NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from attendance at Employment Exchange.) (Hansard, 6 June 1939)

§ Mr. Foot
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the third, and I am sure the House will be glad to learn, the last of the new Clauses standing in my name. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a problem which I have found in my own constituency and which I am told exists in many parts of the country. For the purposes of National Health Insurance, pregnancy is not, of itself, regarded as a disability causing incapacity for work. A circular sent out in 1930 by the Department of Health for Scotland—and no doubt a similar circular was sent out by the Ministry of Health—contains the following passage: Pregnancy is not sufficient, in itself, to entitle an insured woman to any cash benefit under the National Health Insurance Act. Sickness or disablement benefit can only be paid in respect of the period during which a pregnant woman is incapable of work. It goes on to say that: Uncomplicated pregnancy would not normally involve incapacity for work, though 316 during its later stages, or in exceptional circumstances, a woman might become incapable. A doctor is therefore debarred from giving a medical certificate in order to enable benefit to be claimed, unless he is satisfied, as a result of examination of the woman. that she is incapable of work. The position arises, as a result of that ruling, that at the Employment Exchange a woman who is within a few weeks of childbirth is regarded as capable of and available for work. I understand that a woman who has been paid off by her employer on account of her condition, is none the less regarded by the exchange as being capable of work. A year or two ago, there was an Umpire's decision on a claim of this kind. The claimant was unfit for her ordinary duties, which were fairly heavy, but was capable of light work, such as knitting and light dusting and so forth. She was refused National Health Insurance by the approved society, on the ground that she was fit for several kinds of work. That decision must obviously affect a large number of cases.
In theory, a claimant of that kind would be fit to do light work, but we know that, in practice, no such light work is likely to be available for her. The position is that in theory a woman who is within a week or two of childbirth is available for work, but in practice there is little prospect that she will obtain it. It would be exceedingly difficult for the exchange authorities to send her to any employer. Obviously, she would not be the most fit person on the books and an employer might be critical of the authorities if they sent someone who was in that condition to fill a vacancy. In spite of that, although there is practically no prospect in a great many districts of a woman obtaining work during this week or two, she is, nevertheless, under the obligation, like other unemployed people, of attending at the exchange, probably twice a week.
Some objection may be raised to the actual proposal in the new Clause. I am not wedded to this scheme, and I put it forward only because I hope that it may lead the Minister to consider this matter seriously. In my opinion the best method would be for the woman within two or three weeks of childbirth to go straight on to national health insurance and not to be on unemployment insurance at all but that is a point which cannot be raised on this Bill. There 317 are, however, certain cases at present in which attendance at the exchange is excused. For instance, workers who go on holiday are sometimes excused their attendances. They have to be available for work, at any rate in theory. They are liable to come back from their holiday, if called upon, and to take up employment. Under my proposal, a woman in the circumstances I have mentioned, would be in a similar position. She could send somebody else to collect her money at the exchange and she herself would be absolved from attending during this period of time. If light work were available for her, she would still be under the obligation of accepting it, and we should get rid of the anomalous situation in which, in certain parts of the country, considerable numbers of women have to attend the exchanges two or three weeks before their children are born, though there is no prospect of any result from that attendance.

§ Mr. K. Griffith
I beg to second the Motion.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member, and we will look into the matter and see whether in fact the consequences which he has outlined do result. If he has any information to sustain that view, perhaps he will send it to us, but, frankly, we do not believe that such situations arise, and we think that under the unemployment insurance scheme and under national health insurance all possible cases are covered. The hon. Member cited the case of workers on holiday whose personal attendance at the exchange is excused. But these people are capable of and available for work, and I do not believe that women in the condition he has named could be regarded as being capable of and available for work if they are not capable of attendance at the Employment Exchange. I appreciate that he has a further point, that their attendance might be fruitless, but we do our best to pay unemployment benefit up to the last possible moment it can be clearly argued that the woman is capable of and available for work. If she is not capable of work by reason of pregnancy, and can produce medical evidence to that effect, she is, I understand, normally granted health insurance benefit, and it is the practice to deal sympathetically with such 318 cases. As I say, if hon. Members have any information to the contrary and will send it to us, we will look at it with interest and sympathy.

§ Mr. Logan
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) raised the case of total incapacity, and national health insurance is not affected there.

§ Mr. Lawson
We were pleased to hear the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hope the matter is going to be seriously examined, because I must say that the methods that are employed at the present time are very often unsatisfactory.

§ Miss Horsbrugh
I have received representations on this subject from a good many women, and many of them are anxious that no change should be made. In many cases they would far rather themselves continue going to the Employment Exchange as long as they can. There is a great fear that if certain changes are made, there may be some regulation made under which they will be bound to leave unemployment insurance and go under national health insurance, and they fear that, because such a change would be detrimental to them. Over and over again, when I have discussed this matter, I have been told by these women that they would prefer to continue going to the Employment Exchange as long as possible, because otherwise they fear they will lose what chances they get at present of drawing benefit in. these circumstances.

§ Miss Wilkinson
I realise that there is a real fear, such as the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has suggested, in the minds of these women that they may have to leave the higher benefit under unemployment insurance and go under national health insurance, but as I understand the Amendment moved by her colleague in the representation of Dundee (Mr. Foot), the idea behind it is to prevent the women falling between two stools, as is the case at the present time; that is, that you may have a woman not being eligible for national health insurance and at the same time definitely having to go to the Employment Exchange, but who in fact ought not to go there. If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is a way by which we can be certain that 319 such a woman gets her money, I think the matter can be settled, but at the present time the conditions at the exchanges are not all that they should be, and in many cases the system means women standing long hours. It is true that the Employment Exchange people do what they can to provide them with seats, but that is not always possible. Many of our exchanges leave a great deal to be desired in regard to seating accommodation, and I therefore think it might be a good opportunity for the Minister really to look into the matter from the point of view of protecting these women, whose health at such a period is of so great a value to the nation.

§ Sir P. Harris
I am particularly interested in this Clause, as many working women in my borough who are married have to go out and earn their living. They are insured, and they attach great importance to this point. I have no complaint to make about the sympathetic reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, who showed that he appreciated the importance of the point, but I would like a more definite assurance that the Ministry intends seriously to consider the problem. There are considerable numbers of these women, in spite of what he said, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will give us a definite assurance that he will give sympathetic consideration to this new Clause. If we can have that assurance, we will not press it to a Division.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I do not think it is really necessary, but after what the hon. Member has just said, we will look at the question as a whole again, bearing in mind the point clearly and quite rightly put by the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), as well as the points put by the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). We will look at the matter sympathetically and see whether we can solve it without causing more trouble to these women than they experience under the present arrangements.

§ Mr. Foot
In view of the assurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.