Sitting of 6 June 1935

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION SEWAGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,.
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure(Scot land) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Glasgow Corporation Sewage" presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be con sidered to -morrow.
  LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,.
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot alnd) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Lanarkshire County Council, "presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act of 1899) to be read a Second time upon Monday, 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
ORAL ANSWERS to QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TILE-WORKERS, KILMARNOCK.
    Mr. KENNETH LINDSAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that tile-workers in the neighbourhood of Kilmarnock, who are working for nine months in the year, are now classed as seasonal workers; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. LINDSAY: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in his inquiries, that
    2018
    a number of workmen in the building trades are only working nine months in the year and are not classed as seasonal workers?
    Mr. STANLEY: I think we had better await the result of the inquiries.

    UNEMPLOYMENT as SISTANCE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been arrived at now with regard to the continuance of the standstill arrangement for a definite period?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the standstill arrangement is to continue until after the next General Election?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether an applicant in receipt of small earnings from an un insurable occupation is regarded by his Department as the reby precluded, although otherwise qualified, from receiving an allowance under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934?
    Mr. STANLEY: This would be a matter for decision on the facts of the individual case by the Unemployment assistance Board, subject to the usual rights of appeal. I am informed, however, that while such earnings would be taken into account, like any other earnings, such a person, if otherwise qualified, would not in general be precluded from receiving an allowance.
    Mr. K. LINDSAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a statement showing the amount of relief accorded to the various local authorities under the provisions of the Unemployment Act, 1934?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The relief which local authorities derive from the Unemployment Act, 1934, will be indicated by the grants payable under the Unemployment as sistance(Temporary Provisions) (No.2) Bill, and I under stand that arrangements are being made to issue provisional payments as nearly as possible equal to the amount due for

    2019
    the three months March to May as soon as may be after the Bill is on the Statute Book. If there is any general desire to have available a full list of the benefit to individual authorities, I shall be happy to arrange for the issue of a White Paper.

  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS, WEDNESBURY and SOUTH WOODFORD.
  Mr. THORNEasked the, Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the fatal accident to a youth employed by Messrs. Joseph Hampton, Limited, Nut and Bolt Manufacturers, Wednesbury, who were summoned for an alleged breach of the safety regulations at their factory; whether he can state the cause of death; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to the hon. Member on the 29th May, legal proceedings were instituted by the Factory Department in respect of this accident, which was due to the youth being caught in unfenced overhead machinery, and I am now in formed that the firm have been convicted and fined £30.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with an accident to two workmen who were buried in a trench on a building site in South View Drive, South Woodford, Essex; and whether the trench was properly timbered and the nature of the injuries sustained?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that a trench about five feet deep was being cut for drains when the sides collapsed over part of its length, and that of the two men in question one was un injured and the other is in hospital, the nature of the injuries not being yet precisely known. The work was outside the scope of the Factory Act and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to express any opinion as to the timbering.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if these trenches
  2020
  were properly timbered many of these accidents could be avoided; and is there any method of enforcing the proper timbering of such trenches?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I am afraid the matter is outside the scope of the Factory Acts.

  POLICE (EX-CONSTABLE PATTENDEN).
  Major PROCTERasked the Home Secretary on what principle he based the reduction of the pension of ex-Police Constable Pattenden by 18s. a week; and whether, as reductions of this nature are likely to lead to a disinclination by the police to risk their lives when confronted by armed criminals, he will reconsider this matter and also ensure more generous treatment of such cases in future?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Under the Police Pensions Act any special pension has to be granted for aperiod at the end of which the pensioner is medically examined, and if his degree of disablement has substantially altered the pension must be reassessed accordingly. The application of this provision to Pattenden's case resulted in the reduction of his pension: and the reduction has been confirmed after appeal to an independent medical referee. In view of the result of the appeal my right hon. Friend would in any event have no power to waive the reduction: but he is satisfied from the medical reports that the pensioner is being treated generously.
  Major PROCTER: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the earning capacity of this ex-constable is reduced by 50 per cent.; and, if that be so, does he not think the principle upon which this decision has been based is wrong?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Whether the principle is right or wrong, this matter has been dealt with under the Police Pensions Act, and I have satisfied myself, as has my right hon. Friend, that very careful attention was given to the case and that the man was well treated.
  Mr. PIKE: In these medical examinations, is the actual ultimate earning capacity of the man taken into consideration as a primary issue?

  LEEDS PRISON (DEATH).
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make about the case of Harry Bernard Parkinson, aged 20, who on 29th May hanged himself in the gaol at Armley, Leeds?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: This prisoner, who was received into Leeds Prison on remand on the 25th May, was found hanging from his cell window shortly before7.30 the same evening. Artificial respiration was applied immediately, but on the arrival of the medical officer a few minutes later he was found to be dead. He had been placed under special observation and had been visited at short intervals, but there had been nothing in his demeanour to suggest that he was likely to take his life. At the inquest which was held on 28thMay the coroner's jury found a verdict that death was self-inflicted during a fit of insanity.
  Mr. ADAMS: With out wishing to cast any slur on the prison authorities, may I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether this was not a case in which bail might properly and safely have been granted; and, if that be so, will he see that bail is granted in cases of this kind?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: That has nothing to do with it, I am 'afraid.

  LICENSING LAWS (CLUBS).
  Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to standardise the hours during which alcoholic beverages may be sold in clubs?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: As my right hon. Friend has stated in answer to previous questions, there is no immediate prospect of any Government legislation to amend the licensing laws.
  Viscountess ASTOR: As over£7,000,000 more was spent on drink last year than in the previous year and as the number of convictions for drunkenness is going up, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is about time the Government regulated the hours of clubs as well as of public-houses?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (IMPRISONMENT).
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the widespread condemnation of the practice of sending young people to prison, he will promote legislation to enact that a person between the ages of 17 and 21shall not be sent to prison unless the court certifies that he is of so unruly a character that he cannot be detained in a remand home, or that he is of so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be so detained?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: The purpose of existing remand homes is primarily to provide for the detention of children and young persons under 17 until they canbe brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or while on remand or awaiting trial, and there would be obvious objections to any general use of the same institutions for the reception of older offenders either before trial or under sentence. My right hon. Friend recognises that it is desirable that the committal to prison of young offenders should be avoided as far as possible, but he does not think that a solution of this difficult problem is to be found along the lines which the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Has the Home Office studied the pronouncement of the Lord Chief Justice on this practice of sending boys and girls to prison?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Whether we have studied it or not, it does not directly arise out of this question.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Yes, it does.

  COMMISSION OF THE PEACE (FEES).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary whether there are any counties or boroughs where a fee is compulsorily imposed on those who are selected to be justices of the peace by the advisory committee when they are sworn in at the sessions; what is the amount of the fee in each area; and to what purpose is the money allocated?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: The fee, which varied in amount, has generally been abandoned, but I do not know in how many areas it still survives. Where charged, it would ordinarily be paid into local funds.
  Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that under the present system in some places no payment is made, while in many others there are compulsory payments up to the amount of two guineas which constitute a real hardship to poorer people who may be sworn in as magistrates; and will he have inquiries made into this matter?
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will my hon. and gallant Friend try to persuade all the other counties to follow the example of the more enlightened counties in this respect?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: All I can say in reply is that the Home Office recommended some time ago that the fee should no longer be charged.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS (DISMISSALS AND RESIGNATIONS).
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of inquiries held by the Department into the reasons for the dismissal or the resignation of a teacher employed by a local education authority; and the number of cases where the teacher was re-employed by the local education authority?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Board does not inquire into the reasons for the dismissal or resignation of teachers except in cases where a teacher is convicted of a criminal offence or where his engagement is terminated on account of misconduct or grave professional default. If the hon. Member has cases of this sort in mind I shall be glad to furnish him with such information as he may desire, if he will communicate with me.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, NORTHUMBERLAND.
    Miss WARDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the erection of any new schools is under discussion in the Parliamentary division of Wallsend-on-Tyne; and, in particular, what the proposals of the Board are with regard to Dudley, Northumberland?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
    2024
    affirmative. Proposals for the enlargement and improvement of Longbenton Dudley Council School and for there placement of the temporary premises of the Infants' Department of Longbenton Forest Hall Council School are under consideration. Plans for anew Senior School at Gosforth were approved by the Board on 1stApril, 1935. It is understood that the Wallsend Local Education Authority are considering the question of school provision in the High Farm district of the Borough. No other proposals for the erection of new schools in this area are at present underconsideration.
    Miss WARD: Can I have an assurance that Dudley School in particular will be dealt with before the winter; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the children there are being taught at present under conditions which call for the strongest condemnation?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The matter is receiving careful consideration.

    UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM.
    Miss WARDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education when legislation will be introduced to implement the findings of the Royal Com mission on the University of Durham?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: A Bill to set up Statutory Commissioners for the University of Durham was given its First Reading yesterday in another place.

  HOUSING.

    LIVERPOOL (APPOINTMENT).
    Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to report on the result of inquiries with regard to the appointment of Miss Jean Thompson, a specially trained housing manager, by the Liverpool Housing Committee as superintendent of lettings, which appointment was referred back by the City Council on the grounds of sex; and, as this case in volves a consideration of the efficiency of local administration and affects large amounts of Government grants, will he supply information as to whether, under the Addison and other schemes, municipal houses in Liverpool remain unlet con currently with a long waiting list of needy applicants?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): As regards the first part of the question I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) on 9th May. I have received no information supporting the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.
    Mr. LOGAN: As regards the imputation in the last part of the question, is the Minister aware that it is strongly denied by the chairman of the housing committee and the director of housing in Liverpool and that there is no truth whatever in the statement?

    SLIM CLEARANCE (OBJECTORS' COSTS).
    Mr. HOWARDasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that under existing circumstances an owner who successfully objects at a local inquiry to the inclusion of his property in a slum clearance or compulsory purchase order, if granted any costs, is only awarded a nominal sum at the discretion of the Minister, he will consider amending legislation in order that the costs of successful objectors shall be taxed in the same way as in the law courts by a taxing master or, alternatively, that the amount of the costs to be awarded to successful objectors shall be decided by the county court judge of the district in which the excluded property is situate.
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. As at present advised I see no reason for an alteration of the existing law in this regard.
    Mr. HOWARD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one particular case the certified legal and technical expenses of a successful objector amounted to over—40, but the amount awarded was a meagre £8 8s.?
    Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend has been so good as to draw my attention to this case, and I have endeavoured to ex plain to him the principles on which the seawards are based.

    OFFICIALS (IDENTIFICATION).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Health what arrangements will be made when the authorities begin to enter and measure up the floor space of all working-class houses in the country for those entrusted with this task to have identifiable badges, so that it will
    2026
    not be possible for thefts or dishonest investigations to be carried out under the guise of public work?
    Sir H. YOUNG: These arrangements will be in the hands of the local authorities and their officers, who are well accustomed to house to house inspection for various purposes. I will, however, draw their attention to such obvious safeguards as the issue of written authorities to their officers and the communication in writing to the occupiers of the probable date of visit.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    INFANT MORTALITY, KENSINGTON AND POPLAR.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health what were the infant mortality rates for 1934 in Kensington and Poplar?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The deaths registered in 1934 of infants under one year of age represented a rate per1, 000 live births of 93 in Kensington Metropolitan Borough and 62 in Poplar Metropolitan Borough.
    Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that in the last 10 years the mortality rate of North Kensington has averaged 50 per cent. Above that of Poplar, and does he not consider there fore that this abnormal mortality rate in Kensington calls for a Government inquiry as did the abnormal money rate of Poplar and West Ham a few years ago?
    Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: Was there not a particular Government inquiry two years ago?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is so; the aspects of the matter raised by the hon. Member opposite have been the subject of question and answer recently.
    Mr. WEST: Will there be an inquiry into this disgraceful state of affairs?

    MATERNITY WELFARE.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health what sums were spent in Kensington and Poplar in 1933 on milk for necessitous mothers; and what amounts were spent in Kensington and Shoreditch on dinners for necessitous and expectant mothers?
    Sir H. YOUNG: This information is not in my possession, but I will communicate with the local authorities and inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many East End poor boroughs that are spending from five to ten times more on milk ad meals for poor mothers than the rich royal borough of Kensington?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what is the reason of the high infant mortality in Kensington? Many of us know that it is not under nourishment. It may not be that at all, but for the sake offuture legislation will my right hon. Friend let us know?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes. I shall be happy to send the Noble Lady the answers I have recently given to questions on the subject.

    DEAF AND DUMB PERSONS.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to intro duce legislation giving to deaf and dumb persons similar benefits as well as facilities for training as are afforded to the blind under the Blind Persons Act?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I am not satisfied that there is need for such legislation.

    NUTRITION.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Minister of Health whether he will publish the findings of the memorandum on the nutrition of children, prepared by the Economic Advisory Council last year, and any other reports on kindred subjects submitted to his Department which have led to the appointment of the special committee to report on the nutrition of the people, which has recently been announced?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As regards the memorandum of the Economic Advisory Council, I can only refer to the reply given to the right hon. Member by the Prime Minister on the 14th February last. As regards the rest of the question, the right hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The committee to which he refers is a standing advisory committee to assist myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland with advice on problems of nutrition. It takes the place of a smaller and purely technical advisory committee which was appointed in 1931 by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Green wood) to perform the same service for the Ministry of Health alone.
    Dr. ADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House the information which led him to make this enlargement of the committee and ask the committee to conduct these wider researches?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am always prepared on appropriate occasions to communicate all such information to the House.
    Mr. PALING: Did not the Prime Minister in an answer some time ago indicate that the Government had not yet made up their mind on the memo randum, and, in view of the long lapse of time since the n, cannot we have some further information.
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, indeed. If the hon. Member will look at the reply, he will find it is not at all of that character.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Could not my right hon. Friend go to the Margaret Morris open air nursery school at Dept ford and watch what they do the re, be cause he would find, with out any inquiry, what is the proper nourishment for children? It is no good setting up an inquiry, because we have proved what it is.

    NUTRITION.

      REPARATIONS (LAUSANNE AGREEMENT).
      Mr. MABANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he pro poses to take any steps to ratify the Lausanne agreement on reparations during the lifetime of this Parliament?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given to him on the 7thNovember last, to which at present I cannot add any thing.
      Mr. MABANE: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, since that answer was given, he has taken any steps to pro vide the proper conditions precedent to ratifications, that is to say, an arrangement with America on our debt to her?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen any changes in the conditions which would warrant such steps.
      Mr. MABANE: Then are we to assume that those negotiations with America are still being continued?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE.

      JAPANESE COMPETITION.
      Sir JOHN POWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will call for a report from our commercial representatives in Japan regarding the proposed attitude of the Japanese Government to wards the various subjects to be considered at the 19th International Labour Conference to be held at Geneva next month with regard to the proposals for social services and other measures for the protection of employed persons; and whether he can arrange for this information to be placed at the disposal of the Import Duties Advisory Committee for their guidance when considering applications for increased duties on grounds of Japanesecompetition.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the conference has already begun, and that a record of its proceedings is published, both daily and, later, in a complete volume, which will be available for the use of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I see no necessity to call for such a report as my hon. Friend suggests.

      GERMAN FABRIC GLOVES (IMPORTS).
      Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the German Government are now giving a subsidy of 20 per cent. On fabric gloves exported from Germany to this country; and whether, seeing that this has practically neutralised the import duty on fabric gloves and put large numbers of fabric glove workers out of employment, he intends to take any action?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr.Burgin): I have no information as to the extent, if any, to which the German Government is assisting the export of fabric gloves, but I would point out that the imports into this country of such gloves from Ger many were lower for the first four months of 1935 than for the corresponding period in 1934 and that the average value of these imports showed an increase. The question of any increase in the present level of the import duties is, of course, in the first instance one for the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
      Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. Gentle man see that inquiries are made
      2030
      through the usual diplomatic channels, and, if it is ascertained that such a, subsidy as is mentioned in the question is, in fact, being granted, will he deal with it in any negotiations with the German Government for a, trade agreement?
      Dr. BURGIN: I entirely agree that the question of the extent to which there is a subsidy, if there be one, applicable to fabric gloves is a matter on which the Department should be kept closely in formed, and, if and when information is obtained, perhaps I might communicate with the hon. Baronet.
      Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentle man seen the report in the newspapers that the German Government have inflicted a, levy on all industries for the purpose of subsidising these exports?
      Dr. BURGIN: I have seen Press reports.

      MEAT IMPORTS (IRISH LAMB).
      Mr. LOGANasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the loss to shipping companies and railway services, and labour losses, by the Irish Free State exporters sending lamb carcases to this country at 8s. 6d. per head less than it costs to send live animals; whether he is aware that, for every100 lambs dressed in Ireland and sent here, three men are putout of work in this country; and whether he is prepared to negotiate with the Irish Free State for more amicable and mutualarrangements?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My right hon. Friend is aware that representations have been made on the lines suggested in the first part of the hon. Member's question. These representations are now under careful examination, and he is not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
      Mr. LOGAN: Are we to take it from that answer that it is possible that an amicable arrangement may be made in regard to this question between this country and the Irish Free State?
      Mr. MacDONALD: I cannot add Any thing to what I have said.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

      PAY.
      Mr. LIDDALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the present practice of the Treasury in respect of the scales of payment for male and female civil servants, respectively?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): A description of the practice in respect of men's and women's pay in the Civil Service will be found in Chapter XII of the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1929-31 (Command Paper No.3909).

      INLAND REVENUE (WOMEN SOLICITORS).
      Mr. GUYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that women are invited to apply for a vacancy in the Edinburgh branch of the solicitor's department of the Inland Revenue, why there is any differentiation in pay offered to women and men candidates, since both have to have the same legal qualifications?
      Mr. COOPER: The differentiation in pay is in accordance with general Civil Service practice.
      Mr. GUY: How can my hon. Friend reconcile his reply with the terms of the Sex Disqualification Act?
      Viscountess ASTOR: Will my hon. Friend give us an answer to that question, particularly as there are so many Members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench to day, and they are all pledged to it?
      Mr. COOPER: I understand that there will be an opportunity of discussing this question tomorrow.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be better to get an answer out of the Front Bench to-day?

      DIPLOMATIC and CONSULAR SERVICES (WOMEN).
      Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to publish the report of the departmental committee on the admission of women to the diplomatic and consular services; and what action is to be taken on its recommendations?
      The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I regret that owing to the pressure of more urgent business it has not yet been possible for His Majesty's Government to reach a definite decision on this question.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when he will report on this matter before making a final decision, and whether he will let the House discuss it?
      Mr. EDEN: The Noble Lady will appreciate that this is a matter that does not rest with me. I can only as sure her that there will be no avoidable delay.
      Viscountess ASTOR: The point was whether the House of Commons will have some say as to whether women are fitted for the diplomatic and consular services. Do not leave it to the Foreign Office, that is all I ask.

      EX-SERVICE MEN.
      Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the special claims of ex-service men are being, in some cases, lost sight of by Government officials; and whether there has been any change in the Government policy with regard to the employment of ex-service men in the Civil Service?
      Mr. COOPER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    AGRICULTURE.

      MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
      Mr. CHARLESBROWNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that certain milk retailers are being prohibited from selling to any one customer in one week such quantities as 150 gallons; what is the maximum amount a milk retailer may sell to one customer in one week or in any specific period; and under what order or regulation of the Milk Marketing Board are such restrictions imposed?
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): No provision of the milk marketing scheme attaches any such condition to the sale of milk.
      Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention that the Milk Marketing

      2033
      Board shall have the power to organise retail sales of milk to schools, hospitals or other institutions.
      Mr. EL L I OT: The Milk Marketing Board have the power under Part VI of the milk marketing scheme to organise, if they so desire, retail sales of milk. Any question as to the policy of the board in this matter would best, I think, be addressed to the board the mselves.
      Mr. T.WILLIAMSasked the Minis ter of Agriculture the average price paid to producers and retailers for all milk sold to school children?
      Mr. ELLIOT: Milk supplied under the milk in schools arrangements brings to the producer who sells by wholesale. The pool prices for his region, less carriage and handling charges. The average pool price for the period from the inception of the arrangements up to the end of April was 13.59 pence per gallon. The producer-retailer supplying milk for schools receives the actual wholesale price plus a distribution allowance of 6d. per gallon, and is charged the licensed re tailers' contribution under the milk marketing scheme. The average whole-. Sale price for the seven months up to the end of April was 1s. 4.43d. per gallon, and the average producer-retailers' gross contribution was 2.51 pence per gallon. The ordinary retailer's margin for dis tribution of school milk is also 6d. per gallon.

      HEAVY HORSE BREEDING.
      Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Min ister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that Flemish draught horses are being sold in this country in substantial quantities; what proportion of the 3, 163 horses imported during the first four months of this year as accounted for by draught horses; what is the present amount of grant accorded by his Department to the breed ing of heavy horses in this country; and whether he is satisfied that it is sufficient to deal with the increasing menace to the horse-breeding industry in this country from the importation of foreign horses?
      Mr. E.LLIOT: I am aware that total imports of horses, particularly from Belgium, have increased in recent months compared with the corresponding per:iod of last year, but the information at my
      2034
      disposal does not enable me to say what proportion of these imports consists of draught horses. The grants that will be made during the current financial year in connection with heavy horse breeding will amount to £11, 250. I have no reason to think that this is insufficient to achieve the objects for which the grants are made, namely, to assist farmers by providing good class stallions at moderate service fees with a view to the improvement of heavy horse:breeding in this country.
      Captain HEILGERS: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that some horses eat less and work twice as fast as the Flemish draught horses, and will he not do some thing to prevent this unnecessary com petition 7.
      Mr. PETHERICK: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any subsidy or grant is given by the Belgian Government to the breeders of these horses?
      Mr. ELLIOT: I should require notice of that question.

      POULTRY INDUSTRY.
      Sir T. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet received any marketing scheme from the poultry industry founded on the Poultry Commission report?
      Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. I understand that the question of submission of a scheme, which must of course be made by or on behalf of producers in the industry, is under consideration by a joint committee of the National Farmers' Union and the National Poultry Council.

    COAL INDUSTRY,.

      NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
      Mr. C. BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the latest annual report of the inspector of mines in the North Midland division, in which he expresses grave concern about the fatal and non fatal accident rate in the Nottingham shire coalfield; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to as certain why the accident rate in this coalfield is the highest of any coalfield in Great Britain?
      Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the

      2035
      accident rate from falls in the coalfield is the highest in the United Kingdom and that the inspector of mines for the North Midland division attributes this either wholly or in part to the rapid development of machine mining; whether the number of accidents is increasing inspite of the decline in the number of men employed; whether he is satisfied that the mines regulations are properly carried out in Nottinghamshire; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the working conditions in this coalfield?
      The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The report of the divisional inspector deals with accidents from falls of ground in the North Mid land division as a whole. In this division a high accident rate from falls of ground has persisted for several years. The as sociated problems, which are numerous and difficult, have been studied by His Majesty's Inspectors and by a research committee in as sociation with the Safety in Mines Research Board, and reports on these studies have been published. As one means of attempting to effect a reduction, the matter of improved sup port has been taken up by the inspectors at collieries where the accident rate is above the average, and this work will be strengthened by the appointment shortly of an additional inspector to the division. In these circumstances, I do not consider it necessarytoinstitute a further special inquiry. I am satisfied that the high accident rate from falls is not the result of failure to observe the statutory re quirements on the subject.
      Mr. CO C KS: Is the Minister aware that there are complaints that the men do not get sufficient supports to hold the roof with the advance of the face?
      Mr. BROWN: The re are a number of problems, and, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the answer, I have taken action in the matter.
      Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the proportion that the amount spent on research into falls of ground bears to the total amount spent on safety research?
      Mr. BROWN: Certainly, if my hon. Friend will put a question down.
      Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary Notts for Mines whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory relations existing between the management and the men in the Nottinghamshire coalfield owing to the refusal of many mineowners to recognise the men's union; and whether, in view of the numerous com- plaints that miners have been prevented from carrying out the men's inspections under the Coal Mines Act by being threatened with dismissal, and of the heavy and increasing accident rate in this coalfield, he will take action in the matter.
      Mr. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is "No." with re gard to the second part, I have not received any complaints of the nature suggested. If the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.
      Mr. C 0 C KS: Is it not significant that the whole of the increase in accidents comes from Nottinghamshire, where the men's union is not recognised, whereas in Derbyshire, where it is recognised, there is a substantial decrease in accidents 7.
      Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will be unwise to draw that conclusion.Heknows that in this country there has been a minor revolution in the methods of working during the last five years.
      Mr. T. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these collieries complaints are made that they are not given an opportunity of carrying out Section 16 of the Act?
      Mr. BR OWN: If that be so, I should like to have information.
      Mr. SMITH: But the hon. Member knows that this matter has been brought to his attention from time to time.
      Mr. BR OWN: The answer to the hon. Member is that every point discovered by the inspector is at once investigated.
      Mr. PIKE: Is it not a fact that the relations between owners and men in Nottinghamshire are more amicable than in many other counties?
      Mr. PALING: Is not the amount of tyranny exercised in those pits such that men are afraid to make any complaints 7.

      CANNOCK CHASE.
      Mrs. WARDasked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents, in volving the life of, or injury to, mine workers in the Cannock Chase coalfield during the past five years; and how many such accidents have been due to falls of roof I.
      Mr. E. BROWN: As the answer con tains a number of figures, I will, with
      2038
      the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT Following is the answer: During the five years 1930 to 1934, 76 fatal accidents and 12, 820 non-fatal acci dents involving disablement for more than three days occurred at mines in the Cannock Chase District. Of these 35 and 4, 238, respectively, were due to falls of ground. Following are the details for each year:.

      All accidents below and above Ground

      Accidents due to Falls of Ground

      Year

      FatalAccidents

      Non-fatal Accidents

      FatalAccidents

      Non-fatal Accidents

      Number of Separate Accidents

      Number of Persons Killed

      Number of Separate Accidents

      Number of Persons Injured.*

      Number of Separate Accidents

      Number of Persons Killed

      Number of Separate Accidents

      Number of Persons Injured.*

      1930

      …

      16

      30

      2,691

      2,695

      8

      9

      891

      894

      1931

      …

      15

      16

      2,703

      2,707

      6

      7

      873

      877

      1932

      …

      18

      18

      2,483

      2,485

      7

      7

      813

      814

      1933

      …

      11

      16

      2,319

      2,337

      6

      6

      792

      794

      1934

      …

      16

      16

      2,624

      2,630

      8

      8

      869

      873

      76

      96

      12,820

      12,854

      35

      37

      4,238

      4,252

      * Disabled for more than three days

      The abnormal number of deaths in 1930 was due to the explosion of firedamp at Grove Colliery (14 killed.)

      NORTHUMBERLAND.
      Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been directed to the latest monthly as certainment for Northumberland; and what are the reasons for the unsatisfactory finan cial result, bearing in mind the regu larity of the month's working?
      Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes. With regard to the second part, I am aware that there was a debit balance in April as compared with a credit balance in March, the average costs of production having increased while the average pro ceeds per to n decreased. Both the out put and the average number of days on which coal was wound were lower in April than in March; but it must be remem bered that the Easter holidays fell in April. The Northumberland as certainment results for March and April, re spectively, have been in a somewhat similar relationship to each other for some years past, and I do not think that myhon. Friend need draw specially unfavour able conclusions from the April figures.
      Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the extra ordinarily low and increasingly low level of wages in Northumberland?
      Mr. BROWN: The problem seems to be mainly a problem of selling:.
      Miss WARD: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it has anything to do with the low price at which Northumberland coal is selling, and can we have an as surance, if this statement is substantiated, that the Government will take steps to see that in the interests both of the trade and of miners' wages prices commensurate with the quality of the coal is obtained?
      Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend will understand that my previous answer covers that point. It is mainly a problem of selling.
      Miss WARD: MayIask whether an as surance can be given.

      DISUSED MINE SHAFTS (ACCIDENTS).
      Mr. JOHN LOCKWOODasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in Cornwall, South Wales, and in the North of England there are a large number of disused shafts of which at least 487 are unfenced, partly fenced, or dangerous; that there are 65 recorded accidents to animals consequent upon the lack of adequate or proper fencing; and whether, in order that further accidents may be avoided, he will take the neces sary steps to see that owners of mines or other persons responsible carry out their statutory duty to provide adequate and proper fencing?
      Mr. E. BROWN: I have no means of checking the figures quoted by the hon. Member as the responsibility for seeing that abandoned mine shafts are kept properly fenced rests with the local authorities concerned. The position is that any shaft or outlet which is not kept fenced in accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, constitutes a nuisance with in the meaning of the Public Health Acts and consequently the responsibility for dealing with such cases rests with the local authorities. This applies equally to metalliferous mines.
      Mr. LOCKWOOD: If I supply the figures required, will appropriate steps be taken to see that shafts are properly fenced?
      Mr. BROWN: It is really a matter for the Ministry of Health.
      Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will my hon. Friend tell us the age of the oldest shaft in Cornwall?
      Mr. BROWN: Iwill try to find out if the hon. Member will put a question down.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
      Dr. ADDISONasked the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the letter addressed to him by the as sociations of county councils, municipal corporations, urban and rural district councils, together with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the National as sociation of Local Government Officers, as king that facili ties should be afforded for a Bill
      2040
      embodying agreed proposals in the super annuation of local government employes; and whether he will be able to accede to their request?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir; I have already replied that the proposals raise issues of importance and that in the present pressure of public business no under taking can be given that facilities will be afforded for the passage of a Bill during the present Session. I will send the right hon. Member a copy of my reply.

      MINISTERS (ARMAMENT SHARES).
      Mr. COCKSasked the Prime Minister whether there is any Cabinet rule against Ministers holding shares in armament firms which are contractors to the Government; and, if not, does he propose to make such a rule?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question which he addressed to me on the 19th December last, to which I can add nothing.
      Mr. COCKS: Will the Prime Minister remember that the previous question did not deal with firms that were contractors to the Government, and that this question is an extension of that question?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I disagree with the hon. Member that this question is an extension. The answer which I gave last time referred to armament firms in general. The hon. Member now specifies a certain group of armament firms, and my general answer must therefore refer to the more con fined question.
      Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that at the Arms Inquiry a statement was made that 3, 000 shares in Vickers were held by the Home Secretary, and is it in the public interest that at a time like this private profit should be made by a Cabinet Minister out of the manufacture of arms?
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not true that it is very difficult to give a definition of an armament firm, and that it is possible the Co-operative Society might come under it?

      SELECT COMMITTEE ON WITNESSES (REPORT).
      Mr. CHURCHILLasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the Report of the Select Committee on Witnesses will be taken into consideration by the House?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The report has only just become available. The recommendations of the Select Committee are under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
      Colonel GRETTON: Has my right hon. Friend observed the recommendation of the Committee that the report should be considered by this House?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make a statement at the moment. The report was published only two days ago.

      AIR DEFENCE.
      Mr. CHURCHILLasked the Prime Minister whether the new committee for the purpose of considering scientific means of defence against attack from the air, announced by him on 19th March, has in fact been appointed; and how many sittings has it held?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee has been appointed and has held two meetings. At these meetings it has reviewed in detail the research and experiments which have been undertaken, and are being undertaken, by the Committee of Scientists which has been continuously at work, and the investigations undertaken by the three Services. The committee has approved a number of plans of research and experiment, and has made recommendations which are being carried out and which will ensure the complete co-ordination and active prosecution of this research.

      DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (EMPLOYÉS).
      Mr. PIKEasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the works committee of the Durham County Council have prepared for issue to every workman upon their permanent staff a questionnaire which instructs him, or her, to declare willingness to join a trade union and to allow the trade union contribution to be deducted from his, or her, weekly pay packet; and what action he
      2042
      will take against the Durham County Council to ensure the effective working of the Trade Disputes Act, 1926?
      The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am informed that the Durham County Council have approved a resolution of the Works Committee that every workman on the permanent staff be given an opportunity of declaring his willingness to join an appropriate trade union, and to allow the appropriate trade union contribution to be deducted from his wages and that a questionnaire has been issued accordingly. I have no in formation disclosing any offence under Section 6 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927.
      Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the great possibilities that arise from this questionnaire in the matter of intimidation, in order to protect those persons who do not wish to declare their intention of subscribing or otherwise to trade union funds? Will he keep a watchful eye on the Durham County Council?
      Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks there is anything improper in the action of the county council when the works committee actually make a report to them?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not my duty to express an opinion on the propriety of conduct apart from the commission of a criminal offence.

    SCOTLAND.

      COAL SALES (FRAUDULENT PRACTICES).
      Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the existing statutory provisions for the prevention of irregular and fraudulent practices in the retail sale of coal in Scotland; and whether he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to enable local authorities to deal more adequately with these?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter has been noted for consideration, but I can hold out no hope of legislation to deal with it this Session.

      BURNING COAL BINGE.
      Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the complaints made in Lanarkshire against the coal binge which are burning there and because of the fumes which are a menace to the health of the people; and what action he pro poses to take against the parties responsible?
      Sir G. COLLINS: The matter referred to is primarily one for the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. Only one complaint has been made to the Department of Health for Scotland in regard to burning binge in Lanarkshire. As a result of inspection the owners of this bing have undertaken to consider what action can be taken to extinguish the fire.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in Lanarkshire and other counties these bings are burning and causing a great deal of annoyance to the public, as well as being a menace to health, and will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what action the local authorities are taking to stop the nuisance I.
      Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. Friend knows, the matter is primarily one for the local authorities under the Act referred to, but, if my attention is called to any specific case which is not being dealt with, I will make inquiries.
      Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a growing evil not only in Scotland but in our country? Do not let Scotland get as bad as Lancashire. Try to stop it.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure that Scot land will not fall behind in this matter.
      Mr. WEST: Will the right hon. Gentle man ask the Government to give facilities for the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to deal with the matter?

      PERTH PRISON (STRUCTTJRAL ALTERATIONS).
      Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that during the structural alterations to H quarters at Perth prison at one time doors and windows were re moved and the furniture and food were soiled by dust; and what circumstances warranted the view that the quarters
      2044
      were fit for human habitation, especially where there were young children, one a child in arms?
      Sir G. COLLINS: During the structural alterations referred to doors and windows were removed as necessity required, but due regard was had to the convenience of occupants. As explained in reply to a question flay the hon. Member on the 10th April last, it was because the officer concerned chose to remove his wife and family shortly after operations commenced that the opportunity was taken to expedite the work. The medical officer would have had no objection to the conditions if the wife and family had remained in occupation and the work had proceeded in the normal way.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish us to believe that a house from which the doors and windows have been taker} is la suitable house in which a warder should live with a wife and children, in the kind of weather which we have; and, if this prison is being reconstructed, will he take steps to see that the warders are either given alternative accommodation or that the repairs are done in such a manner that they do not inconvenience to any harsh degree those who live in the warder's quarters?
      Sir G. COLLINS: I are sure that the attention which the hon. Member has drawn to this principle will bear fruit in future if similar cases occur, but I have no reason to think that the medical officer was not most humane in his outlook.

      REFORMATORY SCHOOL BUYS (EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Aberdeen sheriff court, on 23rd May, in which a farmer was convicted of ill-treatment of a boy of 18 under his charge on licence from Rossie Farm School, Angus; whether he is aware that the boy was beaten on the body and legs with fists and with a stick, kicked on the body and legs, and submerged in a trough of water, and that the boy was stated to be on the border line of a mental defective; and what steps are being taken to ensure that boys sent out from a reformatory on licence are protected from such brutality?
      Sir G. COLLINS: My attention has been drawn to this deplorable case and to the particulars stated. The employer has been convicted on the charge of assault and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. With regard to the last part of the question, the managers of approved schools maintain close touch with the young persons who are released on licence. In this case I am informed that the headmaster of the school wrote to the boy six times during the seven months period of the boy's employment at the farm. Only one reply was received and it contained no complaint. Various reports were received from the employer none of which contained any indication of serious difficulty. The headmaster of this school, who is a man of outstanding reputation in reformatory school work, has placed 1, 500 boys in satisfactory employment in the past 35 years and he has never before had a case such as this. I am having the records of employment of young persons released on licence from approved schools during the last 10 years specially examined, in order to as certain whether there is any general ground for instituting a more thorough and systematic supervision over such employments.
      Mr. BURNETT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the reply, if I submit certain complaints to him will he consider the m?
      Mr. LOGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is a system of visitation in these cases, and when the last visitation took place?
      Sir G.COLLINS: The re is a system of personal visitation, and the managers of the schools correspond with the boys. It is impossible to make the categorical statement that all the boys in different parts of Scotland are followed up very closely, though, as the hon. Member will have gathered from the last part of my original answer, I am having the whole matter reviewed over the last 10 years. In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett), if he has any point in mind in connection with this matter and will bring it to my attention, I will readily look into it.
      Mrs. TATE: Does the right hon. Gentle man consider that two months' imprisonment is an adequate punishment for an offence such as this? Does he not think
      2046
      that in offences such as this the "cat" should be the punishment?

      GRAMPIAN POWER SCHEME (GIRDER BRIDGE).
      Mr. BURNETTasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now give in formation as to whether the amenities committee under the Grampian Power Scheme was consulted with regard to the girder bridge besides the bridge of Tummel; and whether the design was approved?
      Sir G. COLLINS: I have been asked to reply. I am making inquiries as to whether the Committee were consulted, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    POST OFFICE.

      FACILITIES, DARNALL, SHEFFIELD.
      Mr. PIKEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Darnall, Sheffield, sub-Post Office and its surrounding properties are to be de molished during the next few weeks; that the tenants have received final notice to quit; and, in view of the thickly populated nature of this area, will he consider the establishment of a Crown office?
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not anticipate any difficulty in transferring the existing sub-post office to other suit able premises. The re is not at present enough postal business to justify the establishment of a Crown office.
      Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this area is rapidly growing by virtue of clearance orders being executed in other parts of the city of Sheffield, and that at the moment there is a population of over 16, 000 adults? Does he not consider that justifies a Crown office, and that it is advisable to attract the whole of postal business to the one centre rather than to leave it distributed as it is?
      Sir E. BENNETT: If the postal business increases, we shall in due course give the place a Crown office.
      Mr. PIKE: Why not give it one at the start?
      Sir E. BENNETT: Because there is not enough business.

