HL Deb 14 June 1928 vol 71 cc469-74

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

There is only one Amendment to this Bill and that is in the Schedule. I think, therefore, that if there is no objection on the part of your Lordships I might put all the clauses of the Bill without naming them separately.

Clauses 1 to 25 agreed to.

First Schedule [Additional benefits]:

LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following paragraph:— (5) Allowances in respect of dependants of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement. The noble Lord said: In 1926 there was a Royal Commission on national health insurance and that Commission made a voluminous Report, containing certain suggestions which they desired to have put on the Statute Book. Among those suggestions was the provision of allowances to dependants of any insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement benefits. They proposed that that should be made a statutory benefit as and when funds were available to meet the cost and that it should come in the order of priority they laid down. This Bill, in the First Schedule, sets out certain matters which are to be substituted for the Third Schedule of the principal Act and which are to be optional, that is, additional benefits. The proposed grant to dependants is, however, left out entirely. The maternity benefit is put in as an additional benefit, but not the grant to dependants. It has been said that approved societies have not asked for this, but I have been given a list (which I add up to 124) of different women's societies, of varying strength throughout the country, affiliated together, and they have either passed resolutions on the principle of this or have debated and approved it. So I propose an Amendment that this should come as the fifth additional benefit which an approved society would be allowed to use if and when they wanted to. The advantage would be that if they do so use it experience would be gained as to its working and in the future it might even possibly be made statutory.

The Royal Commission went at great length into this matter. They came to the conclusion that it ought to be the second principle to be put upon the Statute Book for additional allowances. They suggested that there should be given to the wife of a man who was sick and unable to provide for his family 2s. a week and 2s. for each child, or in the case of disablement 1s. They recommended that there should be given to a widower 2s. for each child in the case of sickness and 1s. in the case of disablement. They recommended that in the case of unmarried insured women no allowance should be paid in respect of dependent children because it would create such tremendous difficulties, but that the dependants for the purposes of the scheme should be the widowed mother of such persons. All grants to children were to be only for children up to fourteen years of age. These are not very expensive grants. There would be only certain cases in which they would be wanted, but I can imagine that in those cases in which they would be wanted they would be very badly wanted. The addition of these grants to the Schedule would not cost the country a penny. My Amendment is not one which at the present time would increase expenses, but it will give an opportunity to approved societies, if they so decide and if they have funds in hand—which, if trade improves, they may have in the future—to give these benefits, or a portion of them, to dependants. Therefore I think it is a reasonable Amendment. The matter is one which should not be lost sight of and an opportunity should be given to those who wish to grant these benefits to do so.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 11, at end insert the following subsection:— ("(5) Allowances in respect of dependants of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement").—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I must thank the noble Lord for giving the Ministry full particulars of his intention regarding this Amendment and the moderation with which he urged what undoubtedly would appear at first sight to be a reasonable case. My right hon. friend has examined it very carefully and regrets very much that he must resist it on the same grounds as he resisted a rather similar Amendment, moved in another place. It is perfectly true that allowances for dependants take a prominent place in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but, together with the abolition of insurance committees, the partial pooling of surpluses of approved societies, and other matters, this recommendation had to be abandoned, in this case on the ground of cost and of the financial burden that it would impose upon the scheme. It may be observed that the Royal Commission did not recommend that the allowances to dependants should be administered as an additional benefit by the approved societies. They specially recommended that these allowances should be taken out of the list of additional benefits. There were several reasons for this. In the first place the principle was not popular with the approved societies and was never used, and in the second place it was generally agreed amongst people experienced in these matters that, if the principle is to be admitted at all, it should be done by way of a general provision applicable to all insured persons and not only to members of such approved societies as could afford it.

But a more important reason still is that not only the Ministry but the approved societies themselves consider that the surpluses should be devoted principally to benefits in the nature of treatment. These societies already have a very wide field over which they can apply their surpluses, the amount of money they have is limited, and they consider, as does the Ministry, that it is desirable that this money should be applied in making adequate provision for a few additional benefits for which there is the greatest need, rather than that it should be dissipated over a large list of additional benefits. Up to the present time, amongst all the additional benefits open to the societies, the dental and ophthalmic benefits have been regarded as most important, and my information is that, if this Amendment were passed and the approved societies decided to adopt it, there would be little or no money left for these particular benefits. That is the principal reason that has led my right hon. friend not to accept this Amendment.

I admit the reasons may appear to be a little too technical to carry the immediate persuasion and conviction with which I should like to meet so experienced a debater as my noble friend Lord Askwith, but I think that, from a common sense point of view, there is yet, a more significant argument still, and that is that the approved societies themselves have never asked for this extension. After all, additional benefits are administered, not by bureaucrats from Whitehall, but by representatives of 16,000,000 insured persons, grouped in over 7,000 societies and their branches, and it really seems only reasonable that, out of such an enormous mass of individuals, including many millions of women, there would be some who would be sufficiently strong-minded to make their representatives in the approved societies urge upon the Minister the case that the noble Lord has presented. Nevertheless it is a fact that the approved societies, when they were enabled to devote their surpluses to this purpose, never did so during the whole period from 1911 up to the present time, and further that during the preparation of this Bill, when the Minister was in the closest touch with the approved societies, no representations were made to him that the approved societies were in favour of this proposal.

If the noble Lord could convince the Minister that the approved societies hold the same views in these matters as the societies he has quoted, he might at any time be prepared to make some concession. Let me point out in conclusion that under the terms of paragraph 17 of the First Schedule, he is enabled to take these steps. The paragraph makes provision for— such other additional benefits, being of a character similar to that of any of those hereinbefore mentioned, as may be prescribed. I hope that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press the Amendment in view of the arguments that I have put forward.

LORD ASKWITH

I do not think that the noble Viscount has convinced me at all. He has merely pointed out that under a paragraph of the First Schedule something might be done to enable these benefits to be given. While the Bill has been before the House it has, of course, been impossible to obtain the opinion of 7,000 approved societies. I recognise that the noble Viscount has met me in the most courteous manner. Perhaps, in the circumstances, I might quote my noble friend Lord Banbury, and say that this is another instance of an Amendment which the noble Viscount agrees is right, but which he says is not necessary. I do not propose to press the Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am not at all sure that I agree with this Amendment. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the Royal Commission recommended that something of this kind should be done when the money could be found. As I understand it, the money is going to be found by the approved societies. On the other hand the approved societies do not want to find the money. It has been pointed out by the noble Lord below the gangway that certain women's associations had asked for this. These women's associations would ask for anything. The next thing will be that every woman is to have £2 a week so long as she remains a woman. The result will be that we shall all be bankrupt. I am very glad that the Government are going to resist this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.