HC Deb 21 June 1932 vol 267 cc957-83
Mr. LOGAN

I beg to move,, in page 3, line 15, to leave out from the word "thirty-five," to the end of line 21.

Perhaps it would be better for the purpose of moving this deletion, if I were to read out the original paragraph (a): No person shall by virtue of this subsection be treated as insured after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five. Paragraph (b) is the most important part, which, to my mind, imposes a penalty on the insured person, which penalty, if the deletion which I am moving takes effect, will be removed, and it will then fall into consonance with paragraph (a), without paragraph (b) coming into operation. That means that by the deletion of paragraph (b) the penalty which is sought to be imposed on the insured person will not be imposed, and therefore the various benefits, with which I shall deal later, will be carried right through to the year 1935. Paragraph (b), the deletion of which I am moving, reads: A person whilst so treated as insured"— and bear in mind that by paragraph (a) it is provided that a person shall be considered to be insured up to the end of the year 1935, but this paragraph (b) penalises the insured person, and deals with a different year. A person whilst so treated as insured shall not be entitled to maternity benefit, and shall not after tine thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three"— in contradistinction to the year 1935, which is dealt with in paragraph (a)— be entitled to medical benefit or any additional benefits. Now those benefits of which the insured person will be deprived consist of everything which is beneficial in the National Health Insurance Act. "Medical benefit" is mentioned, but I think it would be far better if hon. Members of this House would understand that medical benefit comprises two parts, sickness benefit and disablement benefit, both of them conjointly coming into the category of medical benefit, and those insured in societies who are able to get additional benefits can also get additional benefits if they, being considered insured members, are entitled to those benefits. But the anomaly of this particular paragraph is that while under paragraph (a) a person can be entitled, or should be entitled because he is considered to be insured up to the year 1935, under paragraph (b) he is to be considered to be insured only up to 1933 from the point of view of getting benefit. It may be stated that as far as this particular extension is concerned, the financial extremity in which the National Government find themselves makes it absolutely necessary that there should be a curtailment in respect of this further extension, but I do with all due respect say that from the point of view of the insured person, the insured person should terminate the insurance at a period when he is entitled to all the benefits, and if the period be 1935 as is stated in paragraph (a), then my contention on paragraph (b) is that 1935 is the period with which we ought to deal. If the Minister will accept this, it is quite possible that the extension of these benefits will be of very great concern to insured people.

I do not wish to go into long statements in regard to the disabilities which the insured person is likely to suffer, even though unemployed and not being entitled to get those benefits, but I should like to remind the House that when the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 13th June last dealt with these important matters in a speech which fills about five columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, evidence was adduced pointing out to hon. Members the absolute necessity of such an Amendment as this which I am moving to-day. With all due respect, I wish to point out that the unemployed are being denied two benefits, first, in the category of unemployment, being unemployed they are being deprived of those benefits, and now when we come to deal with that essential service of public health, we find that they are also being denied that. I submit to this House that the only alternative is that the unemployed, and others who are in the National Health Insurance, and who have ceased employment and are going to lose the benefit under this Act, will, willy-nilly and whether the National Government like it or not, be put into the category of those who have got to receive Poor Law relief.

I do not think that this is a fair and just proposition, and although financial stringency may make it impossible for the Minister to give any improvement in many matters, I am fully convinced that the Minister is not going to be prepared to do an injustice, even at this late hour of the day, to those who are unemployed. If he can possibly see his way to let this Amendment go through, the question of redress can, I think, be brought up later, when we find an improvement in trade, as I am optimist enough to believe that we will, and there are many people in the country who will be very thankful that the voice of the Opposition was able to obtain some redress of what would be a great calamity to the unemployed. Of all the social services of which I know, I know of none that has given better advantages to our people, and when I come to think that a denial of maternity benefit is about to take place, and that those entitled to sickness benefits are going to be penalised because, so we are told, we are not able to meet the cost of these benefits, it appears to me that that is a thing which ought to be avoided.

We are told that societies can no longer be carried on and that societies are not able to meet their liabilities, and actuarial figures are brought forward to prove that on the next valuation there are likely to be readjustments unless a benefit is given to the societies. Even though maternity, sickness and disablement benefit are to go because people are, unfortunately, unemployed in these days of depression, I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that there is going be a great return to prosperity in the future. Hon. Members on the benches opposite seem to be bubbling over with a great desire to bring prosperity to the nation. I am fully convinced that if the Government have hope and courage in regard to what they propound in this House, good times are coming, and that they could accept the Amendment, which would bring hope and consolation to the people of this nation. The funds of approved societies would be improved by a greater number of people returning to work again. It is in the national interest to give maternity, sickness and disablement benefits to the class who require them more than anyone else in the community.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Earlier in the day, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that we were not contesting the principle of the Bill to-day because we did that on the Committee stage, and that we should try to get some concessions if possible. If we could prevail upon the Minister to give way upon some points it would be of material benefit to many of our people. Under the provisions of the earlier part of the Clause, benefits are given up to December, 1935, and we are trying to eliminate the provision which brings down certain other benefits to December, 1933. This would be a small concession and would not cut across the principles of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill will bear hardly upon the unemployed people. When a question was put to the Parliamentary Secretary he said that it would not hit more than 80,000 people, and the Minister supplemented that information by saying that probably the number would increase by 10,000 a year, but not more.

