§
Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section seventy-five of the Insurance Act shall have effect as though the following proviso were added thereto:
Provided that in the case of a society with branches, the rules of which so require—
For the purposes of this proviso the expression additional treatment benefits' shall mean additional benefits Nos. 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, specified in the Third Schedule to this Act."—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 7.13 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is not a new problem. This Clause has appeared on the Order Paper before when we have been dealing with health insurance problems. There may be hon. Members who are members of friendly societies, and they will know that ever since some friendly societies were formed about a century ago they have operated in such a way that there are large branches of friendly societies which are separate units themselves. Indeed, they have been valued as separate units; and some branches in connection with some societies have always been very rich, while some may be very poor. When the health insurance scheme was established those friendly societies with branches as separate units were allowed to establish them as separate units for health insurance purposes. The result is that a friendly society approved for national health assurance can have several 98 hundred branches, and each branch a distinct unit, as though it were a separate approved society of its own. Every five years, when the Government actuary comes to value the assets and liabilities of these branches, he audits the several hundred branches separately and values them separately, and within the same organisation one can find a branch in Lincolnshire or Norfolk which is enormously rich, and a branch in Durham, South Wales, or Glasgow which is exceedingly poor, although they are all within the same society.
The friendly societies have complained about this system for a long time past, but some of the rich branches do not like to hand over any of their surplus to the poorer branches, and no doubt that is a very human failing. Nobody likes to hand over any of his goods to anyone poorer than himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not even the Socialists!"] Our trouble is that we have never been provided with enough to give us the chance to give anything away. If the hon. Member will provide us with the opportunity he can put us to the test. What is proposed under this new Clause is that the central executive of the approved society should be entitled to take one-third of the surplus of the rich units and transfer it to the poor units, not to be used to pay cash benefits but to provide additional treatment benefits, such as dentures, spectacles and other appliances. If this new Clause were accepted it would rid the approved friendly societies of the anomaly under which they are now labouring.
I think the right hon. Gentleman has received a deputation from the friendly society movement, and I shall not be giving away any secrets if I say that I expect his reply to be that he cannot accept the Clause. The argument of the Ministry has always been that it is unfair to do what is now proposed, because some branches of friendly societies are opposed to it. But really that is a stronger argument than ever in favour of the proposal. This is a Bill for equalising the contributions of all the insured population—if I say "equalising," it is a nice, delicate term for "pooling," a word which some people do not like. However that may be, once Parliament decides that the time has 99 arrived for pooling or equalising the smallest part of the contributions of the insured population, then the claim for equalising the benefits within the same friendly society is surely stronger than ever. The right hon. Gentleman has been affecting all this afternoon not to know as much about health insurance as he used to do. I am certain that he knows a great deal about this problem, and whatever his reply may be I am sure that we have not heard the last of it, because it is a very strange state of affairs that within the same organisation there should be not only some branches richer than other branches, but one set of branches growing richer at every valuation period whilst other branches are becoming poorer. If we cannot have nationalisation of the assets and liabilities of all approved societies, at least we ought to take one little step forward in favour of equalising the assets and the liabilities of the units within a single friendly society.
§ 7.20 p.m.
§ Mr. E. WILLIAMSI should like to ask the Minister to accept this new Clause, and on grounds which the Minister has put forward in speeches which he has had to make to-night in dealing with other matters. He has made reference to what the approved societies would have him do in relation to certain things. They would like him to see, what is his chief function, that the contributory scheme does not break down. We were desirous that he should approach the approved societies in regard to the maternity Amendment which we moved from this side. As far as I can ascertain, the approved societies are quite ready to agree to the insertion of this Clause, and if that is so we suggest that the Minister might meet them. I am not connected with any approved society myself, but I have been approached by a large number of secretaries in South Wales, which, after all, is a very depressed area, who are desirous that the surpluses held by branches within the same approvad approved society may be used to help the members in other branches in badly-depressed areas. I could give the Minister concrete instances if he desired them, but I am sure he has all the details as his disposal. We are anxious 100 that he should accede to the very strong desire of a large number of secretaries of approved societies that equality of treatment should be meted out to the whole of the members, seeing that under this Bill all members will be expected to make the same contribution.
