |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Compton, Joseph | Dennison, R. |
| Duncan, C. | Lansbury, George | Stamford, T. W. |
| Dunnico, H. | Lawson, John James | Stephen, Campbell |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lee, F. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lindley, F. W. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Gillett, George M. | Livingstone, A. M. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Gosling, Harry | Lunn, William | Thurtle, E. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mackinder, W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Groves, T. | MacLaren, Andrew | Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Maxton, James | Varley, Frank B. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Montague, Frederick | Viant, S. P. |
| Hardle, George D. | Morris, R. H. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Harris, Percy A. | Morrison. R. C (Tottenham, N.) | Warne, G. H. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Oliver, George Harold | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Palin, John Henry | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Paling, W. | Westwood, J. |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Whiteley, W. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Potts, John S. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hirst, W (Bradford, South) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Windsor, Walter |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sitch, Charles H. | |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Kelly, W. T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison. |
| Kennedy, T. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | |
| Kirkwood, D. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Gee, Captain R. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Albery, Irving James | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Goff, Sir Park | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Grace, John | Meller, R. J. |
| Balniel, Lord | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Merriman, F. B. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Grotrian, H. Brent | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. O. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hammersley, S. S. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Murchison, C. K. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hartington, Marquess of | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Neville, R. J. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Haslam, Henry C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Pilcher, G. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth S) | Hills, Major John Waller | Radford, E. A. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Raine, W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard | Ramsden, E. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Holt, Captain H. P. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cope, Major William | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Couper, J. B. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hudson, R, S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Courthope, Lieut.Col. George L, | Hume, Sir G. H. | Rye, F. G. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Huntingfield, Lord | Salmon, Major I. |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jacob, A. E. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Kindersley, Major Guy M, | Sandon, Lord |
| Davies, Dr, Vernon | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeevll) | Lamb, J. Q. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirenecester) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Loder, J. de V. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Looker, Herbert William | Slaney, Major P. Kenyan |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Lougher, L. | Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Smithers, Waldron |
| Fielden, E. B. | Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Maclntyre, Ian | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | McLean, Major A. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Strickland, Sir Gerald | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Stuart, Han. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Tasker, Major R. InIgo | Wells, S. R. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Templeton, W. P. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. | |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | Captain Viscount Curzon and |
| Captain Bower. |
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
2330§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 102.
2331| Division No. 122.] | AYES. | [8.20 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Gunston, Captain D. W. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings] |
| Albery, Irving James | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Hammersley, S. S. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, cent'l) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Plicher, G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Hartington, Marquess of | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Radford, E. A. |
| Balnfel, Lord | Haslam, Henry C. | Raine, W. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ramsden, E. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley) | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Rye, F. G. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hills, Major John Waller | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Holt, Captain H. P. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Sandon, Lord |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D, |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S) | Huntingfield, Lord | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. {Ladywood) | Jacob, A. E. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cope, Major William | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Smithers, Waldron |
| Couper, J, B. | Lamb, J. Q. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Loder, J. de V. | Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Looker, Herbert William | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Dalkelth, Earl of | Lougher, L. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Tasker, Major R. InIgo |
| Davies, Mai. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Maclntyre, Ian | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | McLean, Major A. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macmillan, Captain H. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Evans, Captain A, (Cardiff, South) | Malone, Major P. B. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Flelden, E. B. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wells, S. R. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Meller, R. J. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Merriman, F. B. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John, | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Gee, Captain R. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Goff Sir Park | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Grace, John | Murchison, C. K. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Nelson, Sir Frank | |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Nuttall, Ellis | Captain Bowyer and Captain |
| Viscount Curzon. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardle, George D. | Potts, John S. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Harris, Percy A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Broad, F. A | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe) |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Thurtle, E. |
| Connolly, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Lansbury, George | Townend, A. E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lawson, John James | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lee, F. | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lindley, F. W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Livingstone, A. M. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lunn, William | Westwood, J. |
| Dennison, R. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Whiteley, W. |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Dunnico, H. | MacLaren, Andrew | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Maxton, James | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Montague, Frederick | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gillett, George M. | Morris, R. H. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gosling, Harry | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Oliver, George Harold | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Palin, John Henry | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
2332§ The committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 104.