Since that Debate took place I have been looking up the figures. My memory takes mo back to the Debate on the Vote for the Labour Ministry when the Parliamentary Secretary stated that there were 600,000 unemployed people on the registers at the Employment Exchanges who were what may be called industrial cripples. Until trade revived enormously these people could not get back into employment. One can visualise under our present system that industrial cripples will not get an opportunity to work as long as there are other people available. A large proportion of those 600,000 people will have no hope of getting employment again. Piecing these things together, I think that the 80,000 will grow enormously when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. In addition to the 80,000 increasing by 10,000 a year, I should like to know what will eventually become of the other 400,000 or 500,000. I may be wrong in my calculation, but I feel satisfied that these people will be struck off altogether from National Health Insurance benefit. If we cannot get them into the scheme altogether, we ask that at least the Minister should take them on until 1935. Why he should strike them off at 1933 is beyond my comprehension. I am very sorry that the Bill has not been made plainer to the House of Commons. It is very difficult to piece the various Clauses together in order to get something tangible on which to argue. When the Bill passes into law, I hope that the position will be made plain, so that we may understand what is actually meant. The Amendment is not one which it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to accept.

Mr. PRICE

I support the Amendment. I believe that if the Bill is passed in its present form it will be the most diabolical piece of legislation hanging over the heads of a large number of unemployed who are the victims of circumstances, and who will have no hope at all. Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, miners or any other workers who to-day may be unemployed and fail to get reinstated before 1933, although they may have been paying into an approved society for 20 years and may have drawn no benefits whatever, will be thrown completely out of insurance benefit—financial, maternity, sickness and medical. It will affect their old age pension too and orphans who may be left will be robbed of their pensions. It is a very serious position. The Government are refusing to allow organisations which have balances to their credit to continue to pay those benefits. In the state of industry to-day, is it fair and just to reorganise National Health Insurance which carries with it old age pensions at 65, pensions for orphans, and widows' pensions? Is it just at a time like this to reorganise the scheme and compel all approved societies to operate it regardless of their financial position and thereby affect the position of men who may have contributed to approved societies for 20 years and not drawn a copper coin out of the funds? The Amendment suggests that benefits should follow insurance membership until 1935. Is this the time, when the Government should have same idea of the success which they are likely to meet with at Ottawa and at Lausanne, to take a step which will inflict tremendous hardships upon thousands of men, women and orphans?

It was stated during the Second Reading of the Bill that on actuarial grounds, and owing to the fact that this is a contributory scheme, some reorganisation ought to be carried out, but I suggest that this could be done without affecting the unemployed in this way. The Treasury benefited when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) robbed the National Health Insurance Fund of millions of pounds in 1921. Why should the contributors to the fund have to suffer now that there is a deficit? Let the Treasury pay back the money to the approved societies from whom it was taken so that benefits can be continued. I look upon this as a serious matter. I left the colliery to come into this House as a result of the last election. I had contributed to National Health Insurance, and I do so at the moment as a voluntary contributor. There are thousands of miners in my district, as there are up and down the country, who like myself have contributed to National Health Insurance for 20 years. They are now unemployed and the victims of circumstances. Many of them have become unemployed since the National Government took office. What hope do the Government hold out to those men? There has been no industrial improvement since the Government took office, and the Government now turn round to those men and say, "The only hope we can give you is until 1933. Unless you have got back into an insurable industry you will lose all benefits under the National Health Insurance Act."

I think that some better way could have been found to put the Insurance Fund upon a sound basis than to penalise men who are least able to bear the burden. Many courses could have been taken instead of inflicting an injustice upon unemployed men, who, in thousands of cases, have become unemployed since the National Government took office. Is this the only thing we can expect from a National Government who came in with trumpets blowing, and suggesting that they were going to put the world right in 24 hours? They have been in office all these months, and the only thing we can expect is to see widows and orphans robbed of their pensions. The sooner the Government get out of it the better. I suggest that even at this late hour the Minister ought to reconsider the position, which seriously affects thousands of men and women in the country, and see if there is not a better way of putting the finances of the fund on a sound basis without taking advantage of these innocent victims. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

I am sure the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be elated about the paucity of the attendance on the Government Benches just now. We are discussing what is recognised in the country as a first-class Measure, and one could almost count on both hands the number of the supporters that the National Government have in the House at the present time. That is regrettable. I do not hold the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary responsible. They have been in the House throughout the Debate on the Second Reading, on the Committee stage and now the Report stage, but it is a serious reflection upon the supporters of the National Government when we find so few of them in attendance while we are discussing a first-class Measure.