§ 7.23 p.m.
§ Mr. R. T. EVANSI should like to associate myself with the Clause which has been put forward. Like other hon. Members I have been approached on this matter by representatives of friendly societies in my constituency and in other constituencies, and it appears to me that there is an anomaly which could be remedied without imposing onerous conditions on anybody. After all, we are not making it compulsory that surplus assets should be pooled, only making it permissive. I understand that there was in the Act of 1911 a provision which, if not verbally identical with the proposed new Clause, was the same in substance. Under the original Act of 1911, Section 37, Sub-section (1, c), it was permitted to friendly societies to hand over to a central pool one-third of their surpluses, but in the amending Act of 1918 that provision, for some reason which I have not been able to ascertain, was eliminated. That was before any valuation had really taken place, and before the scheme could really become operative. We are left with a situation which is both anomalous and unfair.
Take the position of an order like that of the Rechabites in an area like South Wales. Districts like those of Cardiff and Newport are able to supply quite a large number of additional benefits—dental, optical and surgical appliances and attendance at convalescent homes—whereas the districts in the Rhondda Valley, where the people in these days are more in need of these additional benefits, cannot grant them. I have been assured by representatives of this order that if one-third of the surpluses of each of these districts could be pooled it would be possible to distribute additional benefits over a wider area. It might be wrong for Parliament to interfere unduly with the administration of the affairs of these separate orders, but all we are asking now is that Parliament should give them permission to effect this pooling if they so desired. We are not asking for anything tyran- 101 nous, we are not seeking to impose our will, but only suggest that they should be given the power to do this if they so wish. The areas most badly in need of the additional benefits are the areas penalised by the absence of these permissive powers.
I feel that the plea we are making is a reasonable one and I can find no really cogent argument against it, and as it is the expressed desire of a very large number of these orders I think the Minister would be well advised to accept the Clause. There is another point. Great centralised organisations like the Hearts of Oak, able to grant additional benefits, are obviously in a much stronger position when canvassing for members than the Oddfellows, or the Rechabites, which are decentralised, unpooled, organisations. Also it seems to be singularly unfair that we should have two men working cheek by jowl one of whom belongs to a district with a large surplus which can secure for him all these additional benefits and the other, though paying exactly the same contributions, receiving none of them because he belongs to a poorer district. That is an anomaly which ought to be removed. We are not asking for any alteration which will operate harshly against these orders, but should they desire to pool one-third of their surpluses Parliament ought to allow them to do so. It is a rational demand and one which I hope the Minister will, with his customary magnanimity, agree to.
§ 7.27 p.m.
§ Sir K. WOODThe hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to my memory in connection with national health insurance matters and implied that it was rather better than I had suggested that it was. One thing I have vividly in my mind is the controversy over this question of pooling. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has gone on ever since the Act came into operation, I think, and I can tell the hon. Member who spoke just now that so far from there being unanimity about the matter there has always been the strongest division of opinion. Wherever two approved societies men meet together they differ on this question of pooling. I think the Committee will agree that it is wise for me, as the Minister associated with the administration of this scheme, not to embark upon anything unless I have a very fair pro- 102 portion of approved society opinion behind me. I will give an illustration so that the Committee may know exactly what is the position. A similar Clause to this was moved during the discussion of the National Health Insurance Act of 1928, and it was then defeated by 230 votes to 117. Next the subject was brought before the Royal Commission. I remember that commission very well. Its recommendations received general acceptance from the approved society world—so far as general acceptance can be obtained. They considered this matter, and were not prepared to make any recommendation in its favour.
Take the present position. The proposed new Clause was put forward at the instance of a group of societies with branches. You would think that if the proposal were so strongly favoured as the three hon. Gentlemen have represented to the House this afternoon, at any rate those particular societies would have exhibited practical unanimity. I find, however, that the proposal was agreed to at the National Conference of Friendly Societies only by a majority represented by 84 votes to 51. That was the position at a conference which is sponsor for these proposals. I find that the annual meeting of another very important body of friendly society people, the Ancient Order of Foresters, turned it down.
§ Mr. R. T. EVANSWhat was the date of the meeting?