      TELEPHONE SERVICE (INSTALLATION DELAYS).
      Mr. TAYLORasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in certain districts there are people who wish to become telephone subscribers, but can not do so as they have been informed that there are no instruments available; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in this matter in view of the extensive advertising campaign which is being carried on by his department?
      Sir E. BENNETT: The re is no shortage of telephone instruments, but there is un fortunately some delay in providing ser vice at a few small automatic exchanges, owing to the fact that unexpected delay occurred in designing an improved type of equipment which is now in course of manufacture. I have already taken all possible steps to speed up the supply. Apart from these exceptional cases which are very few in number, applications are being met promptly.
      Mr. TAYLOR: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, if I can furnish him with a case in which people have been waiting for six months for a telephone installation, will he take the necessary steps to see that it is provided?
      Sir E. BENNETT: Certainly

    AVIATION.

      EDINBURGH (MUNICIPAL AERODROME).
      Mr. GUYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps, if any, have been taken by the Edinburgh corporation to establish a municipal aerodrome for civil aviation?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I under stand that at a recent meeting the Edinburgh town Council resolved to purchase land at Gilmerton for a municipal aero drome.

      AIR SERVICES (GREAT BRITAIN-CHINA).
      Mr. NUNNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there is any likelihood in the near future of estab lishing a British air service between this country and China, via Rangoon or Singapore 7.
      Sir P. SASSOON: The question of an experimental service to Hong Kong in connection with Imperial Airways' service to the Far East is being actively examined, but I am not in a position as yet to give any indication of the date by which such a service is likely to be established.

      PETROL TANKS.
      Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether self-sealing petrol tanks, which proved of value in 1919, are being improved, in view of the development in Germany along similar lines?
      Sir P. SASSOON: Since 1919, many types of tank for which self-sealing or non-bursting qualities have been claimed have been submitted to the Air Ministry for test, but so far none has shown sufficient merits in this direction to outweigh the accompanying disadvantages of in creased weight and diminished capacity. Other designs are still under test or are expected shorthly.

      FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT (BRITISH TERRITORY).
      Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the general anungements in vogue for the passage of military aircraft of foreign countries through British territory?
      Sir P. SASSOON: as an act of inter national courtesy, and subject to reciprocity, facilities are occasionally afforded on request for the passage of foreign military aircraft over British territory in time of peace.
      Mr. MANDER: May I ask if permission is ever refused or whether, as a matter of courtesy, it is always granted?
      Sir P. SASSOON: I should have to have notice of that question.

      GOVERNMENT POLICY.
      Brigadier-General NATION (for Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, under the present expansion scheme of the Royal Air Force, he can give an assurance that the full interests of civil aviation will be safeguarded and that every possible assistance will be given to develop civil aviation for the transport of passengers, mails, and light merchandise not only in these islands but throughout the Empire?
      Sir P. SASSOON: I can as sure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government's policy for developing civil aviation is being steadily pursued concurrently and parallel with the expansion of the Royal Air Force, and that everything possible will be done at the Air Ministry to reconcile the interests of both branches of aviation to the best general advantage.

    BRITISH ARMY.

      CHINA (OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
      Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing amongst officers at China stations as a result of the loss they are sustaining in pay caused by the rise in the value of the dollar from the normal rate of ls.4d.to approximately 1s. 80.; an.d whether he will consider granting these officers a colonial allowance to compensate them for loss brought about by fluctuation in rates of exchange?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 25th March last. To meet the higher cost of living due to the rise in the sterling value of the dollar, rates of allowances for all three stations in China were increased with effect from 1st April, again at Hong Kong from 1st May, and again at all three stations from 1st June.

      CHEMICAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE.
      Mr. T.WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the composition of the chemical defence committee; how many of them are neither civil servants nor members of the armed forces; the names of such members and the capacities in which they act, and the salaries or allowances which they receive from the chemical defence department; and whether the committe receives advice from any persons who are not members and, if so, who they are and what fees they receive?
      Mr. HACKING: I am sending the hon. Member a statement which shows the composition of the committee, distinguishing which members are neither civil servants nor members of the armed forces, and the amount of the honoraria
      2050
      paid to such members in the financial year 1934. The committee from time to time receives advice from numerous other scientists who are not members, for which honoraria may be granted under stipulated conditions. The amount so paid in the year 1934 was £3.

    INDIA.

      EARTHQUAKES.
      Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that experience indicates that heavy earthquake shocks in regions known to be subject to them are generally preceded by minor tremors which can be detected by suitable instruments, thus making it possible to give warning to the public; and whether he will refer this and cognate questions to the International Seismological association at Oxford and the Geological Society of London for further inquiry; and
      (2) whether, in view of the damage caused by recent earthquakes in areas known to be liable to the m, arid of the specific recommendations in the concluding section of the report on the Baluchistan earthquakes of 1931(Volume 67, Memoirs of Geological Survey of India), he will appoint, in communication with the Government of India, a technical commission, including a geologist and seismologist and civil engineers with experience of erecting earth-quake-proof buildings in New Zealand, Japan, 'California, or elsewhere, to make proposals for the development of standardised steel frame or other buildings, at a, cost with in the reach of private enterprise in Quetta and elsewhere on sites least liable to disturbance?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA, (Mr. Butler): The suggestions made by my hon. Friend will be communicated to the Government of India.
      Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask for a little more information than that? Is any action going to be taken from this side to get together people who might help in the designing of special buildings to resist earthquakes?
      Mr. BUTLER: In view of the destruction in India that has arisen out of the terrible earthquake, I think the hon.

      2051
      Gentleman may rest assured that every step will be taken to restore the devastation that has been created.

      BANGALORE.
      Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India why the Government of India are discussing with the Government of Mysore the retrocession of the civil station of Bangalore, which has come into existence under British jurisdiction and includes a considerable British and Anglo-Indian community, whereas Berar, which was taken over more recently from His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad, and which includes no British residents ex cept a few officials, is to remain under British jurisdiction 7.
      Mr. BUTLER: The explanation is that although British jurisdiction is exercised equally over the Bangalore as signed Tract and Berar, its origin and basis are entirely different in the two cases, as the Noble Lady will see by referring to the relevant treaties and agreements published in Volume 9 of Aitchison's Treaties, Engagements and Sanads.
      Duchess of ATHOLL: Has not a great deal of British capital been invested in Bangalore in buildings and so on and a great deal of land acquired for residence, on the understanding that Bangalore was to remain under British jurisdiction, whereas there has been no such investment of capital in the case of Berar?
      Mr. BUTLER: The Noble Lady is, I think, referring to the origins of our jurisdiction in those two areas. If she will refer to the authorities, she will be able, I think, to discover the facts.

    CHINA.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the present situation in China?
    Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend has no statement to make at present.
    Mr. NUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from His Majesty's Ambassador in China as to the means that are being taken by the Chinese Government to check the export
    2052
    Of silver from China; whether the Chinese Government are now obtaining the advice and co-operation of the foreign bankers in checking the outflow; and whether the position shows any sign of improvement?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. The Chinese Government have raised the export tax on silver from 2¼ per cent. to 10 per cent., and a variable "equalisation duty" has been imposed. The combined export tax and equalisation duty now amount to 141 per cent. In regard to the cooperation of foreign banks with the Chinese Government, no official communication has been received, but the Chinese Minister of Finance is reported, in the Chinese Press of 1st May, as having stated that all banks had agreed not to export silver. So far as can be judged from the official statistics, the measures taken appear to have been successful in diminishing the outflow of silver from China. Between 1st January and 21st May, recorded exports of silver were largely exceeded by imports, and in recent weeks there have been no recorded exports.

    LORD PRIVY SEAL (ITALIAN PRESS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received by the British Government to the representations made to the Italian Government concerning the personal attacks made in the Italian Press on the Lord Privy Seal?
    Mr. EDEN: Since the appearance of the article containing the personal attack to which the hon. Member refers, no further attacks of a personal character have appeared in the Italian Press.
    Mr. MANDER: Have any steps been taken to deal with the daily and most unfair attacks made on this country in the Government controlled Press in Italy?
    Mr. EDEN: That is another question, and there will be a full opportunity for debating the whole matter tomorrow.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (HEAVY PACKAGES).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Minister of Labour which countries

    2053
    have ratified the draft convention concerning the marking of the weight on heavy packages transported by vessels which was adopted at the International Labour Conference on 21st June, 1929; and whether His Majesty's Government have also ratified it?
    Mr. STANLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply (of which I am sending him a copy) which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 15th April, 1935, and which represents the present position.

    TRANSPORT (ROAD ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. HANNON (for Mr. ALAN TODD)asked the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement as to the number and nature of convictions obtained against motorists in London who have contributed to wards the 1,045 accidents since 1st November, 1934, at crossing-places controlled by signal-lights or police and at uncontrolled crossing-places, respectively.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Statistics relating to prosecutions for road traffic offences do not show separately those cases where the driver of a motor vehicle was involved in an accident, and I regret therefore that the desired information is not available.
    Mr. HANNON (for Mr. TODD)asked the Minister of Transport how many of the 1,045 accidents at pedestrian crossing-places in London since 1st November, 1934, took place at crossings at which signal-lights were in operation or policemen regularly on duty, and how many at crossings which were uncontrolled?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Of these accidents, 355 occurred at 1,411 crossings controlled by the police or by traffic lights, and 690 at 7,438 uncontrolled crossings.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (OPHTHALMIC BENEFIT).
    Sir IAN MACPHERSON (for Sir JOHN WALLACE)asked the Minister of Health whether his Department have now considered the final report of the ophthalmic benefit joint committee; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation on the basis of the report?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The report to which my hon. Friend refers is still under consideration. I regret, therefore, that I am not yet in a position to reply to the second part of the question.

    DUNCAN STEWART amp; CO., LTD. (MORTGAGE).
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. MALLALIEU)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the terms and any subsequent modifications of the mortgage granted to Duncan Stewart and Company, Limited, by the Minister of Munitions in 1918; and how it is that the past seven years have seen no reduction in the amount outstanding?
    Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member can rest assured that every care is taken to secure the discharge of debts due to His Majesty's Government and that the circumstances of each case are kept under review. It would, however, be contrary to public interest to disclose the details of particular transactions.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXPANSION REQUIREMENTS).
    Sir IAN MACPHERSON(for Sir J. WALLACE)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether some of the constructional work on the new aero planes is to be carried out in idle dock yards; and, if so, whether the Rosyth naval base will be favourably considered in that connection?
    Sir P. SASSOON: So far as can be foreseen, the constructional work on new aeroplanes to meet expansion requirements will be with in the existing capacity of the aircraft industry. I am, however, grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. Which will be borne in mind.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA (DISTURBANCES).
    Mr. LUNN (for Mr. PARKINSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will add one direct representative of the native community, or an accredited labour representative, to the commission of inquiry he proposes to appoint to inquire into the circum stances attending the recent disturbances at Luanshya N'kana and Mufulira, Northern Rhodesia?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Chief Secretary, who is an ex-Secretary for Native Affairs in Tanganyika, and Mr. Cartmel Robinson, the Provincial Commissioner of the Northern Province, who has had more than 20 years' experience of native administration in various parts of the territory, are members of the Commission of inquiry. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend considers that the interests of the natives employed in the mines do not necessitate any addition to the Commission which has been appointed by the Governor.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to see that, in an industrial area like this where thousands of people are employed in the copper mines, there are workmen's representatives, now that a number of people have been killed, as there have been in recent weeks?
    Major DAVIES: I will certainly convey that question to my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for the week after the House re-assembles?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, 17th June: Supply, Committee(8th Allotted Day), Class IV, Vote 1, Board of Education.
Tuesday and Wednesday, 18th and 19th June: Finance Bill, Committee.
Thursday, 20th June: Supply Committee (9th Allotted Day), Class II, Vote 4, Dominions Office.
Friday, 21st June: Supply, Committee (6th Allotted Day, Second Part); the Vote to be discussed will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other business may be taken.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Unemployment assistance (Temporary Provisions) (No, 2) Bill, with out Amendment
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the imposition of restrictions upon development along the frontages of roads; to enable high way authorities to acquire land for the construction or improvement of roads or for preserving amenities or controlling development in the neighbourhood of roads; to extend the powers of local authorities as to the provision of accommodation for the parking of vehicles and as to the prevention of interference with traffic; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill [Lords].

RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT BILL. [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a Bill of very great social importance to very wide classes in the country. As a Measure for the alleviation of the evil of unemployment, I am confident that its object will command the general as sent of all parties in the House, whatever criticism there may be of the structure or methods of the Measure. In a way, the Bill is a happy augury, because the opportunity for its introduction arises from an improvement in the general conditions of the nation's industry and employment which makes a Measure of this sort possible. The extremely widespread nature of our system of National Health Insurance is well known to the House. It is of extreme importance, for it is, as it were, the foundation of all our social services, affecting no fewer than 18,000,000 insured persons in the country. Well known, to o, is the wide and extremely important nature of the benefits secured by this system—cash benefits in sickness and in a long period of disablement following sickness, and medical benefits during sickness. The cash benefit on maternity is, perhaps, one of the most important of all.
  Further, linked up with our National Health Insurance system there is the great pension system, which is of more recent creation, and which, by means of the same machinery, secures to insured persons on a contributory basis old age pensions at 65, and a novel feature, in which I think we are the pioneers of the world in the development of social insurance, namely, insurance for widows and orphans on the death of the wage-earner. This is a mighty instrument for the foundation of safety and happiness of mind in the lives of the wage-earners. The particular aspect of this great system to which we attach special significance in.
  2064
  this House is that, since it is a contributory system, it promotes the forces of character, because every participator in the system is aware that the benefits that are secured by it are secured as a result of his or her own efforts and thrift.
  The wide extent of this great system itself makes it peculiarly susceptible to changes in the general state of employment and of national prosperity. It is, as it were, a very sensitive barometer of the state of employment. The state of employment reflects itself upon the finances of the system in a very closely related and prompt manner. In consequence of that, those who are responsible for the guardianship of the system and its maintenance in a sound condition—namely, this House and the Government of the day, as responsible to this House—must exercise a very special measure of vigilance and promptitude in relating the system from time to time to the conditions of national prosperity. To put it simply, it is a matter on which it is never possible to go to sleep; one must always be taking care of the system of National Health Insurance and making sure that it is sound in its finance.
  That was particularly felt at the time of the great depression, which brought to us an extreme degree of unemployment and which, through unemployment, had a very marked effect upon the finances of National Health Insurance. That great depression affected the whole basis of the scheme adversely. How adversely the scheme had been affected by the general depression and unemployment was clearly revealed on the occasion of the Third Valuation, when the Government Actuary's report dealt with the summarised results of the valuation for the third valuation period. The report disclosed that, owing to the diminution of the contribution income on account of unemployment, great evils were impending over the National Health Insurance system. Many of the approved societies, who are responsible for the administration of the system and whose finances provide the units of which the finance of the system as a whole is made up, were threatened with being driven down into a deficiency, and it became urgently necessary to take emergency measures to protect the basis of National Health Insurance, for the preservation of its solvency and for the preservation of the contributory principle. Had such

  2065
  measures not been adopted, National Health Insurance would have followed the course of unemployment on its downward track, which would have led to complete financial disaster. At that time, also, owing to the generally adverse state of the national finances, the Exchequer was unable to give any exceptional and additional financial assistance to the National Health Insurance scheme, and for that reason the scheme had to be fortified and re-based with out help from outside. That was done, as the House will remember, by the Act of 1932.
  I must briefly mention the history of the Act of 1932 because with out recalling the history of it to the House I should not succeed in making clear the purposes of the present Measure. What were the measures taken in 1932 to protect Health Insurance and its continuance from the evils which then threatened it owing to the great depression? In the first place, it was found impossible to continue some of the special concessions made to the unemployed in easier financial times. It was found impossible to continue them indefinitely from year to year owing to the fact that the unemployed had been for a long period unable on account of their unemployment to make their contributions to the Scheme. That was the first measure of fortification which it was necessary to give to the Scheme.
  The second was that it was found impossible to continue the system which had been introduced in 1928 for the further relief of the unemployed. That was a system under which the unemployed were credited with all arrears of contributions due to unemployment, so that in weeks of unemployment they were excused all contributions and the arrears which subsequently arose in their contribution records had no effect in reducing their cash benefits in the subsequent contribution year. That was the second concession which it was necessary partially to diminish in 1932 by going back on the 1928 arrangement to the extent that only half of the contributions due to unemployment were there after excused. This meant a relief of 21,500,000 a year in the finances of the approved societies. The se were the two principal measures of underpinning which had then to be taken.
  There was another matter which was dealt with on a rather different footing. The experience of the sickness of women
  2066
  under the Scheme had been found to exceed expectations so that on an actuarial basis the Scheme was unable to maintain the benefits it was originally designed to maintain. Action was taken to protect the finances of the Scheme by reducing the benefits to women to the amount which actuarially the Scheme was capable of maintaining. That stands on a different basis. It is not directly related to the bad times. The subsequent experience of women's sickness has tended to confirm the forecast that was then made and to justify the reductions as being sound in relation to the actuarial aspects of this Scheme, and it is not now proposed to make any further change in the particular matter of women's benefits.
  As regards the health part of the Scheme, the structure was underpinned, but, at the same time, the House will remember that we protected the highly valued pension rights from any source of interference. No final law was passed, because it was desirable to wait and see whether things would so improve in time as to enable us to prevent anyone going out of pension rights owing to un employment. Accordingly all the unemployed were continued in pension rights until the close of the current year, that is until the 1st January, 1936.Such was the state of affairs which was left by the Act of 1932.I would remind the House of certain undertakings which, speaking on behalf of the Government, I gave to the House at the time of the passage of that Act. I pointed out—and I have again referred to it to-day—the necessity of constant vigilance in dealing with Health Insurance in relation to national conditions, and I also pointed out that if and and when there was an improvement in the national conditions sufficient to make it possible to reverse any part of the then withdrawal of concessions, it would be the duty of the Government to come before the House, in view of the new circumstances, and again propose concessions of that sort.
  The second and more direct undertaking which was then given was that all pension rights were to be continued until 1st January, 1936. But the House very naturally as ked, what then 1 the answer was as follows: A review of the decennial period was due from the Government Actuary in the course of the first part of the present year, and on the occasion