I spoke last week on an Amendment to increase 35 to 40. To-day we are trying to extend the length of time by deleting the Clause that would grant the benefit up to 1935. We were unable last week to make an impression upon the Minister and I presume that we shall be unable to do so to-day. I am entitled to place before the House not my own view on the matter, but the considered judgment of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. Perhaps I shall be pardoned if I read the memorandum that I have received from them appertaining to it. It is pertinent, in that it deals with the Clause which we are endeavouring to delete. The Minister will appreciate that the memorandum has been drafted by those who represent a large number of miners who are employed, apart from the unemployed who are not actually contributors to the fund owing to their unemployment. There is a lengthy reference dealing with prolongation, which I do not propose to read because it would not be technically in order. The memorandum says: Under the Prolongation Regulations members of Approved Societies who have been in insurance for 208 weeks and have paid 160 contributions, when they become employed are retained in insurance, with full benefits, for two years, and for a further period of one year at half the usual rate of benefits. All members so unemployed secure those benefits by the production of health insurance cards franked by the Labour Exchange, or of other evidence to prove that they are capable of but unable to obtain work. Under the proposed amended Bill it is provided that this arrangement shall terminate in December, 1932, and, except where the new conditions imposed have been satisfied, unemployed members will after that date lose their entitlement to sickness and maternity benefits. For the year 1933 they will receive medical benefits only, which will afterwards be discontinued. In addition they will, for the period to December 1935, be treated as continuing in insurance for the purpose of retaining their title to pensions, and in the case of the death of a member within a period of 12 months thereafter pension will be payable to the widow and orphans. The Memorandum then proceeds to give certain examples. These provisions have been secured for him without his having to pay any contributions, but only upon production of evidence that he has been genuinely unemployed. He might have been paying to the fund for 15 or 20 years and if he became unemployed, as is indicated in the Memorandum, his card was automatically stamped at the Employment Exchange and ho was entitled to all the benefits that came under the National Health Insurance scheme. From now on one knows that he cannot obtain any of the benefits referred to in the Clause that we are endeavouring to amend, unless he works either for a period of eight weeks or obtains eight stamps, which may be one stamp per week for eight weeks. If I read the Clause correctly, no person will be entitled to any benefit of any kind whatsoever beyond the year 1935 unless he has worked 26 weeks in the meantime. I should like the Minister when he replies to make that point clear. That is my interpretation of the Clause.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. WILLIAMS

Should I be in order in asking those hon. Members who have just come in, to remain in the House? The Whips are to be congratulated on gutting a few additional Members. The point I was putting to the Minister was the interpretation that I put upon the Clause and that is, that no person will be entitled to benefit of any kind if he has not worked 26 weeks before the end of 1935. If my interpretation is correct, I should like the House to visualise what is happening at the present time. Is there any hope for the miners of this country, for whom I am speaking, who are now unemployed, and other miners who are being rendered unemployed in ever-increasing numbers, to obtain six months employment prior to 1935? I have to assume that the Government agree that there is no such hope. They have no faith in their fiscal policy. If they had any faith in their fiscal policy they would not so alter the period as to make it incumbent upon a. person to have eight weeks work in the preceding 12 months before he is recognised for benefit. They would continue the present arrangement. They would agree that at the Employment Exchange, if the person making application was normally engaged in insurable employment, his card would be franked as hitherto, but because they have no faith in their fiscal policy and they do not believe that it is possible for persons to obtain employment, they are endeavouring to stretch the period of employment, and an enormous number of people will be affected.

It is computed that 80,000 persons, men and women, will be affected by the Bill. It is further computed, according to the Minister's statement last week, that that number will increase at the rate of 10,000 a year. I wish I could believe that that really was the figure. I am inclined to believe that the number will be increased substantially more than that. This morning in the provincial newspaper for Wales I find that the largest colliery that I have had under my purview for the last 12 years or so is likely to close. From yesterday's Press I find that three or four of the largest collieries in South Wales, employing 3,500 persons, have tendered notices to their workpeople. We find that each week in South Wales unemployment in the absolute sense is increasing, as well as intermittent employment. Since January, taking the official figures of the mining industry alone, unemployment has increased by 63,000. We must wait till next week for the latest returns. It is computed, and I think it may be accepted from the evidence that we are able to see with our own eyes each week-end when we return to our constituencies, that that number must have substantially increased during the intervening period. What hope is there for those persons ever to receive free benefit if they must obtain six months normal employment in an insurable occupation? All that we have laid before us in this House is the need for making the scheme actuarially sound. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they do not apply that kind of philosophy to other things. They do not apply it to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The same principle that they desire to apply in the realm of Health Insurance, this enormous piece of social service, they do not seek to apply to the Defence Forces and other matters that are considered of national importance.