§ Sir K. WOODThe meeting of the Ancient Order of Foresters was quite recent. I think the general reason why there is such a division of opinion is that the proposal would take away the responsibility of branches for controlling their own funds. Although the Clause would be permissive, it might cause embarrassment in branch societies which objected to pooling. I am not going into the merits of the matter, but I think hon. Members will agree, after hearing my statement, that it would be unwise for the Committee to go forward and approve proposals until more unanimity exists among the societies, and in particular among the class of society which has put forward the proposal.
The new Unemployment Arrears Fund is being built up, as hon. Members know, as to one-half by a deduction from every 103 contribution paid in respect of members of approved societies. That is a measure of pooling—if hon. Members care to use the word—to meet the risks of unemployment. Apart from the fact that approved societies are so much divided among themselves, we should be wise to await the effect of the proposal in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They mean a very considerable contribution by the approved societies amounting to about £750,000 per year. I appreciate the terms in which the hon. Gentlemen have debated the proposal, and I suggest that after my statement the Mover might see his way not to proceed with the Clause.
§ 7.36 p.m.
§ Mr. G. GRIFFITHSI am sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to accept our proposal. I belong to an approved society which has been hard hit in this respect. The majority of the members in the small society of which I am a member are over middle age. The society is not recruiting any new young members, and cannot give dental treatment or other additional benefit. That is one reason why we are not able to make new members. As was stated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), all our members pay the same amount of contribution, but two men who may be working in the same factory, shop or pit may belong to different societies, one to a society which can give additional benefits, and the other to a society which cannot. I speak very feelingly on this matter, because I wanted artificial teeth some time ago, and the chap working with me in the pit obtained his teeth for nothing from his society while I had to pay £6 10s. for mine. My society could not give that additional benefit.
I entered the society from its first week, and I drew very little in benefits up to a few years ago. During the War I did not draw for one day's sickness, although I was working in the mine all the time. Nevertheless, when I required dental treatment, I had to put my hand into my own pocket, and I had very little in my pocket at the time. I was hoping that the Minister would adopt this proposal as a small step, towards what will ultimately be a great step, the establishment of a national approved 104 society in which everybody will pay the same contribution and will receive the same benefits. If the proposal were adopted, branches which desired pooling could adopt it, and we could gather experience of the arrangement for 12 or 18 months. This is probably the second most important proposal put forward to amend the Bill, the first in importance being the amendment in regard to maternity benefit. After maternity comes the question of getting some teeth, which is an important matter for men who cannot obtain artificial teeth for themselves.
§ 7.39 p.m.
§ Mr. McGOVERNI was interested in the personal experience of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and I agree with him as to the importance of the proposed new Clause. I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). It is a sound idea to pool a proportion of the money of all branches in order to assist branches which are in difficulties. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said he did not look with a very kindly or humane eye upon the fact that the rich branches might be asked to contribute to the poorer branches, and somebody interjected that not even the Socialists were keen on giving things away. If the principle of making the Clause permissive were adopted, would that not tend to drive members of rich branches into other organisations which had not adopted the pooling scheme?
I would therefore prefer a form of compulsion. There is no need to deny that some of the greatest principles of progress set on foot in this country or the world have needed coercion or compulsion behind them. What man would pay Income Tax if he were not compelled to do so? We may say with frankness that compulsion is necessary if a principle is worth adopting. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton, I see snags, in the refusal of persons to contribute to the richer branches and leaving them, when the rich branches would be correspondingly poorer. If the National Health Insurance scheme is to be what its name implies, the funds ought to be pooled over the whole of the country so that they were national in character and in reality, richer branches supporting the poorer sections.
105 This principle has been adopted by localities in many Measures that have been through this House. We all know that there are a large number of friendly societies and trade unions who are not agreeable to the proposal that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has put forward to-day, because they have a selfish spirit. I would like to mention a personal experience. I went down to a co-operative meeting at which a proposal was put forward to reduce the rate of interest, when rates of interest were falling because money was plentiful. The co-operative societies were getting too much money, and wanted to reduce the rate of interest by one-half per cent. There were nearly free fights that night. Members of the co-operative society, who believed in the principle of co-partner-ship, did not want to see the rate of interest reduced. They believed in "Down with capitalism and up with the rates of interest." To that extent, we know from personal experience that there are snags, even in friendly societies, trade unions and Socialist organisations.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESWith regard to the trade unions, does my hon. Friend know that not one trade union in this country which is approved under the National Health Insurance scheme has separate branches, as is the case with friendly societies?