  2067
  bi that review I undertook that the Government should go into the whole position over again and see what it was possible to do in the way of the continuation of the pension rights after the date on which they were due to expire in some cases on the 1st January, 1936. The results of that decennial review by the Government Actuary have been received and there has been time for their study. The Measure which I am pro posing to the House to-day is one brought forward by the Government, as far as the pensions question is concerned, in fulfilment of the pledges then given, that they would deal with the pension situation before the time came for people to go out of pension rights.
  What is the state of affairs now that the Government have to review the situation on the occasion of this actuarial report for the decennial period? I do not want in any way to exaggerate, but the state of affairs is marked by one clear characteristic, and that is a very great improvement in all those factors of national prosperity which are relevant to the question of health insurance and pension schemes. We have the good fortune to stand before the House to-day in a position in which we can say that the optimists of three years ago are justified, and with in the time of the decennial review, we are able financially to reconsider the steps it was necessary to take in order to preserve the solvency of this scheme and protect the benefits of the insured. The unemployment figure, the underlying factor, which was then approximately 2,750,000 on the live register, now stands at approximately 2,000,000, a reduction of 750,000 persons. That is reflected in the finances of the insurance scheme by this most vital circumstance, that the contribution increment available to the scheme between 1932 and 1934, which is the last year with regard to which I have the figures avail able, increased by£2, 375, 000 a year, a most encouraging circumstance and one which enables one to take a different view of the state of affairs from that which it was necessary to take at the time of the great depression.
  the re has been another circumstance of very great significance in the general restoration of prosperity, and that is that we have now stabilised national finances
  2068
  and a balanced Budget. That will be welcome in every part of the House. When we come to a subject like this we enjoy some of the fruits of that balanced Budget, for when it is useful and proper that there should be some contribution from the Exchequer to health insurance then with a balanced Budget the Exchequer is in a position to make it.
  I come to the measures proposed in the Bill for dealing with the present situation. We fulfil our undertaking by dealing with the pensions scheme before the beginning of 1936. We take this occasion, and particularly the occasion of the increase of contribution income, to deal with the national health insurance situation in accordance with the undertakings I gave two years ago to see what can be done in the way of improvements in the terms and conditions for the unemployed which three years ago it was necessary to tighten up. What we are able to do is in the Bill, and the House will see it amounts to improvements in the conditions for those who fall into unemployment and that they are fundamental and most important. In the first place, I will deal with the question of continuance. We find ourselves in the position of being able to go back and to continue in national health insurance those who fall into unemployment from year to year with out those limitations which, on that previous occasion, it was necessary to adopt. The result will be that we secure to all one and three-quarter years on an average free insurance which is at present secured upon the termination of insurable employment. At the close of that period of free insurance, which everybody has, we deal with the unemployed in this matter. Subject to a certain qualification, with which I will deal in a little more detail later, those who are unable to maintain their contributions by reason of unemployment will be maintained in insurance year by year if unemployment continues. Thus, if they are still unable to get work and so pay contributions, then if unemployment is the cause of their contributions not being aid, they will be continued in insurance from year to year indefinitely. Therefore, no one will go out of insurance, subject to the qualification to which I will call attention. What will be the result of that continuance 2The continuance will not secure health insurance

  2069
  cash benefits. I do not think it ever can be possible to secure a relation between contributions and benefits which can possibly secure the indefinite continuance of cash benefits for the unemployed. The benefits secured are medical benefit and additional treatment benefits, including institutional benefits of a medical sort.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Are maternity benefit secured.
  Sir H. YOUNG: No, that is a cash benefit. What are secured are medical benefit, additional treatment benefits and, of course, pension benefits. Pension and medical benefits are secured indefinitely from year to year.
  Mr. LOGAN: Are we to take "indefinitely" to apply to both periods—no cash benefit at all?
  Sir H. YOUNG: In the free insurance period the cash benefits are secured. I am referring to the extension beyond the free insurance period. The point to which I was coming was that of persons who, under the Act of 1932, owing to unemployment, had to have their health insurance benefits discontinued. Are they to be left out? the number involved in round figures is about 200,000 persons. A certain number have passed out of insurance already, and a certain number will come back again owing to re-employment. It is difficult to estimate how many, but on 1st January next approximately 200,000 will be passing out of insurance for all purposes unless we help them. I am, fortunately, in a position now to take power to make transitory regulations under the Bill, and those transitory regulations will enable me to prevent those who were going out on 1st January from going out, and to bring all those who have gone out of insurance owing to unemployment back into insurance again on 1st January, so that, at the same time that we make concessions for the future, we make it good for the past.
  I said I would deal with the condition for the continuance of insurance. The condition is that there shall be 10 years of continuous insurance when work ceases. The precedent for the 10 years continuous insurance is in the 1929 Act, for which hon. Members opposite were responsible. I think it is completely justified if hon. Members will look with
  2070
  me and see what it means. Does this mean that many unemployed will be un able to be continued in insurance because they cannot make good? the answer is No. If hon. Members look at it care fully they will find out that, owing to successive Acts for continuance in insurance, all unemployed with four years continuous insurance and 160 contributions have, in fact, been continued in insurance from year to year. So that, generally speaking, the unemployed will not find any difficulty in fulfilling this qualification. As a matter of fact, I will reduce it to statistical estimates based on the actuarial examination. It may be inferred from the Actuary's report, that not more than nine per cent. of the 200,000 persons to whom I have referred will fail to qualify under the 10 years' condition. He estimates further that at least half of those will come back to employment with in a short time. So that it will be seen that it is only about five per cent. Of the 200,000 who will fall out of insurance for more than a short period.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Is that the average for the whole country?
  Sir H. YOUNG: It applies to the whole country—an average. That may be the number who will fail to qualify under the 10 years system. These will not only be people who are going out because of un employment, but they will include people going out for different reasons, such as taking up uninsurable employment. But for the most part they will be young people with good prospects of coming back to insurance again. The re is another point. We retain the concession given in respect of pensions under the Act of 1932, that is, an additional year of cover for pensions for those who fail to satisfy the 10-years test and so would go out of insurance, but have a four years' record of continuous insurance.
  I pass to what we can do under the arrears part of the scheme. Fortunately, we are now in a position, as it were, to let out the slack we had to take up hitherto, and we are in a position, with the increased contribution income and some financial help, to go back to the full excusal of arrears, so that all arrears of contributions due to unemployment will be fully excused, and will have no effect at all upon the cash benefits of the unemployed as it was before 1932and

  2071
  after 1928. That, of course, will mean a very great benefit on the cash side to millions of insured persons—something between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 persons, and nearer 5,000,000 than 4,000,000. It will also certainly mean an enormous simplification of administration and saving of expense to the approved societies, who will be able to leave off sending out some thing like 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 notices. That will apply to the year 1934–5, so that arrears for that year due to unemployment will be fully excused.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: It does not apply to 1933?
  Sir H. YOUNG: No, to 1934–35, so that for the current year it is retrospective to that extent. The re is another advantage to be derived. As the House knows, many approved societies make use of surpluses to pay up arrears, and so enable the unemployed to get their cash benefits. Now that we are excusing their arrears, these moneys will be released for additional benefits. It will mean some thing like £300,000 a year to be released for additional benefits—a by-product of the main scheme.
  The finances of this proposal are simple. They must be dealt with under two heads—the finance of the pensions scheme, and the finance of the arrears scheme. As regards the pensions part, it is quite simple and straightforward. The Actuary's report on the decennial period shows that we can give this continuation of pension rights for the unemployed from year to year indefinitely in the manner I have described. We can give it now in view of the existing state of the fund, the reserves of which will be adequate until the next decennial period, 1946, and no further money will be necessary to finance this concession until that period, in view of those existing reserves. As the House knows, in 1946 it can make fresh arrangements for Exchequer contributions to the pension fund, but, until that period, no fresh finance will be required.
  Let me remind the House of this point, in order that we can get a, complete picture of the state of affairs, that under the existing law there will be an automatic increase in the contributions for pensions at the end of the present year of 2d. for men, equally distributed
  2072
  between employer and employee, and 1d. for women. That increase of contribution has to be made under the existing law. A sum of about £1,500,000 a year is required to finance the excusal of arrears due to unemployment, and this includes the much smaller sum necessary to finance the medical benefits for those who are continued in extended insurance. We propose to deal with that on the principle of an equal distribution of the financial burden between the approved societies and the Exchequer, half being found by the approved societies and half by the Exchequer. They will find about£700,000 or £750,000 each. Let me here recognise the far-sighted and statesmanlike way in which the approved societies have faced the position and have agreed to make this contribution from their funds. It amounts to an expression on their part of the conviction, and I am sure that it is a true conviction, that it is a right policy for them to spread the burden of employment to some extent over the whole system of the approved societies and to make some contribution from the more fortunate to the less fortunate in order to assist in the alleviations we are now introducing.
  I will not trouble the House with the form of the finance, which will be found in detail in the White Paper, but I would point out that it is a pound for pound arrangement between the Exchequer and the approved societies. The approved societies meet the burden by a general levy on contributions. It has something of the effect of a pool, but "pool" is not a very popular term and is always suspect. Its effect is to bring the societies with less unemployment to the assistance of those with more unemployment. Those who have a high proportion of employment among their members will pay more and receive less and those with a high proportion of unemployment among their members will receive more and pay less. There is one circumstance which I should like to ex plain, and that is that for the first year we are able to finance the Exchequer contribution by appropriating a balance from the Army, Navy and Air Force Fund. That might give rise to the suspicion that we are stealing money from the soldiers, sailors and air men, in order to save the Exchequer, but that would be a complete error and one which well informed persons would not entertain.

  2073
  Let me explain the matter. The Army, Navy and Air Force Fund pro vides insurance for serving men when they leave the Services if they cannot find their way into approved societies. Its amount is fixed so as to provide the regular benefits enjoyed by anybody else in national health insurance together with additional benefits upon a scale that has been arrived at after careful inquiry and by agreement between all parties. Those additional benefits are in excess of the additional benefits commonly enjoyed by persons under the ordinary national health insurance scheme. The funds necessary for that purpose—this is the point to which I would call attention—are not provided by contributions from the soldiers, sailors and air men, but are put up by the Exchequer, so that if there is any balance available after providing for the ordinary benefits and the additional benefits the natural destination of the balance would be to go back into the Exchequer. But we have done better than that, because we have kept the. Balance out of the Exchequer and are devoting it to national health insurance and the unemployed, in which category some of the men catered for by the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Fund may and themselves after they have left !lie services. In this matter, like Caesar's wife, we are above suspicion or the possibility of reproach.
  There are many minor Clauses in the Bill which have to do with the simplification of the administration and there are small concessions for the insured persons, but they are mostly matters for Committee, and I will not detain the House dealing with the m. The scheme has the general approval of the societies and particularly of the highly influential consultative council which advises the Ministry of Health. I am well aware of the lines of criticism which will be adopted by hon. Members opposite or, at any rate, I can foresee the legitimate criticisms. It will be as ked: "Why should there be the 10 years' condition It is to o harsh." the 10 years' condition will not prevent the unemployed getting the advantage of the continuation con cession, as they have already been continued in insurance for many years. I can satisfy the House that the numbers of unemployed who will be able to satisfy the 10 years' condition will be small. The y
  2074
  will be mostly young men. It may be asked why the Exchequer should not find the whole of the provision and why any of it should come from the approved societies in respect of arrears and continuation. The answer is that we must maintain in this scheme the proper relations between benefits and contributions if we are to maintain its very basis and the chief reason for its existence as a promoter of thrift, pride and self-help. The desire of the societies to spread the burden of unemployment by means of this scheme is far-sighted. I feel sure, however, that hon. Members will ask why we are changing our minds from two or three years ago, and why we are undoing what we did the n. The answer is that this is a continuation of the policy which was then adopted and is an adaptation of the scheme to the circumstances of the day. It is because the scheme was then underpinned and made sound that by reason of our returning prosperity we are now in a position to do what we propose. As a result of our timely action then we are able to profit by the improved position to-day.
  Three great benefits will be continued to the unemployed and the wage earners under this scheme. First of all, there will be certainty as regards their pensions. When you are considering pensions there is nothing which so con tributes to an appreciation of the benefits than that there should be absolute certainty that the pension will be available when the time comes. We are securing also continuity of that most desirable medical benefit which enables the unemployed person to go to the same chosen doctor throughout the period of unemployment, so that there is no break in his relations with the chosen doctor, which has been so much complained of by those who have fallen out of insurance. Finally, in regard to the scheme for arrears we are securing to the un employed, by the help of the Exchequer contribution, a very substantial cash benefit to assist them in the exigencies and difficulties of their situation. For these reasons, in view of the great benefits secured by the scheme, in view of the fact that owing to the improved conditions of to-day we are able to ensure these benefits whilst maintaining the insurance principle and the solvency of the scheme, I feel that the House can

  2075
  have very little difficulty but great satisfaction in making this additional provision for unemployment in connection with national health and pensions insurance.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: To the intentions of the Government as explained by the right hon. Gentleman I take no objection, but as regards the methods there are some parts of the scheme which in our opinion might be made considerably better and under which a great deal more might be done for those to whom the right hon. Gentleman desires to give security of pension and security of benefits. The Bill is a natural sequence to the schemes put forward by the unemployed, to the demands made by Members of Parliament and to the demands made by public minded individuals who were beginning to realize as the last day of December of this year came nearer the great amount of misery and hardship that was going to be accentuated when that day arrived, to the detriment of large numbers of the community who would be subjected to greater hardship than they had experienced before. Instead of bringing forward the ordinary annual prolongation Bill the Government have yielded to public opinion. But they have not come forward with any ideal or proposal con sonant with their own policy. We have heard a great deal from the Minister about the fact that it is no longer necessary for us to tighten our belts. He did not refer to the belt but to stitches, and he says that we have to count the stitches that were put in two or three years ago. If the Government had not let out the stitches on this occasion I am afraid that the whole garment would have been torn as under by an angry community because something had not been done to placate public opinion.
  The Government have retracted entirely from the position of 1931. They have accepted now the social responsibility which they were denying in the earlier part of the year and which they were trying to throw upon the people. The people who are going to benefit from the proposals of the Bill will benefit only because of the contributions paid by those fortunate enough to be in employment, plus the contributions to be paid by the Government. The Minister tried
  2076
  to appear in a white garment as a personification of Caesar's wife, and said that in taking the surplus from the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Fund he was not doing anything wrong, because the Treasury had found the whole of that fund. But that was not the be ginning of the fund. It was built up by payments that were deducted from those who were in the forces.
  Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG indicated dissent.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Does he not remember the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act that was passed when the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and £2, 800,000 a year was taken from the Government contributions to the National Health Insurance Fund, and in addition £1, 100,000 from the Navy, Army and Air Force Funds. In his speech the right hon. Member for Epping admitted that the fund had been built up since 1920 by deductions from these funds, and I hope that the Minister of Health is not going to maintain that this fund is based upon payments made by soldiers, sailors or airmen. As I have said£2, 800,000 was taken at that time and has been taken every year. In 10 years the total amount of these deductions would have been £28, 000,000. How much could have been done with this money for those who have passed through long periods of unemployment if the Government had not robbed the insurance scheme of these funds? the number of those who have less than 10 years employment has been put forward by the Minister as being quite a small item; only 9 per cent., which he reduced to 5 per cent. For the whole country, are likely to be thrown out of their pension rights.
  Sir H. YOUNG: Nine per cent. Of 200,000.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, 9 percent. Of 200,000 will be thrown out of pension rights. It is not very satisfactory to towns like Glasgow or to areas like South Wales and Durham, to derelict areas, to say that, taking the average for the whole country, it is only going to be 9 per cent. Of 200,000, when, as a matter of fact, the greater proportion of these people will be found in the areas I have mentioned.
  Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG indicated dissent.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The Minister of Health shakes his head. I doubt whether he understands what derelict areas are. He will find long periods of unemployment.—
  Sir H. YOUNG: I did not deny that unemployment exists in these areas; what I was negativing was that a bigger pro portion of the persons who would not qualify would be found the re.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I maintain that it will be a bigger proportion than 5 per cent. The point is that the average in these areas may be 15 or 20 per cent. Does the Minister deny that?
  Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG indicated as sent.
  Mr. MACLEAN: In that case the right hon. Gentleman denies the basis of his own calculations. An average is a result taken over the whole of the country, and there must be some parts with a higher percentage than others. If the Minister denies that, he is denying the basis upon which he has arrived at his 9 per cent. The n there is the question why it should be 10 years' continuous employment. The Minister tried to explain it, but his reasons do not weigh very much with those who have any experience of the working classes and the insurance scheme. Why not split the 10 years Why must it be 10 years? Is it to safeguard the Fund? How many people in a shipbuilding area like the Clyde, or a mining area like Durham or South Wales, how many men of 50 and 55 years of age can show a continuous record of employment of 10 years?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I am very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding. It is not a record of 10 years' employment but a record of 10 years' insurance. Insurance goes on when employment ceases.
  Mr. MACLEAN: How many are going to show 10 years' continuous insurance? How many have dropped out? How many have been subject to the decision of the umpire? When an individual has been constantly unemployed for five years he ceases to be in an insurable occupation.How many have been subject to that decision?
  Sir LUKE THOMPSON: Is there not some distinction between "consecutive"
  2078
  and "continuous"? "Continuous" will apply to the whole period of insurance, but "consecutive" may not necessarily mean for 10 years.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is for the Minister of Health to explain, not for me. If the hon. Member is in any doubt as to whether it should be continuous or consecutive, he should apply to the Minister. I am not here to remove his doubts. What I am anxious about is that the rights of those who are, employed, or at any rate the position of these people is safeguarded, and that the Government shall do in the Bill what they are trying to make the country believe is the effect of their proposals. The Minister in the memorandum to the: Bill has said that after so many years and, if a contributor has so many contributions, he shall have an extended period of free insurance; he is to have medical benefit and certain other benefits. If the scheme had been kept on a proper basis, he would have had a right to all these benefits. The Minister of Labour seems to be taking over the whole question of unemployment maintenance, and there fore, I fail to see why the Minister of Health cannot safeguard the rights of those who are in health insurance to the benefits which they were to ld they would enjoy. It may be a more costly scheme of insurance, but it is something to which they can look forward, and, faced with many difficulties and the possibility of being thrown out of all manner of benefits, including pensions, they will want a far greater amount of satisfaction than the Minister has given this after noon. I hope there will be opportunities on the Committee stage for a clearer explanation and that something more will be done in the Bill. Ever since I came into the House I have always taken exception to any Clause in a Bill which has been drafted in the same way as Clause 14 in this Bill. It says:
  "Regulations may be made under the Insurance Act providing, in the case of any persons who are insured on the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-five, for the transition from the pro visions of the Insurance Act and any sub sequent enactment affecting the m, other than this Act, to the provisions of the Insurance Act as amended by this Act, and for the application to them of any of the provisions of the Insurance Act or of any subsequent enactment, including this Act."
  The Minister of Health smiles. He may think that I want to poke fun at the