I submit that the National Health Insurance scheme is, of all matters, a question of paramount importance to the people of this country. There is nothing of so great value to the people. If one has to argue it purely on the financial ground, has the Minister computed what this will mean to the local authorities? Sitting by my side is the hon. Member for Neath (Sir William Jenkins). He is the chairman of a large number of our standing committees in Glamorganshire. Glamorganshire is really on the verge of ruin. Below the Gangway a few moments ago there sat the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead). Merthyr Tydvil is faced with bankruptcy. It is actually appealing to the Glamorgan County Council to be absorbed, because public assistance there is making it impossible for it to live as a borough. Glamorganshire, I agree, may be an extreme case, but in Monmouthshire the expenditure is greater than the total rate revenue. These two counties are entirely dependent on coal mining, and, although they may be extreme cases, they are typical of all areas where mining, steel, shipbuilding and such-like staple indus- tries are the dominant industries of the area. Yet this Bill is designed to relieve the Exchequer of a certain liability and throw it upon these local authorities. You are driving the depressed areas into still deeper depths of depression, and greatly adding to the ever increasing weight of misery falling on the shoulders of the poor. Over 50 per cent, of the small businesses in my own constituency are actually closed. It is quite impossible for them to carry on, and practically every person who will be thrown off benefit will fall upon public assistance and add to the ever increasing liability which is falling on the shoulders of local authorities.

Surely it is time that this House called a halt and endeavoured to realise what is happening in these areas. In the 10 or twelve mining valleys of South Wales not more than 50 per cent, of the men are engaged, and there is no hope of those who are unemployed obtaining 26 weeks work prior to 1935. I have been personally responsible in a certain capacity for the affairs of thousands of men, and there are at least 3,000 to 4,000 men who come under my purview who have been idle since 1926, and 1,500 to 2,003 who have been idle since 1921. Yet it is assumed that it is possible for these men to get 26 weeks work prior to 1935, and if they do not all their benefits will be discontinued, including pensions if they are under 56 years of age. It is really one of the most serious situations with which this House has been confronted, and hon. Members will pardon me stressing the urgency of this problem. If it was a question of putting the fund upon an actuarial basis the Government could bring in scores of thousands of persona who are now outside. They could bring in the railway men and Members of this House, those between 14 and 16 years of age, members of the Civil Service, and teachers, who are outside the scheme entirely.

The Government leave outside the scheme those persons who have security of tenure, who have regular employment, and bring within it those who are likely to be the first hit when depression comes along. It is a scheme which is inevitably actuarially unsound. Within the next 12 months the Minister will be obliged to come to this House again. It will be impossible, with the depression increasing at such a rapid rate, to carry on the scheme on an actuarial basis, that is if you leave the scheme to those persons who are normally subscribing to it and do not bring within its purview persons with a salary of less than £400 a year. If you did this you would be able to increase the revenue without unduly increasing the expenditure, because the persons who are now left outside are those who have some security of employment.

If the Minister really wants to make the scheme actuarially sound he should endeavour to increase the revenue by tapping industries and avocations which would bring in people who would be able to subscribe regularly, and who would not drain the fund to anything like the same amount. I hope the Minister will reflect upon the matter again. We believe that it is possible to get a scheme which is actuarially sound and at the same time save one of the finest monuments of Great Britain—namely, its care for the health of its people and the medical assistance and treatment which is now being meted out to the poor of the land. Hon. Members opposite are wealthy enough to engage their own medical practitioner. I can speak from a recent experience; I know what it means to be laid up. Let hon. Members appreciate what it means to the poor to be sick and unable to call upon a doctor when they are ill. They cannot afford to do so. But these are the people whom we want to see restored to industry as soon as possible. These are the people who, it is contemplated, may be employed through the schemes of the Government, yet they are gradually fading away through sickness and unemployment and are becoming so badly impaired in health that if employment becomes available they will not be fit to undertake the task. For these reasons I trust the Minister will reflect again and accept the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG

I must remind hon. Members that the Third Reading Debate will take place later in the day. At the present moment what I have to deal with is the Amendment that has been moved, that is, to leave out from 1935 to the end of line 21. The effect of that would be to prolong medical benefits and maternity benefits and additional benefits up to the end of the year 1935. The arguments which have been addressed to the House by hon. Members have no relation to the Amendment. They have been addressed to the indefinite extension of benefits without any regulation of time at all. One very grave misapprehension prevails in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They have argued their case as if the pensions benefits would end at the end of the year 1933. That is not the case. Under the Bill pensions are continued until the end of the year 1935. Hon. Members have said that the Bill is difficult to comprehend. I agree; but there is a White Paper which is not difficult of comprehension.

Mr. MAXTON

It is not too easy.

Sir H. YOUNG

It is not beyond the intelligence of the average Member of Parliament, and hon. Members below the Gangway understand it very well, as I have had means of ascertaining. By this time we might have expected that hon. Members, before attacking the Bill in such an indiscriminate fashion, would have acquainted themselves with the elements of its provisions. I cannot deal with the arguments that have been advanced, because they have been devoted to an attack on the bases of a solvent contributory insurance scheme. I stated at the outset of our Debates that the policy of the Bill was based on two assumptions—namely, that a National Health Insurance scheme must be solvent in itself, and that it must be supported as a contributory scheme. Those are matters which are, no doubt, suitable for debate on Second and Third Reading, but I do not think any useful purpose is served by discussing them on every Amendment. It is quite clear from the speeches of hon. Members that they are prepared to abandon the solvency of the scheme and the contributory nature of the scheme, and to throw the whole burden on the Exchequer. The Government are not prepared to do that, and for the reason that, if you seek to maintain benefits such as those which are given in National Health Insurance or in National Unemployment Insurance without those checks which are natural to an insurance scheme on a contributory principle, there is only one possible end to such a scheme, and that is to throw such an intolerable burden on to national resources that not only would there be a reduction of benefits such as are unfortunately envisaged in the Bill, but that the whole scheme would fall in ruins and there would be no benefits at all.