§ Mr. McGOVERNI was not attempting to say anything unfair. I will not attempt to do any harm to the trade unions; I will leave the leaders to do that. I thoroughly agree with every expression of opinion of the hon. Member in regard to his proposal. He has adopted a wise course, but I think the pooling process would be much better if it were compulsory. I have facts and figures in my pocket showing the large number of areas suffering from continual unemployment. Just as there are depressed areas there are depressed branches, which cannot supply the little things which are necessary, such as teeth, spectacles, additional maternity grant and grants to enable people to go to convalescent homes. We should not allow rich branches to hoard money which ought to be spent in assisting their weaker brethren. I wish the Minister had been bold enough to adopt compulsion to make those branches disgorge part of their booty. He does not, however, see it in that way. I think that, while the principle is sound, there would be the snag that I have mentioned, namely, that if it were adopted it would drive people into other societies that did not adopt that course.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 208.
107| Division No. 265.] | AYES. | [7.45 p.m. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Milner, Major James |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R. | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Paling, Wilfred |
| Banfieid, John William | Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Batey, Joseph | Grundy, Thomas W. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Cleary, J. J. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Strauss G. R. (Lambeth, North) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Thorne, William James |
| Cove, William G. | Lawton, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Leonard, William | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Daggar, George | Logan, David Gilbert | West, F. R. |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lunn, William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Dobbie, William | McEntee, Valentine L. | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | McGovern, John | Wilmot, John |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| Gardner, Benjamin Walter | Mainwaring, William Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. John and Mr. Groves. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith) |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Beit, Sir Alfred L. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. |
| Albery, Irving James | Blindell, James | Burghley, Lord |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) | Boulton W. W. | Burnett, John George |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Bower, Commander Robert Tatton | Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Campbell-Johnston, Malcoln |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Brass, Captain Sir William | Caporn, Arthur Cecil |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Broadbent, Colonel John | Carver, Major William H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) |
| Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Clarke, Frank | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Remer, John R. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Rickards, George William |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Robinson, John Roland |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Cooke, Douglas | Knox, Sir Alfred | Rosbotham, Sir Thomas |
| Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.) | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Lewis, Oswald | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Liddall, Walter S. | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Llewellin, Major John J. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Salt, Edward W. |
| Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney). |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Loftus, Pierce C. | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Savery, Servington |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Dickie, John P. | MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr) | Shute, Colonel Sir John |
| Drewe, Cedric | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Duckworth, George A. V. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | McKie, John Hamilton | Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.) |
| Duggan, Hubert John | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.) |
| Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Somervell, Sir Donald |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Maltland, Adam | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland) |
| Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Martin, Thomas B. | Stones, James |
| Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Storey, Samuel |
| Fl[...]lden, Edward Brocklehurst | Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham) | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Fraser, Captain Sir Ian | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Fremantle, Sir Francis | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Moreing, Adrian C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. |
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Morrison, William Shephard | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | Munro, Patrick | Thompson, Sir Luke |
| Greene, William P. C. | Nall, Sir Joseph | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Grimston, R. V. | North, Edward T. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Orr Ewing, I. L. | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Palmer, Francis Noel | Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline) |
| Hales, Harold K. | Pearson, William G. | Ward, Lt.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Hanbury, Sir Cecil | Peat, Charles U. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Penny, Sir George | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Hartland, George A. | Percy, Lord Eustace | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Petherick, M. | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) | Womersley, Sir Walter |
| Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) | Potter, John | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Holdsworth, Herbert | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Worthington, Sir John |
| Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie | Power, Sir John Cecil | |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | Procter, Major Henry Adam | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Pybus, Sir John | Captain Sir George Bowyer and |
| Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Ra[...]kes, Henry V. A. M. | Captain Hope. |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.