  2079
  vagueness of the Clause. I am not trying to poke fun at it at all. I want to point out that, instead of providing these powers by regulations they should be given by distinct Clauses in the Bill. I hate provisions in a Bill which enable departments to come to this House and ask for powers to do certain things by regulation. It is undemocratic and unfair to hon. Members who can only voice their objections to such regulations after 11 o'clock at night. I suggest that in this case the regulations should be definitely inserted in the Bill. This is not a hastily conceived Bill; it has been before the Department for a long time, probably for two years, and the nature of the regulations must be perfectly clear in the minds of the officials in the Department. I think the House should have these proposals in the Bill itself so that it may have an opportunity of discussing the m, understanding exactly what they mean, and what it is proposed to do. We shall on the Committee stage put forward proposals which we think will improve the Bill. We want to see pension rights pre served and health benefit rights pre-served—
  Sir H. YOUNG: In regard to Clause 14, I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that the regulations to be made deal with transitional matters, that is with persons who are out of health insurance but not pension benefits and that it is a Clause to apply to them the provisions of the Bill. It will not be possible to deal with any regulations affecting general matters under that Clause.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is quite true. Regulations may be made under the Insurance Act, but I am taking exception to regulations being brought in. We shall do our best to improve the Bill because we are thoroughly in accord with the desire of the Government to preserve the rights of the people to their pensions. We wish to preserve their rights to benefits. We wish to make it easier for them to qualify. We desire that instead of there being at any future time any effort on the part of the Government to deprive them of benefits by taking away any surpluses in the funds, those surpluses shall be used for the purpose for which the funds are built up, and that not again shall we have the possibility of a
  2080
  Minister coming to this House, and through the operations of an Economy Bill robbing the fund of£28,000,000 over 10 years, and then coming before the House and trying to make a great to -do and a wonderful parade of being exceedingly generous to the contributors from whom he has previously taken services away, by saying that he is doing some thing to preserve their benefits.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: It must, I think, be due to the difficult economic times through which we are passing, and also to the office which he holds, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has had occasion more than once to come to this House to explain Bills of an extraordinarily difficult, technical and complicated character. To-day, as on the occasion a few weeks ago when, he introduced the Unemployment assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has given an exposition to the House for which I, for one, am grateful, and which must have facilitate consideration of the Bill to all those Members who have not had occasion to give special study to the subject. This must be to my right hon. Friend, and indeed to the House, a much more agree able occasion than the day in 1932 when he had to come here fortified with a formidable report and a warning from the Government actuary. I am glad that the situation has to-day been so far restored, and also that the Bill which we are asked to consider is not one of a stop-gap nature. If it is not of a permanent character, at all events it gives an assurance to large numbers of people who have felt considerable anxiety regarding the matters dealt with in the Bill. If it is not a permanent Bill, I hope it may be permanent until such time as the Minister can come here and propose the removal of the remaining stitches, and an extension of the benefits which can be provided under National Health Insurance.
  But if the Bill is of a technical and complicated character, it certainly has to deal with one of the most serious and most humane problems that the country has to face. It centres around the problem of the long-term unemployment of that mass of people who are the most unfortunate in the community, who have been obliged to live for years at a mere

  2081
  subsistence level, who have been bereft of the amenities which many of us enjoy, and have been deprived of their economic liberty in large measure. To these people the prospect of losing their pension rights seemed to be the last blow from a society which had used them exceedingly ill. For that relief they and everyone interested in their welfare must be exceedingly glad. Relief from the necessity of paying contributions in respect of arrears at a time when their resources have been reduced to the lowest possible level is a boon which will be welcomed by a very large number of people.
  This Bill is another indication of the way in which our economic and social liberties are centring around the intractable problem of long-term unemployment. It ought to be a spur now to the adoption of a many-sided attack upon that urgent problem. We had an example yesterday of a bold step and an encouraging step being announced by the Government, and one which I hope may be the forerunner of many others, because there is very little elasticity unfortunately in the fund with which this Bill has to deal, and it can only be from a further measure of economic recovery that we can re cover some resiliency in this fund and enable further benefits to be given.
  I am not able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr Maclean) in his criticism of the 10 years qualification period and its effect upon the depressed areas. It is true that a large number of people affected by this Bill will be found in those areas. I have been making some inquiries in my own district, and have been surprised to find that there are from 2, 500 to 3, 000 people, not who will be excluded under the Bill, but who will be brought back into medical benefit by it. That is a very satisfactory conclusion. There is, however, a matter which might be cleared up. We were to ld of 9 per cent, of some 200,000, so that there would appear to be the number of 5, 000 who may be excluded by the Bill. That is a very different conclusion from that on which the hon. Member for Govan based his argument.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Twenty thousand.
  Mr. WHITE: I thought the Minister said that the number permanently ex cluded under the 10 years qualification would be perhaps 5,000.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I said that the total number concerned was 200,000, and the estimate was that a maximum 9 per cent. Of that 200,000 might fail to qualify. Of these it was supposed that at least half would re-enter employment soon, so reducing those who failed to qualify to about 5 per cent. Of the 200,000.
  Mr. WHITE: The criticism that I would make is not that of the hon. Member for Govan, but that if the number is only 5,000 surely the whole arrangement is somewhat complicated. Even if the number were 20,000 I would as k, "Is it worth while maintaining this structure and this particular arrangement in order to exclude that comparatively small number?" That is the only criticism I would make in that connection But we are here, in effect, with in the terms of the National Health Insurance scheme giving unemployment benefit, and I would like to suggest, not for the first time, that it is an urgent matter that we should have a survey of the finances of these different social ser vices. Anyone examining the finance of the National Health Insurance scheme must be struck by the fact that there is. No resiliency in it at all, and that our pension system is being maintained with difficulty. One frequently hears promises made of great extensions of the old age pension system, in various quarters; they may be very attractive, because the whole tendency of modern industry is to wards a reduction of the hours of work, and as that process is going on there must arise a demand for efforts to concentrate the new leisure on those who are entitled to rest after a life's work. But there is no such probability contained in the finance of the National Health Insurance scheme so far as it relates to contributory pensions. It is, therefore, a matter of importance that the whole finance in relation to un employment funds and our social services as a whole should be reviewed, as they were in 1924, to see what possibilities there may be of extensions either under this scheme or other schemes. We on the Liberal benches welcome this Bill. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, would say something in explanation of Clause 7 to which the Minister did not refer. It appears to re-establish the rights of people disqualified by law,

  2083
  by the decision of the courts. I wonder whether it covers the casual or semi-casual employment of those who are employed in the lairages on Merseyside, who are not paid weekly but are paid so much per animal dealt with. Is that type of worker covered? I understand that some of them have been disqualified. Will that be set right? We hope that the Bill will become law quickly, with such modification as may be necessary. The re are some points which some of my hon. Friends may wish to raise if they are fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in this Debate, or later in Committee.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. MORGAN: I would like to join in the welcome to the Bill and to echo the statement of the last speaker in welcoming the conditions that make the Bill possible. I realise how very difficult it is for an ordinary back-bencher, certainly for a layman, to go through one of these Bills and understand it. It is very much like a jig-saw puzzle I want to show how difficult it is to follow, and perhaps the Parliamentary draftsman will take note. The Bill, as soon as one gets to Clause 1, refers to Sub-section (1, a)(5, a), (6, a)and (6, b) of Section 3 of the Act of 1924. But these Sub-sections are to be found in Section 1 of the National Health Insurance (Contributory Pensions) Act of 1932. Yet Sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act of 1924, referred to in Clause 11, appears in the Act of 1932, Section 4, and substituted by another Sub-section which in the Act of 1928 had been added to Section 15. It would be a very great convenience if some reference could be made in the Bill to Statutes containing the provisions referred to or proposed to be amended if they are not in the original Act but were inserted in some subsequent Act. The time seems to have arrived when the National Insurance Act, 1924, and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Con tributary Pensions Act, 1925, should, pending a consolidating Act, be available in a form indicating the amendments made by subsequent Acts.
  With regard to the main purpose of the Act, I think we are all in agreement that it is a great improvement and very welcome, especially in regard to the 10 years' insurance. I am rather inclined to agree
  2084
  with the hon. Member opposite that the continuous 10 years does make a rather hard and fast rule, and, with out going into any particular detail, I wonder whether in Committee we might not possibly have a composite number of 10 years made up of different periods. I do not know how that would affect the actuarial balance. With regard to the other part, the person insured for four years and less than 10 years, I think that will meet with general approval.
  There are one or two points to which I wish to call attention. By Clause 6 it is proposed to amend Section 89 of the Insurance Act of 1924. Unless we look at Section 89 for a moment we cannot follow what is actually proposed. The re are four questions which may be dealt with. The first is whether employment is employment with in the meaning of the Act or whether a person is employed or a voluntary contributor; the second gives the rate of contribution which applies in respect of the insured person; the third deals with the rates of contribution of the employer and the contributor respectively, and the last is as to the per son who is or was the employer. The se questions were to be determined by the Minister.
  I think this brings me right up against Clause 7 to which my hon. Friend has referred. The point, in regard to questions 1 and 4, is that where a person is aggrieved by the decision of the Minister, that person is allowed to appeal to the High Court. Under Clause 6 "any per son" appointed in accordance with the regulations made under Section 89 has really the powers of the court. He may.
  "by summons require any person to attend, at such time and place as is set forth in the summons, to give evidence or to pro duce any documents in his custody or under his control which relate to the question to be determined, and may take evidence on oath…."
  I want to know what particular kind of person is meant to be defined here. He is going to have tremendously wide powers and before conferring them upon these persons we ought to have some idea of the type likely to be appointed. The Minister has given him powers equivalent to those of a court. It certainly seems to me that he will have powers very much in the nature of an inquisition. The other part of Clause 6

  2085
  states that a man can be given necessary expenses if he comes a distance of 10 miles. I do not know why 10 miles was selected, or whether it means that a man who comes only nine miles will not be able to claim any expenses, and whether the expenses include a claim for time and work lost. Under Section 7 it seems to me that the Minister is going to be put in a position of overriding the decision of the High Court. That may be very reasonable in a case of hardship or in borderline cases, but I suggest that it is a power we should give in this House very reluctantly.
  Clause 13 is certainly an improvement on the provisions in the Act of 1924, as while the accounts are to be prepared in such form and manner and at such times as the Treasury may direct, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is to examine and certify them with out any direction on the part of the Treasury. This is an improvement on the Act, but I very much question whether the new provision will make any alteration to the old practice. I do not quite understand Clause 18, and I hope that will be made clear in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. By Section 33 of the Widows' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, provision is made for reciprocal arrangements with other parts of the Dominions. By Clause 18 it appears to be intended to provide that these arrangements, where already made, are not to cover insurance for the purpose of the present Bill. I do not know whether that is the ruling of the Minister. Presumably the intention is that where arrangements have been made the passage of the Bill should not impose any further obligation.
  I have drawn attention to one or two points, and I do not know whether I should be in order in calling attention to a general point. I think most of us are agreed that in a Bill like this, which improves the condition in which the people work, we should give particular attention to the way in which the people who come with in the ambit of the Act are treated. Generally speaking, they are treated remarkably well, but there are cases of patients who are treated rather in a "panel" sort of way which the Minister might investigate. I do not know whether these panel doctors have to o many patients on their list, but these poor people have grounds for grumbling
  2086
  when they have to sit for a long time in queues and get no proper treatment at the finish.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think we can allow that point to be developed. If the hon. Member looks at the title of the Bill, he will find that he is now coming to something which is far outside the scope of this particular Bill.
  Mr. MORGAN: I bow to your Ruling. All I will say, in conclusion, is that I am in hearty agreement with the Bill and the Government have my support. I hope in the Committee that several parts of the Bill which may very reasonably be strengthened will be amended accordingly.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to say a few words on one of the most important Bills that this House has discussed. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Bill, no one can gainsay the fact that a Bill which deals with so many people and with issues of such importance demands our closest attention. I do not want to be unduly critical of my colleagues in this House, because I have many failings my self, but sometimes one does become sceptical. One sees this House packed when we are discussing issues of foreign affairs, India and other things. When we come down to the question of maternity welfare and the sick, where great human issues are involved on which the nation of the future must depend, you find comparatively few taking notice and comparatively little interest shown, Naturally one becomes sceptical. It may be true that we have become rather used to these issues. They come to us each year; they are repeated half-a-dozen times in a year, and it may be that the ordinary Member of Parliament, like everybody else, likes change, and, because this is a hardy annual, it does not involve the change that seems to be necessary.
  The Bill does make for improvement, and I do not profess to deny it. It is no good my saying it does not make for improvement when it does. That does not mean to say that the Government are to be complimented on it. This Government in 1932 took away certain rights. Now they are proposing, not to restore the m, because they are not re storing them fully, but partially to

  2087
  restore the m. They are claiming this as good. It reminds me of the criminal who commits crime for a while and then stops it and becomes a decent citizen. Everybody compliments him, but the poor fellow who has never been a criminal at all is not complimented. What has happened is that the Government have robbed the people, and now, having got over that period and a General Election coming near, they alter their point of view. I fail to see that this is something for congratulation. I agree that they have now come forward to restore part of what they took away. I should have thought that in 1935—indeed, many years ago—instead of merely dealing with re storing certain things that were taken away we should have been engaged on a Bill which would have extended pensions far greater than before; that we should have been bending our mind and attention not merely to restoring a certain number, but how we could extend and expand these particular benefits to classes now left out. Instead of that, we are dealing to-day with this Bill which merely seeks partially to restore the position existing before the Act of 1932.
  It does make for certain improvements on the present position. I must confess I find myself slightly at variance with the hon. Member and the Government in the interpretation of the 10 years' insurance. Ten years' insurance, as I find it, is not 10 years' insurance as de fined in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, but 10 years' insurance provided that the 160 contributions and the four years are guaranteed with the 10 years' insurance, or 10 years in which his approved society are satisfied that the person is with in the purview of insurance. Therefore, although be might have been disqualified for unemployment insurance purposes, if his approved society has accepted him, the position is, for him, safeguarded. While that makes for improvement and means that a large number who would have passed out under other conditions will not now pass out, and that a large number who lost medical benefit will have it restored, the Bill does not carry out all the improvements that have been suggested. I wish to direct attention to the position of those who have not 10 years in insurance, that is to say, those who have 160 contributions and four years in insurance. I suggest
  2088
  that a certain number of them will lose under these proposals.
  Hitherto, it seems to have been accepted by hon. Members who have spoken that this Bill gives something to everybody and that nobody loses anything by it. The re is a class who will lose something. Take these people to whom I refer who have not the 10 years' insurance. Under the present Act these people are given, first, a year and nine months and then a period of free insurance of a further year. The Minister says that the further year still applies for pension purposes, that is to say that such a man, as regards pension, is no worse off. But the Bill does not make that as clear as the right hon. Gentle man suggested. The 1932 Act gave him the year and nine months and then the extra year. Does this Bill, first of all, give him the extra year for pension purposes.? the Minister says that it does, but I would like to see the provision in the Bill which gives him the year. If the Minister says that is the effect of the Bill I cannot deny it, but I would like to see such a provision definitely inside the Bill. What I am concerned with is not the Minister's statement, because the courts do not base decisions on what Members say here but on what is in the Acts of Parliament which we pass here.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 20.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentle man sure that Clause 20 provides for this matter? If he is, then I accept it, but here again I say there are people who definitely lose under these proposals. The re is the man, as I have said, who has four years and has the further year and nine months and then the extra year. Assume the Minister to be right and that such a man has the year for pension purposes. At the present time, the extra year also carries with it sickness benefit. He is now going to lose his sickness benefit in the extra year. In other words, that section who are not fortunate enough to have the 10 years—and indeed in my view, even the 10-year people themselves but at least the four-year people—will lose in this way. They now receive two years and nine months and in the extra year of that period they are entitled to receive sickness benefit. That will now

  2089
  go. I know that under this proposal if such a man's pension rights are safe guarded, his additional benefits will be safeguarded, but his other extra payments go, and he will not receive his cash benefits. Therefore, do not assume that this Bill gives something to every body and that nobody loses by it. It takes from the group of people I have indicated something which they now possess.
  Sir L. THOMPSON: At the end of 1934–35 when the cash benefits cease?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Let me repeat what I have said so that the hon. Member will follow it. At the present time the man to whom I refer is given a year and nine months and then an extra year. In that extra year he is entitled to receive cash benefits. Under this proposal his cash benefits in that extra year cease. I defy the Minister to deny it. It can not be denied that such a man is losing those cash benefits. I take it the Minister accepts that view and I hope the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) will accept the view of his own leader. I hope also that hon. members who up to now have been assuming that everybody was to get something under the Bill will now realise that there is a class who are losing valuable cash benefits which they now possess. When we are talking about the gifts that we are making to people we ought not to forget that point. I detest the kind of legislation which seeks to give something to one poor man at the expense of some other poor man. It puts a Member of this House in an almost impossible position. To-day we are, in fact, engaged in taking away from those people a, very valuable right. I agree with the last speaker on the form of this legislation. The National Health Insurance Acts are becoming as involved as the Unemployment Insurance Acts. We now have all sorts of Acts dealing with this subject one cutting across the other and I defy any ordinary man to understand them with out difficulty. I am not referring now to insured contributors but to secretaries of approved societies. When a secretary sits down in conjunction with his colleagues to consider these Acts they can, as a group, arrive at an understanding of the m, but for a man by himself to master them is a task which presents great difficulties. I ask the House to remember
  2090
  that this Measure will have to be interpreted by ordinary men who at present do great work in running the approved societies.
  To turn from that aspect of the question to another point may I say that we often talk in this House as if nobody had been passed out of insurance in these years, when, as a matter of fact there verse is the case. Approved societies have passed scores of thousands out of insurance because, inside the Act, a per son has to prove availability for work. It is true as the Minister may say that franked cards may be accepted but there is no compulsion on the approved societies to accept the m. The re is the type of man who says, "I am out of work but I am going out to search for work, "and who does not get franked cards. One of the things which makes me boil over in connection with this matter is that no provision is made for those who are perhaps the most deserving section of the community. Take the case of the man who says: "I am unemployed but I do not want public assistance. I am going to undertake an adventure. I am going to start a shop or I am going abroad." We are constantly hearing about initiative and adventure and thrift. The re is a case which I have raised in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland.of an old man who was insured and who afterwards was dismissed. He said, "I am going to search around for work as a jobbing gardener." He did so and got the work and to-day he cannot get a pension because he worked. He did not get his cards franked. He went out to look for work. Why in heaven's name should we penalise a decent man in that fashion? When the Attorney-General was cadging for votes at a by-election in East Renfrew he said that the Government were going to introduce a Bill to bring in people such as small shopkeepers. Instead of that we are engaged to-day in this miserable kind of thing trying to see how a man can get franked cards and how he can be collared into insurance in this way. Is there any hon. Member who knows the merits of the cases which are turned down—the merits of those cases in regard to such matters as searching for work and industry and thrift—who would not agree that 99 per cent. Of the cases turned down are at least as deserving as those which are

  2091
  accepted. In spite of that we have all sorts of tests.
  There is another Clause of the Bill to which I take exception. It is in relation to the question of local authorities and certain payments in regard to hospitals. The local authorities are to have power with the consent of the persons concerned to take certain sums from them and when that Clause is being considered in Committee I shall have a great deal of pleasure in opposing it. The re is also a Clause dealing with the voluntary contributor, and I would ask the Minister what is the position of a person who became a voluntary contributor and who now finds that as a result of this Bill that there was no need for him to have become a voluntary contributor? Under the 1932 Act he felt that unless he became a voluntary contributor he would lose certain rights. This Bill, if he has 10 years insurance, guarantees his pension rights provided he proves genuine unemployment. In other words, a man who is perhaps at the present time unemployed, has under the 1932 Act taken on a heavier burden of payments than he need have undertaken. To -day if he has these qualifications he finds that his position is safeguarded with out the necessity of becoming a voluntary contributor. What then is his position to -day? I would also like to have explained in a little more detail the position of the voluntary contributor who is out of work. Supposing a person becomes a voluntary contributor and he has a little shop and he loses his shop. What is his position under the Bill? I put these questions because I think the position to-day is insecure.
  I do not intend to say more than this. The Bill does effect some sort of improvement, but it is not an improvement for which I thank the Government in any way. They had no right to do what they did to these people. Just imagine anybody congratulating them now on an extra year when they say they cannot give maternity benefit. I listened to the discussions about the distressed areas when we were appointing the Commissioners. I heard all about the fine sturdy men of character, in Durham and Wales. One would imagine that one of the first concerns of the Government would be the restoration, at least, of the maternity benefit. What angers me about this
  2092
  matter is that you would think that the unborn child was in some way responsible for unemployment, because he is punished in advance. You count the unemployed person's child as in a sort of fund to see if he is actuarially sound. In the one case, when you are looking for Army recruits, when you are looking for your Air Force, you spare neither time nor money to make it efficient, to kill, for death;you are piling up the millions now for death. But when somebody comes along and as ks for the miserable 21, 000,000—nay, less—to see that the un born child of the unemployed man gets a chance of the same sum as the child of the person who is in work, you say, "Oh no, actuarially it is not sound." But if it was for your Army or your Navy, not one of these considerations would enter in, not even, as the Minister said, a balanced Budget.
  This Bill is meagre. It makes an improvement, but at the same time it takes from people something which they have now got. It gives them an improvement at the expense of taking something else from the m. I do not look upon this Bill with any great gratification at all, and I say to the Government and to their sup porters, and to the Opposition supporters as well, that I hope the electors through out the country in the election that is coming, if not in the immediate future, 'at least this year, will demand from their public representatives that no men or women shall come here to represent them unless pledged, even against their own Government, to vote for health services and pension rights to be extended to everyone in the community, irrespective of calling, creed, or sex.
  5.33 p.m.
  Sir L. THOMPSON: I always listen with the greatest attention to the speeches of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I think that possibly, after reflection, when he gets home and has had a night's rest, he will rather regret what he has said; for after all his criticisms and his belief that this is a poor contribution, I personally think it is one of the finest contributions to one of the great social services that we have had. He would like this House to believe that practically we are doing nothing for the social services, but as a matter of fact we are spending at least £500,000,000 in actual social services, and this country