6.0 p.m.

Such measures as we are taking now are for the protection of the contributors to the scheme, and in order to ensure that the benefits shall be provided for them. Some play was made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) with the words "penalties" and "a denial of right." I must repeat, in order to prevent these mischievous misrepresentations getting abroad in the country, what I said upon a previous occasion, that the Bill denies no man any right. The hard truth with which we have to start is this: As regards those with whom we are dealing, namely, those in prolongation, in the average case, by the time the benefits secured to them by this Bill expire, they will have enjoyed in the form of benefits more than they have paid in contributions. There is no sacrifice of benefits there. Now as to the allegation of penalties. It is a complete misrepresentation to say that this Bill imposes penalties upon anybody. On the contrary, the attitude from which we approach the unemployed and their insurance in this Bill, is the attitude of protecting those rights to the limit of what is possible, consistent with the two basic principles to which I have referred, namely, the solvency of the scheme and the maintenance of the contributory principle. So far from inflicting penalties upon any man or woman the Bill confers new rights, and for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been present when I said it during the Committee stage I repeat, in connection with this Amendment, what the Bill secures by way of new rights to the insured unemployed.

Unless such measures as we propose are taken, at the end of this year or at the cessation of prolongation, some 80,000 unemployed will go completely out of insurance. That is the situation which we have to save, and we save the situation by conferring the following extensions: First, there is an additional year of medical benefit for 1933. After the expiration of that year there are two further additional years of pension rights for 1934 and 1935. All these are new extensions and new concessions to the unemployed insured. Hon. Members tried to produce the impression that after 1935 there was no further benefit for these persons. They failed to remind the House that, up to the introduction of this Bill, every person over 60, even though unemployed, was continued in insurance, until the critical age of 65, and maintained his insurance lights; and they have failed to remind the House that the Bill extends that privilege.

Some play has been made with the fact that if one goes out of insurance 26 contributions are necessary in order to get back into insurance. This is a suppression of essential facts which almost amounts to a suggestion of that which is unveracious. The fact is that until this Bill was introduced, in order to get back into pensions insurance it was necessary to find 104 contributions. This Bill makes the very important further concession that, for the recovery of pension rights, instead of 104 contributions being necessary, we have made a very large reduction and not more than 26 contributions are now required. All this does not under-estimate the painfulness of the position that, owing to the facts set out in the Actuary's Report, we have to come to the House with a Bill which, though not in these Clauses, undoubtedly contains restrictions in other Clauses. It is the painful consequence of painful national circumstances in which many legitimate and high hopes have had to be postponed. Let us also recognise that while we feel the difficulties of the position, no worse service can be performed to those whose interests we desire to protect, than to misrepresent the situation, and it is a misrepresentation of the situation to refer to every restriction in the Bill and to pass over without a word the very large concessions which are made in the Bill.

Mr. LOGAN

There has been no misrepresentation as regards this Section.

Sir H. YOUNG

I do not charge any Member of this House with any deliberate misrepresentation. I only say that the point of view which I have indicated is one which, if taken sufficiently firmly, is apt to produce an effect which is misrepresentative on the minds of the uninstructed. Then it is said that we have made no allowance for better times. Why not, it is asked, put things off in the hope that something will turn up? We have had enough of putting things off in the hope that something will turn up. What is the National Government here for? Not to put things off any longer in the hope that something will turn up, but to grapple courageously with our difficulties, and show the country the right way of dealing with those difficulties on the spot. I have said before, and I say again, that there is no task more characteristic of and more pertinent to a Government, born under the conditions under which this Government was born, than to ask the country to support it in the duty, at once painful and obvious, of reinforcing the finances of the National Health Insurance scheme and preventing it from falling down that slope which has landed us into such difficulties and confusion in connection with Unemployment Insurance.

Another consideration has been present to the minds of the Government in making their plans for this Bill. Hon. Members ask, why put it off until 1935? There are two reasons. The first is that every financial asset of which I could properly avail myself for the purpose of extension, will not enable me to put it off any longer at the present time. In the second place, I have gone to 1935 deliberately, because, under present conditions, it has seemed legitimate and prudent to give a breathing space for the country to recover, and not to take inevitable steps in the way of exclusion from insurance rights until it is absolutely certain that there is no other course open. We can keep these insurance rights going for as long as is consistent with solvency, and, since we can do so, we ought to do so, because we hope and believe that in doing so we give the unemployed insured an opportunity of maintaining their insurance by the best of all possible means, that is by the recovery of their rights through re-entry into employment with the return of better times.

