HC Deb 08 July 1935 vol 304 cc111-3

(1) Section three of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, shall cease to have effect.

(2) In Section thirteen of the Insurance Act for so much of Sub-section (2) thereof as precedes the proviso there shall be substituted the following provision:— (2) The ordinary rate of sickness benefit shall be, in the case of a man, the sum of fifteen shillings a week and, in the case of a woman, the sum of twelve shillings a week; and the ordinary rate of disablement benefit shall be a sum of seven shillings and sixpence a week for men and women alike,"—[Mr. Rays Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

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

In 1932 the Government brought in a Bill amending the National Health Insurance scheme by reducing the benefits of both married and unmarried women. My proposal is to restore the cuts. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been bragging that all the cuts have been restored, we thought we might have a share of it for this purpose. Since the 1932 Act was passed approved societies with women members have been requested by the Ministry of Health, where it had not been done before, to value the women and the men separately. We are wondering whether the women's societies have not improved financially sufficient to warrant our proposing this Clause in order to put them back where they were prior to the passing of the 1932 Act. There was a differentiation, not only between the benefit of women and men, but it was carried to the extent of providing different rates of benefit for married and unmarried women as well. The millions of women who are electors will want to know what is the next item to be put on the hoardings by the Tory party for the next general election. I am wondering whether we shall see "Restoration of health insurance benefits to women." Now that I have got the right hon. Gentleman in a good humour, I shall not be surprised if he accedes to my request, which will not cost the Government anything in the long run.

8.8 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always glad to meet him when I can, but in some cases it is rather difficult, and this is one of them. In the 1932 Insurance Act a reduction had to be made in the benefits of women because sickness benefit claims were greatly in excess of the actuarial estimates. I remember very well the Debates that we had on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has probably moved his Clause in order to ascertain what is the position since that time. It has been very carefully watched by my Department. The benefit rates fixed in the Act of 1932 were perhaps not as low as past experience would have justified. If anything, there was a leaning towards not reducing them too far, but they were based on the assumption that there would be an improvement in the cost of claims of 10 per cent. on the average over that of 1928–30. I am glad to say that this has been achieved, but only just achieved, as for 1931–2 the experience has averaged between 85 and 90 per cent. of the 1928–30 level but, unfortunately, the claims for disablement benefit among married women have shown a tendency to rise. In those circumstances there is, of course, a very small margin between expenditure and benefit, which may disappear as the result of the provision for full benefits under the arrears scheme.

All I can say is that it would be premature to draw any conclusions as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the present scales of benefit until further experience has been gained, but I will promise that the position shall be carefully watched, and I will ask the Government Actuary particularly to look at the matter at the end of the fifth valuation. I need hardly say that, should the report show that the rates of benefit could be raised without endangering the solvency of the women's funds in the societies, it would clearly be the duty of the Government of the day to have the benefits increased. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a reasonable statement of the position. I know he does not want to put the societies in a difficulty. We must really watch the position more before we can take further steps.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

The right hon. Gentleman's promise is not quite as definite as one or two that he has made to-day, because he does not tell us now that he will look into the problem before Report. He is going to wait until the next valuation of the approved societies. I am under the impression that the result of the valuation will come out after the next General Election.

Sir K. WOOD

When is that?

Mr. DAVIES

If the right hon. Gentleman will come with me to a private spot, I will acquaint him. I cannot make it public just yet.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.