  2093
  has been pre-eminent in its social ser vices throughout the world. With regard to extended benefit, I understood the hon. Member for Gorbals to say that at the termination of the insurance year all benefit would cease.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: No. Let me try to put my case again.
  Viscountess ASTOR: No.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not? the Noble Lady-.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Let me alone.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I wish to make is that at the end of year and nine months a person is granted an extra year. During that extra year he is, entitled to receive cash benefit. Under this Bill during that extra year he cannot receive cash benefit.
  Sir L. THOMPSON: But under this Bill his benefit is made permanent. It is true that in the extended year you do not give cash benefit. When a man is out of work, as I read it, if he can prove unemployment, he will be maintained in medical benefit to the end of his days if need be.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Only doctor's, but no cash benefit.
  Sir L. THOMPSON: I rise to give my unqualified support to the Bill, and I regret very much that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) did not, as I think, speak quite from his heart. If he had, he would have said: "This is one of the finest contributions we have had for many a day to the social ser vices of the country, and I will give it my whole-hearted support, and while I believe we can make it a little better, at the same time I am prepared, with my party, to help make it one of the finest Acts that has been put on the Statute Book for many a day." I am sure that that is in his heart and that that is what he feels.
  Mr. MACLEAN: MayIsay that that is not in my heart? I spoke with my to ngue, and I spoke from conviction.
  Sir L.THOMPSON: The n all I can say is that the hon. Member must be a very hard-hearted man.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I hope I may be a fit Member to be in the next Cabinet.
  Sir L. THOMPSON: After what the present Government have produced in this Bill, I am sure that every one of us would willingly have played a part in the Cabinet. When the word "continuously" is used, I take the interpretation of it that the hon. Member for Gorbals has taken; that is to say, that a man may have entered insurance when he was 20 or 30 years of age, and when he was 50 he may have gone out of benefit, but if he can prove that although he has had periods of unemployment he has had 10 years' continuous insurance, he will qualify under the Bill. I hope that is true. The hon. Member for Govan assumed that a man would have to have 10 years' consecutive contributions, but I do not think the Bill says that at all. I think it means 10 years' continuous employment. I am satisfied with the explanation of the Minister that 95 per cent. Possibly of the people will qualify. I am satisfied also that the 10 per cent. About which the Minister also spoke will apply to the young people who have just entered into insurance and who will, under the ordinary circumstances of life, have ample opportunities in the future of qualifying for insurance.
  It seems to me that this is an agreed Bill, and whatever may have been said, I think we all really give it our support. I think, however, that because it is an approved Bill, there is a danger that it may not get quite the publicity it should get. I think we should make this throughout the country a very great feature. It is a great and a very good Bill. I accept it again for its permanent character and also, as the Minister said, for its simplicity and its simplification of administration. Some two or three years ago, when I was chairman of a certain committee, we had to have some departmental representatives before us, and the question of the unification of insurance came up, but the administrative difficulties were so great that that unification became very nearly impossible to contemplate. Here is the Minister of Health coming along and, with a rather fine stroke, by the act of cancelling arrears, simplifying the administration to a very great degree, which I welcome.
  The provision for the diversion of unemployment arrears rather intrigues

  2095
  me. It seems to me that it is a kind of insurance with in an insurance. By doubling a certain contribution to wards an arrears fund, you are reinsuring or doubly insuring a man against unemployment, and for that reason I think it is a very great help to the man who is likely to be in prolonged unemployment. What ever may be said about cash benefits, there is another side to look at, and that is that his Bill, while possibly not giving all that we would like, makes provision for the future security and happiness of the worker, which cannot be estimated simply in cash benefit [Laughter.] Hon.Members opposite may laugh, but, living as I have done all my life and representing as I have done for the last 30 years a great industrial centre, I know what this will mean to the man who will get a concept of permanency in this form of insurance that he has never had before. It is a promise of a permanent solution of a very difficult problem, and I want to express my strong approval of the Bill. I hope the House as a whole will loyally co-operate with the Minister of Health in making it a very complete success.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Although I welcome the Bill, I fear I cannot rise to the heights of eloquence which we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson), who has just sat down. The hon. Member speaks of it as a great Bill, and from the way in which he addressed the House one would imagine that it is the greatest Measure of social insurance which has been introduced by the present Government. But, after all, it is a very small Bill, and, although we welcome it, I for one would have welcomed a very much larger Bill, dealing with all those aspects of national insurance which have been prominently before the country for the last 21 or 22 years. The Government have endeavoured to do with unemployment insurance what ought to have, been done with national health insurance. The re was an opportunity, probably, not to bring in legislation for the unification of social insurance, but at any rate to do something to fill those gaps to which attention has constantly been drawn by all who have had to administer national health insurance.
  2096
  To take simply one aspect of national health insurance, everyone who is familiar with the administration of medical benefit realises how imperfect it is in various directions. A panel doctor has not the assistance that he ought to get in connection with diagnostic facilities; no consultant is pro vided, and no major surgical operations are available for the insured person. The se are matters which might have been incorporated in any measure of this kind. Possibly they are blessings that will come in the future. This question of the restoration of medical benefit to un employed persons has been before the House on more than one occasion, some times by questions, and on one, if not two occasions, by debate. Appeals have been made from time to time to the Minister to do something for the 200,000 men and women who have ceased to enjoy medical benefits. I am not certain whether those of us who raised this question in the past have been treater by the Minister with the courtesy to which we are entitled. Probably he did not realise the great anxiety that the insurance committees, approved societies and others evinced because they felt that a very large number of members of ap proved societies were losing what they regarded as a valuable right and were obliged to appeal to public assistance committees for medical benefit.
  This is a small Measure and might very well have been introduced 18 months or two years ago. If it had been, all the anxiety to which 200,000 people have been subjected for months would have been avoided. I am certain that no one in the House will do any thing to oppose or to hinder the passing of the Bill. The re are possibly points of detail to which many of us would like to draw attention in Committee. 1 should like, in the first instance, to sup port the point of view which was put by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) and one or two other Members as to the evil of legislation by reference. We have in the series of Acts of Parliament dealing with national health insurance some of the very worst examples of legislation by reference. The hon. Member who first raised this matter pointed out that in Clause 1 of the Bill there is a reference to the Act of 1924. The re are scores of thousands of officials of approved societies in different parts of

  2097
  the country who are called upon to ex plain the provisions of these Acts to insured persons. How on earth they can do so passes the comprehension of any one who has been trained in the legal profession. I suggest that the time has come, now that we have a series of Acts of Parliament dealing with one of the most important aspects of our national life, when there should be a consolidation Act at the earliest possible date. The only hope I have is that consolidation is being delayed because the Government have in view the possibility of doing something to enlarge the scope of the Insurance Acts.
  With reference to the contribution which is to be made by the approved societies to wards the finance of this Bill, the Minister, in opening the Debate, referred to the fact that he hoped not only that medical benefit would now be avail able to all men and women who have gone out through unemployment, but that they would also be entitled to the additional treatment benefits. We have reason to anticipate that there may be difficulty in this connection. We talk about societies, but societies are com posed of individual members who con tribute. The contribution will not be made by societies, but by each individual member of the societies. What will be the result? the surpluses which would otherwise be available for those members will naturally be reduced as a result of this contribution of £750,000 a year. It will then be made more difficult for the societies to give the additional treatment benefits. Everyone recognises that these additional benefits are essential if medical benefit is to serve the purpose that it ought to serve. Take, for instance, the case of dental benefit. Unfortunately, a large number of societies have already failed, owing to the drop in their reserves, to give any more dental benefit. I think that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, after the next valuation for these benefits to be given to insured persons in view of this contribution.
  Reference has been made by more than one Member to the relation of the unemployment Acts with the National Health Insurance Acts. I am rather disposed to think that the funds for this purpose might have been provided from another contribution. When a man is out of employment, the State has recognised
  2098
  his right to receive benefit as a substitution for the wages he has lost. It is, of course, an inadequate substitution, but, at any rate, he has something to wards making up to him what he has lost in wages. I venture to suggest that having gone so far, the Government ought to have gone a step further, and have said that it should be part of a man's unemployment benefit that a contribution should be made from the Unemployment Funds in lieu of the contribution which he is unable to make on account of loss of employment. Instead of the trouble of franking cards and so on, there should be a contribution week by week from the Unemployment Fund itself to enable an unemployed man, not merely to retain his medical benefit and his pension rights, but also to maintain the cash benefits which he has lost as the result of unemployment. Because of the loss of these other benefits, the State or the public assistance committees have to come to his help. I trust that when any attempt is made to bring the Unemployment Acts into closer relation with the National Health Insurance Acts, this aspect will not be overlooked. We welcome this measure as some slight contribution—not a big Bill ranking with the National Health Insurance Act of 1911—to the very difficult situation which has arisen. At the same time, we hope that it is not a permanent solution of this matter, but only a temporary method of dealing with it, and that either this Government or some future Government will deal with the situation on broader and more generous lines.
  5.56 p.m.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I think I agree with all the speakers I have heard, but the bon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) was more to the point and more right than any of them in congratulating the Government. We know the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), and we do not expect them to be pleased. The re is no reason why they should be. No one is pleased when he sees a Government do what a Government of his party could not do. I do not know what sort of House of Commons would please the hon. Member for Gorbals. However, I am certain that a Labour House of Commons would not please him, and I do not believe that even a Communist Government would. I

  2099
  thinks he finds himself more spiritually congenial with this House than any other that he has experienced, because he finds more companions among people outside the Labour party and does not feel the slightest responsibility for the Opposition. It is remarkable that the Government have done as well as they have in the last three or four years. The real trouble about the Government is that they have had such a very poor Opposition. In a democratic form of Government you must have a strong opposition in order to keep you up to the mark. The present Government have never had that, and in spite of a very feeble Opposition—I am not saying mentally feeble, but numerically feeble—they have gone on with great social reforms, and they deserve great credit for it. I have no doubt that if they had had a greater Opposition, they would have brought in a Bill even bigger than this.
  This is not a perfect Bill, but it goes a long way to wards satisfying a great many people. The great friendly societies to which I have spoken are delighted. They say that, from the point of view of the country generally, the introduction of this Measure has done more good than anything they know of, because it is taking anxiety from the people who are least able to bear greater anxiety, namely, the insured unemployed. The Minister of Health appeared in the flowing robes of Ceasar's wife in presenting this Bill. I think that, as he appeared in that role, he should have made a, greater provision for maternity benefit. I really think he could have let his imagination flow on a little further in that direction. I know that it cannot be done on an actuarial basis, but of all the women who need help most, the expectant mother who is the wife of an unemployed man is in most need. It cannot be said, if the Government stretch a point and give a maternity cash benefit to the unemployed that it will encourage children, even though we have got to a point when we have to encourage the growth of the population instead of discouraging it. I know women well enough, and have had enough children of my own, to know that no woman whose husband is out of work is going to have a child just because she will get a cash benefit. That argument would not go down in any community.
  2100
  I implore the Government to see whether they cannot extend the period for maternity benefit, even when the other cash benefits have come to an end. It would not cost a great deal, and would be an enormous service to the most pathetic of all women in the country. I do not want to make a long, sobbing speech like that of the hon. Member for Gorbals—we stopped "sob stuff" in the House years ago, because it gets youowhere—but I feel that if the House would only exercise its imagination it would beg the Government to go a little further and grant maternity benefit to the wives of unemployed men who have got out of insurance. In 1932 the Government said they had to cut down health Insurance benefits for women because women were drawing out more than they paid in, and one cannot complain about that, but as regards unemployment insurance women put in more than they draw out, and so when we come to unemployment insurance the women ought to receive more.
  We are as king no impossible thing of the Government. We congratulate them on producing this Bill. Not half enough is being made of it. Unless there is an agitation in the country a thing does not get publicity, and one cannot expect the Labour party to go round agitating about this Bill; they want to cover it up, to make out that it has not happened, and if they did create an agitation about it they would be certain to misrepresent it —and I do not blame the m, because it is all in the day's work. I regret, however, that more Members were not present to hear the Minister and to take part in this Debate, which I regard as a very important one, not from the political point of view but from the social point of view. This is a Measure which will bring ease to many a home and many a heart.
  I end up with one more plea for the ex tension of the maternity benefit. I am sure that if "Ceasar's wife" would go so far as to make a plea to the House for it, he would get it. So far the Government have come out on to p. The re has been no severe criticism of the Bill, though some have said that it has not gone far enough. I would add that I hope that this Government or the next Government —the reorganised Government, or what ever Government we are going to getting

  2101
  will consider the case of the small shop keepers. I hope that some day an insurance Bill will be introduced to include the m, because among them there are many cases of genuine hardship. The Government have done so well that there is no reason why they should not do even better. I congratulate them with my whole heart. I do not think any country has done better than this country in the last four years, in spite of the fact that we have no dictators. It is easy enough for a dictator to pass laws. In spite of not being a dictatorial Government, and in spite of having had no pressure from the Opposition—a very poor Opposition—the Government have done remarkably well.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: The last speaker is a delightful person. She says that we are a weak Opposition and never put up our own case, and yet because the two hon. Members below the Gangway make a fight of it, she tells them that nothing will content them but a Parliament of their own. I suppose that if we were to put up a strong opposition we should be to ld that we want a Parliament of our own. The n she went on to say that we shall misrepresent the Government in the country and make out the worse possible case against the Bill, while at the same time declaring that the Opposition ought to force the Government to do what is right and proper. The Government ought not to require anyone to tell them of the wrongs that need to be righted. I think the Noble Lady ought to read over her speeches to see what it is she really wants.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I cannot conceive anything more boring than having to read over one's own speeches;it is bad enough having to make them. I am sure the hon. Member realises that in a democratic form of government it is bad to have one party overweighted, and I still say that I hope we shall never again have a House of Commons so over-weighted as this is, and I believe—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady is making her speech all over again.
  Mr. TINKER: Perhaps I am to blame, through the suggestion 1 made. To come to the Bill: I listened carefully to the Minister, and what I felt all the way
  2102
  through was that it was a kind of act of repentance that he was reciting to the House, because it was the mistakes of the Government which rendered this Bill necessary. If they had decided to continue the prolongation Act this Measure would not have been required. For a number of years we have been left to face the difficulties which the Government created by their action on that occasion. But I say unhesitatingly that I welcome what the Government are doing now, because from time to time I have urged them to rectify the mistakes they made the n, and it would be un gracious for me to say now that they are doing the wrong thing. And I do not say that; but, all the same, I wish the Bill had gone further and, as the Noble Lady has urged, had kept on the maternity benefits for the unemployed. People have no thought of having children in order to get the maternity benefit. The child comes, and it is the direst calamity when there is no money to provide for its needs, and I should be glad if the Minister would reconsider the position later when we, or perhaps the Noble Lady, move an Amendment on maternity benefit.
  Another thing I should like the Minister to consider is what has been happening while the prolongation Act has been in force. At every meeting that I have attended men and women have come to me to ask what is their position. I am speaking now of people who have not reached the age of 58k, when their pension rights are kept alive. Under the earlier Bill which the Minister brought in they have to pay 24 contributions in order to keep themselves right if they are unemployed-9d. per week, or 18s. a year. I know hundreds of people who have paid that 18s. for the purpose of keeping their pension rights alive. I ask the Minister whether the people who have paid that money are to get it back. I do not know whether it is possible to do anything in that direction, but if so it would be a great thing for those people. The n, from time to time we have cases in which employers default in the payment of insurance contribution for their employés. When such cases are discovered the law makes them make good their default, but a man who claims benefits during the period when the employer is not paying the contribution, finds that he has no legal

  2103
  claim to the m. I ask the Minister whether it is possible to deal with that position in this Measure. If the employer does not pay the contributions and the man makes a claim for sick benefits or other benefits the employer ought to be made to pay. Even if the employer cannot, for any reason, find the money, the man still ought not to suffer. The society of which he is a member ought to pay and be able to recover the money.
  On the larger question of the Bill itself, I hope those Members who support the Government, including the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson), will not shirk their responsibility for what has happened in the past few years. I know that they welcome this Bill, but they should remember that they supported the Government in passing the prolongation Act. The present position was brought about by the action of the Government and they ought to remember that when praising the Government. Another question I wish to raise deals with the position of the un employed man or woman who has not paid contributions over the necessary number of years. The Minister spoke about those who had been insured for 10 years. I think the limit ought to be removed altogether. Whether a man has been insured for one year or two years only he ought to be put under no handicap because he is out of employment through no fault of his own. If the suggestions for the improvement of the Bill which I have outlined could be adopted, we on these benches would give it greater support than we are likely to do, though I welcome the Bill as it is, as being a small measure of justice which has been kept back from the people for a long time.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. LECKIE: I wish to join in congratulating the Government on this comprehensive and generous Bill. I know something of the hardships which have been caused by the gaps in the recent Act. Some of them have been very serious hardships indeed, and I am glad that this Bill will remove the m. The re is no doubt that this is a comprehensive Bill. The Ministry have not been con tent with a stop-gap Measure, and that is very gratifying. The Measure is of the first importance. I notice that the "National Insurance Gazette," which
  2104
  represents friendly societies and insurance people, calls it a big Bill, and it is a big Bill because it deals in a bold way with the vexed question, not by making the funds of the unemployment insurance scheme responsible, but by making an unemployment benefit under the national insurance scheme itself. That is a very ingenious way of settling the difficulty, and I congratulate the Government upon it. I have come into close touch in my constituency with many of the large friendly societies, and I would join in the tribute which the Minister paid this after noon to their fine, self-sacrificing work. I am glad to know that the Minister has taken them into full consultation and that, as a result, this is very largely an agreed Measure between the friendly societies and the Government.
  I was present the other night at a large gathering of friendly societies, including men and women, when the outlines of this new legislation were explained, and I was deeply impressed by the warm way in which the proposals were received. I should think that no proposals to amend the National Health Insurance scheme have ever been more warmly received. I have admired the friendly societies in many ways, but never more than now because of their public spirit in sharing financial responsibility with the Government, as they are doing under the Bill. I notice that Mr. Stanley Duff, Secretary of the National Conference of Friendly Societies, sums up the Bill in these words:
  "It is a good Bill, a much needed Bill, humanely conceived."
  I understand that the approved societies, and especially the friendly societies, have always had great misgivings in carrying out the Act of 1932, which requires them to insist upon the repayment of arrears from unemployed men with the alternative of forfeiture of benefit. They have always been very sensitive concerning that arrangement, which eventually meant forfeiting medical benefit, which is the most popular and serviceable of all benefits. The most valuable benefits of all because of the wives and children, are the pension rights, linked with health insurance. That these valuable rights should be put in jeopardy in respect of many thousands of men and their wives and families at the end of the present year, solely because they were unable to find