Finally, I have been challenged on our attitude towards the societies. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) actually attacked the Government for forcing this Measure upon reluctant societies. At any rate that was the effect produced upon the House by what he said. There never was a more complete reversal of the actual state of affairs. In this matter of prolongation it is the approved socieites who have required relief from the burdens which the country had laid upon them, and the approved societies, acting in this manner, have acted in the best interests of their own-members, the insured persons. They have acted in the interests and for the protection of the rights of the great body of their own members. It is absolutely necessary for them that there should be-some limit to the burden which is crushing their finances and, so far from this-being forced on the societies, I say without hesitation that the Clauses which we are considering in particular, have the cordial approval of the approved societies expressed in the best interests of their own members.

In a word, it is impossible to accept the Amendment because it would require a financial extension of which the scheme is incapable. We have been able to find the finance for the additional medical benefit from a source which cannot be renewed. We have been able to extend pension rights for two more years without an undue burden on the capital account of the fund. At present we can do no more, consistent with the two bedrock principles to which I have referred, and the arguments which we have heard to-day are arguments addressed, not towards the maintenance of sound insurance, but towards the wreckage of insurance and the substitution of an eleemosynary scheme.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I have been amazed at the Minister's speech. He has charged my hon. Friends, not with deliberate misrepresentation but with misrepresentation, and he has done so by pointing out that they have made the plea that the unemployed will be worse off under this Clause than they are at the moment. He has tried to convince the House that by this Clause the unemployed will be better off than they would otherwise have been. Will he say that the unemployed will be better off under this Clause than they would have been, had the prolongation scheme been carried on year by year as in the past? The comparison, remember, is not between what the unemployed get under this Bill and nothing; the comparison is between their position under this Clause and their position under a continuance of the prolongation scheme. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if this Bill had not been brought forward, no Government, of whatever political colour, could have declined to carry on the prolongation scheme under the Expiring Laws Act. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the suggestion that he is improving the position of the aged unemployed by this Measure. He complained, strange to say, that hon. Members on this side had run away from the facts. I have never heard a Minister go so far away from the Amendment as the right hon. Gentleman went in his speech. If I may say so, I thought he was becoming a little angry for the first time in these discussions. But let me try to bring him back to the Amendment and to ask him some pertinent questions. The wording of this proviso is very strange. It is: Provided that— (a) no person shall by virtue of this Sub-section be treated as insured after the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-five. Then there is a semi-colon, and it proceeds: and (b) a person whilst so treated as insured shall not be entitled to maternity benefit. That would lead the uninstructed to believe that a person falling into that category would be entitled to maternity benefit up to 1935, but if you read the words carefully you find that such a person is not to receive maternity benefit at all, although that person is to be regarded as an insured person. If the Minister cannot explain that point, I feel sure that his deputy can do so. His deputy always turns to the Memorandum, though the Minister seems rather to disregard the Memorandum in certain eases. I think I am more faithful to the Amendment than the Minister has been, and I did not like his challenging my hon. Friends for not speaking to the point at issue. The Minister is entirely wrong in assuming that we are not in agreement with him that this scheme ought to be conducted on insurance and actuarial principles. It is a very old dodge, if I might use the word in this Assembly, when a person disagrees with you, to charge him with doing something that is radically wrong. The proposals that the Government are making in this Bill are not at all sacrosanct. They are not the only proposals that can be made and still keep the basis of the scheme on insurance principles.

As a matter of fact, not all the wisdom rests in the present Ministry of Health. The right hon. Gentleman turns round and says, "I have all the approved societies with me," and he says, "Look at the Consultative Council." If we bring forward an argument, he always shields himself behind the Consultative Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) and myself have been on the Consultative Council, I think, when Ministers of several political parties have been in office, and I do not think I should be divulging a secret if I said that the Consultative Council is exactly what it Says it is. It is a council that the Minister can consult with. The Minister never asks for advice, and if the Consultative Council gave advice, he would probably never accept it anyhow. Consequently, he cannot hide behind the Consultative Council.

I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman something else. He knows full well in this connection that the actuary and his officers must know that this scheme has got to be financed in future with less and less help from the State. That, in fact, is at the root of the whole trouble. The present Government, I am sure, if I could get to know all the secrets that they have in their minds about this scheme, have come to the conclusion that it is time that the scheme ought to finance itself, without any State aid. The State now gives about £6,000,000 a year towards it, and my complaint is that the Ministry, in this Clause, is thrusting upon the Contributory Pensions Fund and the approved societies the financial liability of continuing these persons in insurance. I have not the figures by me, although they have been worked out, but the State, by the introduction of the contributory pension scheme, has gained millions upon millions of pounds per annum that would otherwise have had to be paid by the Treasury. If the contributory pension scheme was not in operation, every person below a given income would be entitled at 70 years of age to a pension of 10s. a week, without any contribution at all. Once the State decided that every man and every woman up to 65 should pay a contribution for a pension at 65 and over it thus relieved the State of paying any pension to those over 70 years of age, because they would be drawing contributory pensions, and therefore the State has gained at every turn by the introduction of this contributory scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the cost of maternity benefit, medical benefit, and additional benefit. That appeared to me very humorous with regard to maternity benefit, because we are dealing here with persons over 58 years of age, and I cannot see the cost involved there. I will leave it to the Minister to tell us how much maternity benefit would cost in respect of 80,000 persons, all over 58 years of age. That really is a puzzle for the actuary. I think he could tell us the cost of medical benefit, because it is 8s. 6d. per insured person per annum. We protest, therefore, and we shall go into the Division Lobby, not because we want to disturb the insurance principle of this scheme, but because we deny the right of the Minister to claim that this Clause puts the unemployed person for pension purposes in a better position than he would have occupied if the prolongation scheme had been carried forward from year to year. As a protest against the claim which they make that they are helping the unemployed, we shall go into the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON

I rise to offer a few comments on the Amendment, but I do not want to anticipate the Third Reading Debate, in which I hope to participate, nor do I wish to repeat the points that were made on the Second Reading, in which I had an opportunity of saying a word or two, nor do I even want to go, where I imagine the Minister strayed in Ms speech on this Amendment, into matters which would be more appropriate to the Vote of Censure on Thursday next, but I want, in so far as I can, while keeping to the Amendment on the Paper, to support the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. The Minister accused the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) of suppressio veri. It is true that the Minister, throughout the discussion on this Bill, has carefully assumed that the prolongation of insurance was dropping automatically, and it is only on the assumption that the prolongation of insurance was going to be dropped that he can claim that the position of the unemployed man in health insurance is improved by this Bill and not very substantially worsened.

I do not think the dropping of the Prolongation Bill was practical politics. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that for some reason—I do not quite know what it was—during the period of office of the late Labour Government there was some delay in bringing forward the prolongation Measure. As a matter of fact, it was left by the then Minister of Health until the 11th hour of the last day of the last month, but when he did bring it forward in this rushed way, every section of the House united to get it through the House in all its stages in practically record time, proving that the general opinion of the House was so strong on this matter that it was not in contemplation that the unemployed should be left absolutely devoid of their health benefit, their sickness benefit, and their pension rights. It is true, as the Minister said, leaving the prolongation out of account, as he insists on doing, that this Bill makes it easier for an unemployed person who has dropped out of insurance to get back in as compared with the existing situation. He gets in on a 26 weeks' qualification instead of on a 104 weeks' qualification, or six months as against two years. That is true, but what this Bill does definitely do, while it makes it easier for a man to get in, is to make it much easier for him to get out. It deliberately makes arrangements for dropping people out of health insurance, and then, having made it easy for them to drop out in 1935, the right hon. Gentleman says, "I am conferring a benefit by letting them in on easy terms."

It is a curious kind of benefit. It is not the kind of benefit that most of us ourselves would wish to have conferred, to throw us out into the street, out of the shelter of the social insurance system of the country, and to say, when you are out, after years of unemployment, when you are absolutely down and out, when your personal fortunes are at their very lowest ebb, when everything looks blackest to the individual insured person—to say, just at this stage, "The State can no longer take responsibility for you, but, although when you are absolutely down and out we boot you out into the street and make you outlaws from the social services, yet, if you re-establish yourselves, if you can begin to get on the upgrade, if you can secure steady employment for six months and show that, in spite of all the difficulties against you, you have overcome them, then, in six months' time, we will recognise you as having the right to medical attention, sick benefit, maternity benefit, old age pension, and widows' and orphans' pension." I do not think that is good ethics, I do not think it is good sociology, and I dissent strongly from the view that has been steadily expressed from the Treasury Bench that the economies involved in this matter can have any effect upon the general industrial and financial position of the country.

The Minister says that he has kept two considerations steadily before his mind in drafting this Clause, as in drafting others, namely, that the scheme must be a contributory one, and that the fund must be kept solvent; and that this is the only Measure that he could possibly produce having regard to these guiding principles. I do not accept these principles as being sound principles for all time, but I accept them as being the principles that have governed health insurance up till now. We are not discussing now whether fundamental changes should be made in the structure of health insurance, or I would hope that there would be a considerable volume of opinion throughout the whole House in favour of getting away from this approved society basis, where specially fortunate people in specially fortunate approved societies, fit lives, as it were, are in the one society and the bad lives, in bad industries, and in bad districts, are in another society, so that unto them that have is given and from them that have not is taken away even that they have. I hope that there would be a big volume of opinion for a complete reconstruction of the whole basis

of our health services, but that is not what we are discussing now; and, accepting the existing principle of contributory insurance through approved societies, the Minister takes care to exclude altogether from this discussion the possibility of maintaining the contributory basis and the solvency of the fund by the Treasury taking the responsibility of increasing their contribution.