  2105
  employment, was deplorable, and I am glad that a happy solution appears to have been found in the Bill whereby no man who has had 10 years' insurance will forfeit those valuable pension rights.
  I am confident that the approved societies will warmly welcome a Measure which preserves pension rights and retains the medical benefit of all persons who have been insured for 10 years. I think we should not quibble to o much about the 10 years' limit, which has been justified very ably by the Minister. We ought to be willing to accept it. I congratulate the Minister on the trouble he has taken to secure the co-operation of the friendly societies. It is splendid to feel that this is largely an agreed Bill, and it is vital that the co-operation of the friendly societies in the wise administration of the Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts should be retained and, if possible, increased. The Bill proceeds along those lines, and I prophesy its smooth passage through the House. I am confident that it will be received with more than gratitude by the many hundreds of thousands of people in the land whom it will most directly affect.
  6.20 p.m.
  Sir RICHARD MELLER: I do not think there has been an occasion when the right hon. Gentleman, during his terra of office as Minister of Health, has received so many congratulations upon the introduction of a Bill as he has received this afternoon, and I would add my congratulations to those which have been addressed to him and to his Department for the way in which they have overcome a very real difficulty, and given relief and encouragement to that class of person whose pensions and benefits under national health insurance have been jeopardised during the past few years. I would add also my appreciation of the representatives of the organisations who co-operated with the Department in the production of the Measure. The Bill stands pre-eminent among the Measures which have been introduced in connection with health insurance, because it does more than any other that I can remember to allay the fears and anxieties of a great number of people.
  The Bill ensures with out any doubt the continuance of benefits in the years to come and gives an assurance which will react favourably upon the people. There
  2106
  is no more anxious time in the life of a man than when he is faced with the possibility that his dependants may be left unprotected and unprovided for, and when he wonders what is going to happen, not only to himself but to the m, when old age has crept upon him and he may no longer be able to look after the m. For a good many years some of the older people have found very great difficulty in securing new opportunities in the labour market. A struggle has been going on with in the m, throughout the period of depression, as to whether their pensions and benefits would be lost, and the best that we have been able to do in the past has been to prolong from year to year their anxiety, and what I would call their agony of mind. That agony of mind is now to be wiped away, because we are settling definitely the position of men who, after being employed for a number of years, have, un fortunately, been thrown out of employment. Unemployment has been pleaded in this House. It has been represented that many excellent workers who had never known what it was to be u employed for 20 years or longer, have suffered during the great depression, and have had to seek for work from day to day, only to be refused opportunity. From the beginning of National Health Insurance they have been insured persons and they have contributions for much longer than 10 years. The question of 10 years may or may not be one upon which discussion should take place in Committee. Many of the points which have been raised this afternoon are Committee points. We should be grateful that we can give some measure of satisfaction to people who have for so long been anxious in regard to their future benefits.
  During the week-end I happened to pick up a. Sunday paper which thought it was necessary to draw the attention of its readers to the business which was to be discussed in this House in the following week. It said that the Commons, having disposed of the Bill for the prevention of overcrowding and sent it to the Lords, were taking in hand that other great humane Measure, the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill. If I understand aright the feeling which has been expressed this afternoon in this House, it certainly is

  2107
  that the Bill is a great humane Measure. We ought not to be niggling in our criticism of it, but we should consider its broad principles. If we feel that alteration should be made, let us take our opportunity in Committee to put forward our proposals. When I got the Bill, and when I read the explanations which were given by the Government Actuary and by the Ministries for this country and for Scotland, I asked myself: "Has Capitalism failed? "I have heard it said that Capitalism had failed, and that we must look to some new form of economic organisation. I turned to what was done by this House in 1911, and particularly by way of contributory pensions schemes, since 1925. Not only in this House but outside, far more attention ought to be paid to the tremendous advance which has been made in the solution of many of the difficulties which formerly confronted the great mass of the people of this country.
  Let us consider what has been done under the Widows', Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts. From 1926 to 1934, £188,000,000 was received in contributions. The re has been an Exchequer contribution of £58,000,000, and the total expenditure on pensions has been £219, 000,000. Widows' pensions accounted for £115,000,000 and orphans' pensions for £2,713,000. The sum of over £101,000,000 was paid in respect of pensions to persons between the ages of 65 and 70. The contributions under this scheme provide pensions, not only in the event of premature death of the man, but pensions from the age of 65 to the age of 70 with out imposing a means test. At the age of 70 an insured person who then comes under the Old Age Pensions scheme has the right to continue his pension with out having to undergo a means test. In view of the enormous amount of money which has been paid out, and of the liabilities and responsibilities of the Government, we ought to have a full appreciation this afternoon of the value of the benefits which we are discussing and of what they mean to the people outside. We shall realise also why the people urged us to amend the law in order that they might know where they stood and in order to pre serve the right to benefit which was conferred upon them under the respective Acts of Parliament.
  2108
  Some of the figures which have been given by the Government Actuary are startling.I read through the Actuary's report, and the figures in the last paragraph were astounding. The Actuary there estimates at £1, 613,000,000 the value of the pensions which have been pro vided. Of that sum, he expects£463,000,000 will be found by way of contributions, and that the balance, probably £1,150,000,000, will have to be found by the State. Let hon. Members think for a moment of those figures which represent a State contribution two-and-a-half times the amount of the contributions of the other contributors under the scheme. We are not therefore dealing with a very small matter this afternoon, but with a really great matter.
  Some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway have suggested that pensions should be given at a much higher rate than this, and that they should be given with out contribution, but these figures bring us, if I may use a common expression, down to earth, and I think that my hon. Friends in their heart of hearts must realise how tremendous has been the advance made by this country and by the Conservative Government during the last 10 ears with regard to the provision of pensions. The proposal which has been made by the Minister this afternoon with regard o keeping the insured person insured for the payment of pensions in the case of those persons who have been insured for 0 years, is, I think, a wise proposal. It has been suggested hat the number who will pass out this year, namely, some 00,000, will be in the main persons who will be protected under he 10-years pro vision. The Actuary comes to the conclusion hat some 5 per cent. Of them may be affected. He says in his report:
  "The number of persons due to be excluded from insurance on this date is estimated at about 200,000, practically all of whom will have paid no contributions for insurance for a period of 32 years at the least and some of whom ill never have paid a single contribution since the pension system was instituted by the Act of 1925."
  That shows what a wonderful contribution this House has made by its prolongation Measures from time to time. It has kept in insurance a considerable number of persons who, as the Actuary points out, have paid no contributions since 1925, and, further, here are some

  2109
  people—the widows of men who unfortunately died in the earlier stages—who are now receiving pensions but in respect of whom no contributions have been paid at all. Taking a broad view of this matter, the proposal of the Minister this afternoon must be regarded as highly valuable, not only by the Members of his House, who are going to take their part in placing this Measure on the Statute Book, but by those outside, who, as I have said, have been extremely worried as to what their future would be, and who will now find themselves when this Measure goes through, with that contented mind which, as the old song says, is a blessing in kind. And perhaps I might venture to add, in view of the Actuary's statement that the expectation of life as been increased during the past few years, that there may be greater expectation of life coming to a number of persons who ill find that their future is more or less assured.
  With regard to the question of arrears, while it is true that some criticisms may be made, I think that in the main the new proposal offers a distinct advantage. Let us remember what happens under the existing arrangements with regard to arrears. A man may have been given the extended period of insurance, but in many cases it may have become an empty thing, because he has one through a long period of unemployment, sometimes exceeding 21 months, as a result of which, although he has had an extended period of insurance, he has had nothing to come as a result of hat extended period. It is true that in the extended year he had his medical benefit, but, under the scheme which the Minister has outlined to-day, he will get full cash benefits during his extended period—not merely the possibility that if he is ill he may get his medical benefit, but actually something of a greater cash value.
  I would like to go into a little detail on this point, because he hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has raised it as a very serious blot upon the proposals. I think that on reflection he will probably come to a different conclusion. Under the Act of 1932, an insured person who had been four years in insurance and had paid 160 contributions got an extended year, during which he was entitled to cash benefits and medical benefit, subject to arrears. That meant
  2110
  that, if he was in arrears, he might not get anything at all, and, if he had written off some of his arrears, it had been done either at his own expense or at the expense of his society, which had set aside a fund for the relief of its insured members who were in arrears. At the end of this period all insurance benefits ceased. Under the new Bill, the extended year becomes a year of continuous insurance, covering medical benefit and pension rights, but it is with drawn from persons with less than 10 years' insurance.
  As regards cash benefits, the extended year was of very little use to the unemployed if they had been wholly unemployed throughout the preceding 12 months, and were therefore in arrears. Few of them had any money with which to pay the arrears, and, therefore, by reason of those arrears, they could not get the cash benefits. Half the excusal of arrears in the case of the man who had been wholly unemployed did not give him sickness benefit. The new proposal for continuance in insurance is linked with a complete excusal of unemployment arrears, in lieu of the extended year with half excusal of arrears, and, as a consequence, the unemployed person is on the whole better off. I wanted to make that statement for the benefit of the hon. Member for Gorbals, because I know that he takes a very deep and intelligent interest in this matter, and I hope that when he raises the point in Committee, as he has said he proposes to do, he may perhaps take a little kinder view of the proposal of the Minister than apparently he has taken this afternoon.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal as sent to:

  1. Vagrancy Act, 1935

  2. Northern Ireland Land Purchase (Winding-up) Act, 1935

  3. Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935.

  4. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1935.

  5. Renfrewshire County Council (Lochwinnoch amp;c.) Water Order Con firmation Act, 1935.

  2111

  6.Stirlingshire and Falkirk Water Order Confirmation Act, 1935.

  7.Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge) Order Confirmation Act, 1935.

  8.Folkestone and District Electricity Act, 1935.

  9.Medway Lower Navigation Act, 1935.

  10.Marlow Water Act, 1935.

  11.Norwich Electric Tramways Act, 1935.

  12.Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Act, 1935.

  13.Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Act, 1935.

  14.Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension) Act, 1935.

  15.GoldenGreen(Jewish) Burial Ground Act, 1935.

  16.Newcastle and Gateshead Water works Act, 1935.

  17.Glamorganshire Canal Company Act, 1935.

  18.Irwell Valley Water Board Act, 1935.

  19.London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1935.

  20.Mid-Wessex Water Act, 1935.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
6.52 p.m.
Sir R. MELLER: There is only one other point to which I want to draw attention. The Minister rightly touched upon the increased contribution which must be paid in respect of the pension scheme as from 1st January, 1936. That is a statutory obligation. It is not some thing introduced in this Bill, but I have no doubt that the insured person will be very surprised when he finds that in 1936 an increased contribution has to be paid. I hope that some method will be devised whereby the insured person will know some time in advance the reason why this extra charge is being made. But I venture to hope for something more, having regard to the improved conditions to which reference has been made by the Minister, namely, the increased contributions which have been received, showing that the improvement in employment in this country, if that improvement has gone on, as I believe it has, will have its reflection in the contributions to wards the unemployment scheme. Under that
2112
scheme a committee was set up to consider from time to time the finances of the scheme and to suggest benefits which might be conferred as a result of the improvement in the contributions. We cannot expect a reduction in the statutory contribution which will be demanded in 1936 and subsequent years for pensions, but I hope that the Minister will endeavour to persuade his colleague at the Ministry of Labour, if some distribution is to be made for the benefit of the insured person, that possibly a reduction in the unemployment contribution may be made as a set-off to the increase which is to be made in the health insurance pension contribution. The Bill has received much commendation this afternoon, and I would once more congratulate the Minister. I believe that I am voicing the views of those who have worked in the approved society world and of the insured when I say that at last an opportunity has been found of getting out of the difficulty into which many of them have found themselves through no fault of their own.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. JANNER: The Minister has on this occasion certainly proposed a Bill which will meet with commendation, I believe, from all parts of the House, although there will be people who will have some criticism to offer in that the Bill does not go far enough, or objections of that nature. I am sorry that we have not had a larger House in dealing with this Measure. It is very interesting to recall at this time what happened some years ago. Just as we are celebrating the Jubilee of our Gracious King we may well turn our attention for a moment to the original National Health Insurance Bill of 1911.I should like to quote one passage from the speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at that time. He said:
"Here we are in the year of the crowning of the King. We have got men from all parts of this great Empire coming not merely to celebrate the present splendour of the Empire, but also to take counsel together as to the best means of promoting its future welfare. I think that now would be a very opportune moment for us in the Homeland to carry through a Measure that will relieve untold misery in myriads of homes-misery that is undeserved; that will help to prevent a good deal of wretched ness, and which will arm the nation to fight until it conquers the pestilence that

2113
walketh in darkness and the destruction that wasteth at noonday'."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1911; col. 644, Vol. 25.]
There is no doubt that the claim made at that time by the right hon. Gentleman has to a considerable extent turned out to be justified and to-day we are undoubtedly dealing with an advance which will redound to the credit of the Minister himself and to those who have taken up the matter. Indeed, we know that other nations have sent representatives to tins country in order to study our national health insurance schemes, and they have taken strong views back to their respective countries in order to introduce similar measures the re. I happen to be vice-president of a large organisation, consisting of some 50,000 members. It is an association of friendly societies. I have examined the Bill carefully, and have consulted with officers who have been administering national health insurance and pension matters in some of the constituent societies. I am bound to say that in the main it is agreed that this will mark a distinct improvement as far as health insurance and contributory pensions are concerned. The anxiety which has hung over the heads of people who have been unemployed will undoubtedly be dispelled in many cases. People who are unemployed and who are watching for their pension rights to be retained will find themselves in the position of knowing that a pension will be there for the m.
It is rather important that we should consider the principles of health insurance and pensions in their relationship to the people who come with in their provisions respectively. It has not been pointed out yet that the pension is an annuity for which a person pays by instalments and that in respect of his payment he does not get any return until the pension itself is received; it should have a surrender value. In consequence he is insuring himself or making provision for his widow or orphan child against the day when he will no longer be with the m, and it is essential that the pension side of the scheme should be dealt with on a basis which excludes forfeiture by reason of un employment. On the other hand, the provision of health and disablement benefits is different. This is like a fire insurance or a similar insurance—one that exists in order to give insurance to the person as and when a contingency arises
2114
and in respect of which payments are being made for specific periods. Both these items have been dealt with by the Bill.
I have a number of criticisms to offer. The Minister would be well advised to take into consideration some of the points raised this afternoon, and some of the points which I now propose to raise in criticism of the details of the Bill. We have heard it explained, and I think rightly, that the complications that arise from legislation by reference are so enormous that they confuse the whole issue in many cases and make it impossible for people to understand what a Bill really means. Someone has said that the person who understands insurance measures will undoubtedly find in this Bill much that is of advantage to the insured persons. But the person who does not understand those measures will find it terribly difficult to acquaint him self with the new suggestions. I do not say that this is any fault on the part of the Minister. It is very difficult to get complicated matters of this sort put into simple language, but because yon now have a Bill entirely dependent for its sense upon reference to so many other Acts very few people can really under stand it. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he should not at the earliest possible moment have whatever is passed in this Measure consolidated with the other Acts, so that there may be a clear and distinct Act providing for all the contingencies that arise in respect of national health insurance and contributory pensions.
With regard to the Measure itself, I should like to stress the importance of the point raised as to maternity benefit. I think it would be granting an import ant concession which would not cost a tremendous amount of money. It is of infinite importance that a person who has, unfortunately, fallen out of insurance benefit, should not have the fear that his wife will not have maternity benefit avail able as and when the occasion arises. The n there is the question of extended benefits. We have heard that there is a considerable amount of anxiety about insured people being unable to obtain the right kind of specialist, medical and surgical advice, and that specialist treatment and diagnostic advice are not available for the insured person. In 1926 a large

2115
amount of money was diverted from the fund which was available for the purpose of supplying insurance benefits to those who come with in the provisions of the Acts. I am sorry that it has not been found possible to give back a larger portion of that sum in order to provide the additional benefits that could thus be provided for people who are in insurance. The point has been overlooked to o, that the health insurance funds are no longer yielding the same amount of interest as they did before. The interest received on the funds in future will not be as great as it is and the amount that will be avail able for the purpose of giving additional benefits will not be as great. In these circumstances the Exchequer might very well be called upon to contribute a larger amount to wards providing the new health insurance burdens.
There are a number of other points I intended to raise which I will not touch upon, because they have been already amply dealt with by other Members. But there are one or two other matters that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. Perhaps we may have an explanation of these at a later stage. Members will see that Clause 3 (2) provides:
"Where on the 31st day of December in any year an insured person is an inmate of an institution, any sum which but for the provisions of this section would have been payable to him shall, in so far as it exceeds fifty pounds, or in the case of a per son who was an inmate of an institution on the seventh day of January, 1929, such sum as may be prescribed, be paid to the Central Fund."
And it is further provided:
"and where under this section any payment is made to the Central Fund so much thereof as is derived from moneys provided by Parliament shall be repaid to the Exchequer."
In my view this is not a fair manner of dealing with these sums. The State itself is taking back all it has paid to wards these amounts, but it is putting into the Central Fund the sums which have been obtained from various approved societies. That is my interpretation of the section. In my view, the approved societies, having them selves contributed these funds, should have the benefit of the return of the money instead of it being placed in the central fund. I should like to know
2116
whether in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill the right hon. Gentle man will see his way to amend that, which seems to me an unreasonable pro vision so far as the approved societies are concerned. I do not think any of us will deny the advance which is being made by this Bill, and I hope it will not be utilised for any ulterior motive, and that attacks will not be made upon it from the point of view of trying to present out of all proportion those matters which require remedying vis-à-vis the important measures that the Bill is introducing. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading unanimously, and that some of the matters to which attention has been directed may be remedied in Committee.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. BANFIELD: We have listened to a great number of speeches most of which lauded this Measure in remarkably complimentary terms. I think it is possible to make far to o much of this Bill; and I am afraid that supporters of the Government who describe this as a comprehensive and magnificent Measure, and so on, will find when they face their supporters, a great deal of dissatisfaction with it. After all, this Bill deals with a matter which, of necessity, could not be let alone. It would have been unthinkable on the part of any Government to have left 200,000 people in the year 1936 in a position in which their pension rights would be sacrificed. This Bill does not even as sure to all unemployed persons their pension rights. The ideal provision, and the one which would have appealed to many people, would be that no insured person should lose his title to health or pensions benefits solely because of unemployment. This Measure falls very far short of that ideal. Even so far as the 200,000 people with whom the Measure deals are concerned, the Government actuary states that 20,000 among them will probably not come back into insurance and will, as a matter of fact, lose their pension rights.
Further, it must be remembered that a person of between four and 10 years' insurance record, with 160 contributions, is entitled under the Bill to 1 years of free insurance on becoming unemployed. Thereafter, for a further 12 months, he is entitled to pension only—at which