The fund is made up by the contributions of three parties, namely, the insured person, the employer and the State. Admittedly the insured person and the employer are paying now as much as can be reasonably asked for. The State could easily shoulder the additional burden that would be imposed upon the fund by the Amendment. It would be a trivial addition to national expenditure, but it would return a far higher value in the health of the community; I would not go as far as to say in the happiness of the community, but, at any rate, in the saving of misery to the community. If the nation is in such a parlous financial state that it cannot shoulder for another year or two the miserable payments to the married women, to the aged women, to the widows and orphans, and to the mothers in childbirth; if the State is in such a parlous condition that these payments will bring down the whole economic structure, then for God's sake let the structure come down. Let it come down if it can only be saved at the expense of the aged and sick, and see if we cannot build something better.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes., 319; Noes, 50.

Division No. 250.] AYES. [6.33 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Borodale, Viscount Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W,) Bossom, A. C. Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Boulton, W. W. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Albery, Irving James Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Chalmers, John Rutherford
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Boyce, H. Lesile Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Bracken, Brendan Christie, James Archibald
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Clarry, Reginald George
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Clayton, Dr. George C.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Broadbent, Colonel John Cobb, Sir Cyril
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Atholl, Duchess of Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Colville, John
Atkinson, Cyril Brown, Ernest (Leith) Conant, R. J. E.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Cook, Thomas A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Cooke, Douglas
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Burnett, John George Cooper, A. Duff
Balniel, Lord Butler, Richard Austen Copeland, Ida
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cadogan, Hon. Edward Cowan, D. M.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Caine, G. R. Hall- Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Cranborne, Viscount
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Craven-Ellis, William
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Castlereagh, Viscount Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Blaker, Sir Reginald Castle Stewart, Earl Crooke, J. Smedley
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Reid, David D. (County Down)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Reid, James S. C, (Stirling)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Remer, John R.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Dalkeith, Earl of Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Davison, Sir William Henry Ker, J. Campbell Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Kerr, Hamilton W. Robinson, John Roland
Denville, Alfred Kimball, Lawrence Rosbotham, S. T.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Kirkpatrick, William M. Ross, Ronald D.
Dickle, John P. Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Knebworth, Viscount Rothschild, James A. de
Doran, Edward Knight, Holford Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Knox, Sir Alfred Runge, Norah Cecil
Drewe, Cedric Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Duggan, Hubert John Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Dunglass, Lord Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Eady, George H. Law, Sir Alfred Salmon, Major Isidore
Eastwood, John Francis Leckie, J. A. Salt, Edward W.
Eden, Robert Anthony Leech, Dr. J. W. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lees-Jones, John Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Levy, Thomas Scone, Lord
Elmley, Viscount Lewis, Oswald Selley, Harry R.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Liddall, Walter S. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Lindsay, Noel Ker Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lloyd, Geoffrey Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Loder, Captain J. de Vere Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Everard, W. Lindsay Mabane, William Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Fermoy, Lord MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst McCorquodale, M. S. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Smithers, Waldron
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) McKie, John Hamilton Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Fox, Sir Gifford Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Fremantle, Sir Francis McLean, Major Alan Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ganzoni, Sir John Magnay, Thomas Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Stevenson, James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Stones, James
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Storey, Samuel
Goff Sir Park Marsden, Commander Arthur Strauss, Edward A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Martin, Thomas B. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Graves Marjorie Meller, Richard James Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Grenfell E. C (City of London) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Sutcliffe, Harold
Grimston R. V. Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Tate, Mavis Constance
Gritten W. G. Howard Mitcheson, G. G. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Guest Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Moreing, Adrian C. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Gunston, Captain D. W. Morrison, William Shepherd Thorp, Linton Theodore
Guy J. C. Morrison Muirhead, Major A. J. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Munro, Patrick Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Hales, Harold K. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Train, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hammersley, Samuel S. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Turton, Robert Hugh
Hanbury, Cecil Normand, Wilfrid Guild Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hanley, Dennis A. North, Captain Edward T. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry O'Connor, Terence James Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Harbord, Arthur O'Donovan, Dr. William James Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Harris, Sir Percy Ormiston, Thomas Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hartland, George A. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Palmer, Francis Noel Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Pearson, William G. Wayland, Sir William A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Peat, Charles U. Weymouth, Viscount
Heilgers, Captain F. F A. Penny, Sir George White, Henry Graham
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Perkins, Walter R. D. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hope Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) Petherick, M. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Hornby, Frank Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Potter, John Womersley, Walter James
Horsbrugh, Florence Pownall, Sir Assheton Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Howard, Tom Forrest Procter, Major Henry Adam Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Pybus, Percy John Worthington, Dr. John V.
Hunter Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Wragg, Herbert
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hurd, Sir Percy Ramsden, E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Rankin, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. Rea, Walter Russell Commander Southby and Mr.Blindell.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maxton, James
Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. Milner, Major James
Batey, Joseph Grundy, Thomas W. Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Price, Gabriel
Briant, Frank Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hicks, Ernest George Thorne, William James
Buchanan, George Hirst, George Henry Tinker, John Joseph
Cape, Thomas Jenkins, Sir William Wallhead, Richard C.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Cove, William G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Cripps, Sir Stafford Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dagger, George Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Leonard, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Charles Lunn, William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur McEntee, Valentine L. Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)