2117
point he passes out of insurance if Still unemployed. The proportion of people who may be left out may be 5 per cent. Or 10 per cent., it may be 20,000 or rather less, but I suggest to the Minister that there is nothing that causes more unrest and more trouble than that nine people should come under a Bill of this sort and that one person should be left out. The amount of money involved is comparatively small, and the amount of unrest, the amount of disgust as it were, and the amount of worry, trouble and agitation caused by leaving anyone out of a Measure of this sort is scarcely com parable with the amount of money involved.
We have heard from various hon. members what a great, glorious comprehensive and beautiful Bill this is, but the fact remains that it is a comparatively small Bill, limited in character and dealing with a very pressing evil which could not be left untouched any longer than the end of 1935.More than anything else I want to complain of the limited character of the Bill.
It is well to point out precisely what the Bill does not do. It does not restore the cuts in women's benefits imposed in the 1932 Act; nor does it continue the full prolongation provision; nor does it relieve approved societies of the burden of the shortage of contribution so as to enable the conservation of funds necessary for additional benefits. It may be that the societies have agreed to find the £700,000 a year. May be they feel that this is the very best thing that can be done, but the fact remains that the taking of this money from the societies leaves them with a less surplus and with less money for additional benefits, and will tend ultimately to some reduction in those additional benefits. The Bill makes no attempt whatever to deal with the bigger issues involved in national health insurance and pensions. There is the question of the lowering of the age of entry into health insurance. We recently lowered the age of entry so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, and I am still very unconvinced by the arguments put forward why the entry for national health insurance could not have been brought down to the age of 14 at the same time that the unemployment insurance age was lowered.
Another very important point is that there are hundreds of thousands of
2118
people who have been looking to the Government to raise the income limit of insurability. That is a point that ought to be dealt with, and it might have been dealt with in this Bill. I have heard hon. Members complain that shopkeepers have a particular claim to be brought under national health and pension schemes. There are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people who would only be to o pleased to be brought under this scheme, who in their health may have earned more than 2250 a year, but in the days when their strength declines or when their hair becomes grey are just as liable to unemployment and hard times as the manual wage-worker. If the Government were really going to do something big in the way of national health insurance they might consider that point. I have heard over and over again this class of people above the £250 a year limit, the small shopkeeper and professional people declare that they could never see any reason why they were not given the opportunity to contribute to old age pensions and national health insurance.
There is one point which, obviously, must be dealt with, and that is the question of maternity benefit. I was hoping that we should get a Bill which would deal with the whole question of maternity services under the national health insurance scheme. It is wrong to say to the unemployed man: "You have had a bad time and have been out of work for years, but we are taking steps so that at the age of 65 we will pay you 10s.a week pension as the ne plus ultra of what may be done, but if your wife has a child during that period we shall not allow you anything for the expense of bringing that child into the world, and your wife must go to the Poor Law institution and you must go to the parish." That is not defensible. If the figures were got out I believe that it would be found that the majority of the approved societies could afford to pay that extra benefit, even in present conditions.
Finally, there is a point on which I have always felt sore, and that is that no provision is made so that people paying equal contributions are entitled to receive equal benefit. The whole system of national health insurance as at present administered by the approved societies requires overhauling and should have attention. Something has been said about

2119
the technicalities of the Bill. I defy the vast majority of lawyers to say that they understand what the Bill is about, and I am satisfied that the ordinary layman cannot possibly understand it. We who are connected with the approved societies manage to plough our way through this sort of thing and find out what it means. We make a guess sometimes at the things we are required to do, and we are able eventually to find some way of dealing with the situation, but for the ordinary rank-and-file member of the approved societies, it is impossible for him to know where he stands under the National Health Insurance Acts.
My complaint against the Bill is that it is of such a limited character. I agree that as far as it goes it removes what would have been a glaring injustice. I do not think the Government could have done anything less than they have done. In bringing in the Bill they have been compelled by the force of circumstances and by the feeling that would have been aroused in the country if they had not brought it in at this time to safeguard in some measure the pension rights of unemployed men. I am very sorry that the unemployed man is to receive no cash benefits in the case of sickness or maternity. Possibly he is hoping that he will not live to the age of 65 in the circumstances in which he finds himself. We may perhaps have new ideas in the future in the Ministry of Health, and when that time comes I hope that the Ministry will settle down and give us a comprehensive scheme of national health insurance and old age pensions. It is impossible to think that this is the last word in this kind of legislation. Does anyone believe that the question of old age pensions can be left where it is, and that 10s.a week to keep body and soul together is always going to be paid out to old people?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a long way from the Bill.
Mr. BANFIELD: I am sorry. It has been said that the Bill settles for some time this particular question. I would point out to the Minister that the Bill is not the last word in these matters, and that other Bills will have to be brought in. I trust that, limited as the Bill is, the point about maternity benefit will be dealt with in the Com-
2120
mittee stage, and that we may get some satisfaction in regard to it.
7.23 p.m.
Mrs. TATE: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with anything that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) says, but there is a good deal to be said for him when he states that the whole matter of national health insurance might well be overhauled. When the Minister opened the Debate this afternoon he reminded us that the claims of women on the Fund had been greater than had been anticipated, and therefore their sickness benefits were cut down in 1932.We cannot regard the Bill before us as merely dealing with national health. Had it not been for the improvement in national employment, we should not have had the benefits that are put before us now. Therefore, you cannot separate the two things. I recollect very well that in 1932 an Amendment was brought for ward, nominally in the names of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) who, I think, were really Government spokesmen. That Amendment was to ensure that should a woman marry she would have to reinstate herself before she would be allowed to be regarded as an employed insured person by having to work for 26 weeks. During that interim period she was to go into Class K, which would have meant that if she fell sick after marriage with out having done 26 weeks' work she would have drawn, not 12 weeks, but six weeks' sickness benefit. I think that I am correct in that statement.
I have a lively recollection of the approved societies and the friendly societies sending for the women Members of this House to go into the Lobby and saying to them: "Support this magnify cent Amendment for the sake of the women, because if you do not do so our funds will be ruined." Thank God, the women Members did not support that Amendment. I think it was because of the opposition of the women Members that the Amendment had to be with drawn. In view of the fact that the Amendment was with drawn it is interesting to note that the Minister said this afternoon that owing to the cuts that were made in women's benefit the fund is now all right as regards women. I

2121
hope that in future when gloomy prognostications are made as to what will happen if one does not support some particular amendment which is based on wholly unjust foundations, it will be remembered what was said in respect of that particular amendment. It is a curious and an unsatisfactory state of affairs that when it comes to health insurance, seeing that the claims of women are greater than the claims of men, the funds are always kept separate, but when it comes to unemployment insurance, where the claims of women are very much less than the claims of men, the funds are put together. It is un satisfactory that no attempt has ever been made by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour to see that these two funds were put on a proper basis, so that they could be compared, and one could know exactly how the fund stood as regards men and women, because whenever it comes to the question of health insurance the amount which women draw out is always stressed.
I wish the Minister could find some way of doing what has been suggested by many hon. Members this afternoon, and that is to grant maternity benefit. We have been to ld of the claims that women make on the fund. I cannot help thinking that that might almost in itself be regarded as an insurance. Perhaps the claims of women on the Health Insurance Fund would be less severe if they could know that during a very anxious period in their lives they were still going to draw their maternity benefit, and probably that would help the health of the rising generation. I do not wish to keep the Committee to o long, but I hope that the Minister will pay very serious consideration to the points that I have raised.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I rise to speak on behalf of my particular wing of the National Government in support of the Measure. It looks as if the Bill will go through with out a Division, and I note that only a week ago another great Measure went through with out a Division. I merely mention that fact in passing, because I think it is due to the workman like way in which the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary have devised these two Statutes. No doubt hon. Members opposite will say that the
2122
Government in this Measure are making good what should have been done before. At any rate, they are passing Measures which meet with universal acceptance. It is interesting to note also that Measures dealing with social services if they are really fair Measures meet with general approval, that there is no real opposition to them in the country and that there is no real party division at the moment on this question. I very much doubt whether any Measure which is fairly presented and which the state of the national finances will allow will be voted on on purely party lines in the future.
This is a Bill to make national health insurance square with unemployment. As the Minister pointed out, it depends on the state of trade, because this Bill is the logical result of an insurance which is based on wages. If the wages are absent, and? the wages have been absent, you have to bolster up the system in some way or other. In the past free cover has been given by stages, and it has made the finances of the Insurance Fund and of the approved societies impossible. It has also prevented a great many extended benefits being given by approved societies. Attention has already been called to the maternity ser vices, and it is worth while noting that when the special commissioners were looking round for services which needed special aid they quickly turned to the maternity and some of the health ser vices in the depressed areas. I only mention this because in insurance we are running the risk of basing our health and unemployment systems on the de pressed areas rather than on the country as a whole—and it is a question whether we should not base it on the country as a whole and make special provision for these areas. I notice that, according to the Actuary's Report, there are 200,000 persons who are in arrears. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information about these 200,000 persons. Apparently they have not paid anything for three and a-half years. They are not able-bodied unemployed in the old insurance sense. I take it that they will be found largely in the worst areas—I have some in my own constituency—but it will be interesting to know a little more about the make-up of this 200,000.

2123
If we are to keep these great insurance systems going they must rest on two planks. One is that the numbers of the unemployed must not exceed a certain figure. It is impossible to keep an insurance system going if you have 2,000,000 or more unemployed; in that case the insurance system would inevitably come on the dole. Secondly, there must be a public and basic provision for those who do not come with in the industrial class. In order to achieve the first my belief is that means must be found for taking out of employment a residue of the old workers. Unless by some miracle the tide of prosperity turns quickly you will never be able in the coming years to cater for these old people by an ordinary insurance system. Insurance is a purely arbitrary thing, but there is a limit to the way in which you can utilize benefits or have a sort of insurance with in insurance as contained in the new arrears fund. I think that the retirement of a certain number of the older members and workers is not only good in itself but would help to keep these insurance systems on a sound financial basis.
Nearly all the criticisms of the Opposition have been in regard to things which are not in the Bill or because some things have been done a little to o late; there has been no real criticism of the actual provisions of the Bill. With regard to the second point, in Scotland, due to the initiative of the Secretary of State, a very important commission has been sitting for the last two years to consider the whole health services of Scotland. The re are gaps—and this applies equally to England—between one and five and between fourteen and sixteen, and there is the whole field of the dependants who are not yet looked after. If we are thinking of the positive health services for the future obviously this Bill is only a stop gap in building up that new structure. I do not wish to pour coldwater upon it, because it is a practical Bill, and, while it is a stop gap, it has with in it all the elements of permanency in so far as it touches the extension of pensions and health insurance.
There are other things in the health services of the country which sooner or later—I hope soon—will have to be tackled. The re are many thousands of people in Scotland who are going to be thankful for this Measure. I know many
2124
in Ayrshire and in the West of Scotland who will come with in the category of the 2,000, but we look forward, thanks to the energy that is now being put into the consideration of this problem, since the reports have been received, by the Secretary of State, to the time when he will be able to put a new stone in this great health structure. There are big gaps existing, and until the structure is complete it is doubtful whether we can say that we are getting full value for our money. I learned some things on these questions from the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and it came to me as a shock a few years ago when he said, in effect, that there was no limit to the money which could be found for social services. The more one looks at social services to-day the more chances there are of improving and harmonising them. We have a great national health insurance system and also a public tradition, through our local authorities, and sooner or later we shall have to harmonise them and fill in the gaps which now exist right through our social services. If we do that, we can get value for our money, a positive health policy for the country. I congratulate the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary for a practical piece of work which has met with universal approval in the House.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. LOGAN: I want to say to the Minister that I do not think he will find any approved society agent or. Official who will not be delighted with the Bill. I say that from the point of view of an administrator of health insurance; the Bill will give some relief to those people who are engaged in approved society work. The question which appears to me to be of paramount importance is not the question of equalisation in regard to the affairs of approved societies. The Minister must be aware of the difficulties which approved societies them selves create on the question of centralisation of the fund. When we think of the rise and fall of contributions and the solvency of the fund, we naturally think at once of one huge organisation, but, if we look round the country, we find that there are many approved societies with different rates, different methods and different benefits. We have a diversity of things. All the great approved societies having different

2125
methods on the question of solvency, the point arises whether there can be a better distribution in regard to national unemployment.
There is no doubt that the Department are up against a great problem. In the first place, approved societies have certain benefits and preferential rates given to them in collecting their units, and I should like to remind hon. Members who take part in these discussions that some of the anomalies which exist in this Bill exist simply because the question of centralization cannot be achieved. The various societies in the country are Dot prepared to centralise. Anyone who has any knowledge knows that the last Labour Government on the question of prolongation of insurance, gave to the members established on the books of approved societies first the opportunity to put forward evidence of incapacity—which was equivalent to payment—and, secondly, the opportunity to bring for ward evidence of franks to the Employment Exchange, or evidence supported by an authority like a Justice of the Peace or an employer that they were actually looking for work, and this was accepted by the audit department and the approved societies as evidence in regard to the question of arrears. As unemployment increased approved societies who had to meet their ordinary disbursements week by week, were likely to become insolvent, because the unemployed, not being able to contribute stamps could only send into the societies franks, or alternative evidence that they were looking for a job. When unemployment went up into the neighbour hood of 2,750,000 it was utterly impossible for approved societies to come out on valuation with anything of a surplus at the disposal of members. The Government were then confronted with the problem that they must meet the depression which had developed in various areas. They were compelled to see what action they could adopt to remove the difficulties, and they have presented the Bill saying that there must be a pooling system, to which one-and three-quarters will be contributed by the societies and one-and-three-quarters by the State, or three-and-a-half altogether, which will be credited to the whole of the approved societies in regard to the franking of these particular cards.
2126
There is one remarkable point that must be remembered. This is a contribution which, as far as 50 per cent. Is concerned, is to be borne by the approved societies. What State contribution is that when it is to be paid by the society? What is the State doing when that contribution must come out of current revenue account of the year from the members who contribute the money? as regards that 50 per cent. We need not thank the Government. The n we are to ld that there is to be money from the Army and Navy Fund. The Government are making good from the point of view of those who go out of employment as on 31st December, 1935, and receive benefit on 1st January, 1936. It has been stated to-day that the Government are now going to place all these people again into insurance, but the Minister knows that that is not so, and knows that he is not going to do anything of the kind. What he is going to do is to place in insurance those who have been continuously 10 years in insurance.
I want to compliment the Minister. I am not one of those who is not pleased when a constructive policy is brought for ward. I have worked the Act since 1912 and I am convinced that there is some thing to commend this Bill to the people. But the Minister must not for a moment think that now the Bill is produced the Government can say to the Labour party, "This is a presentation to the public of something which you never gave." Although this is a Bill which will be very acceptable to the people, it is not a Bill which gives the same benefits as the prolongation Act of the Labour party gave to the depressed classes. I agree with the Minister that from the point of view of actuarial solvency that could not be continued any longer. It cannot be disputed that what the Government are giving here is not on a par with the benefits, paid up to 1932, which the Labour party, whether wisely or unwisely, gave to the unemployed. The fact is that from 1912 onward every person who was kept on a book in insurance and was able to bring alternative evidence or franked cards, was entitled, riot to what this Bill entitles him to, that is classification only for pension benefits, but was entitled to maternity benefit, 'sickness benefit, disablement benefit and all the additional benefits that any society could give to any paying contributor.

2127
A few hon. Members with out a thorough knowledge of the subject have spoken as though we on the Labour benches had denied to the people benefits which this Bill is to confer upon the m. I do not think the Minister wishes to convey that impression. If that impression has been created, I want the House to understand what the Bill means. It means that if a person has 160 contributions to his credit —he could have paid 208 contributions—and has been a member for any period from four to nine and a-half years, even though he has contributions to his credit he can go? out of insurance and get nothing any more. When the Minister was speaking to-day I wished to interrupt him because what he said was in correct. The right hon. Gentleman said that in these cases with which we were going to deal, that is up to 10 years, the benefits could be carried on. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say clearly that that is not so. This Bill does not say that. The Bill is only to apply to those who have been 10 years continuously insurance. I do not mean 10 years continuous contributions. I go so far as to say that that is a valuable concession. I know I am giving bouquets which might be used against me. Many approved societies were anxious that a number of contributions should be mentioned. The Ministry have not stated any figure, but have accepted "from the date of entry, 10 years," which is a wonderful concession to all insured members of approved societies.
The question of maternity benefit has been referred to. In my administration of the Act I know of no greater benefit for the public good than the maternity benefit. Provided a person has been 10 years continuously in insurance and a society is able to give additional benefit, I do not know why it should be argued that the giving of maternity benefit is a grievance. Societies that are able to give additional benefits need not worry their heads about maternity benefit. If they have the money they can pay it out under "Want and distress." What I want to draw attention to most is something that is a misnomer in the Bill. We have heard that, from the point of view c, f money, we must not add to the burden. As far as that is concerned, I do not know
2128
that there is anything that it is not possible to bring into the Bill. Let me mention two important points. First, there is the question of boys starting work at 14 years of age. If we want the Act to be solvent, we must rise to the occasion and see that those from 14 to 16 are insured and contribute to the Fund. With my knowledge of an industrial area, I say it would be a great protection if the State were to bring insurance into operation at the school-leaving age. Every boy entering a workshop becomes a competitor in the labour market. In a city like Liverpool one finds 200,300 and even 400 lads at a time being thrown on the street simply because insurance contributions must be paid when they reach 16 years of age. If those boys had to pay contributions from the moment that they left school, they would not be thrown on the streets at the age of 16.
I consider that the Bill is defective from the point of view of the additional benefits, from the point of view of solvency, from the point of view of making it more workable for the societies, and I consider that steps should have been taken to include contributions at the school leaving age. I will call attention to another point. When one looks around one finds many workers who are receiving over the insurance limit in the way of income. In certain parts of the country it may be £6, £7, or £8 a week. They are not outside insurance. Those people who work in factories or in machine shops or who do puddling are able to be insured. But there are clerical staffs, office men, who get over £250 a year and are in constant jobs. The re might be an office with 80 or 100 on its staff, and in a great city like London you could multiply that number by thousands. If these people were insured, you would bring into insurance men whose cards were fully stamped, men who were in constant employment 50 weeks a year. How can you make things solvent if you look only into the casual markets of the country How can you expect to be able, with out financial assistance, to carry the burden of a great Measure such as this? Bring in the boy and the girl at school-leaving age and save the wastage that takes place in the factory when they are discharged at 16. Give an opportunity to clerks, brain workers, who are getting over £250 a year, to pay their contributions and

2129
enable them to come in under this Bill. If you do that the new sources of revenue will reduce very much the liabilities of society.
There is one other point. If you bring in a Measure of this kind, is it going to be labour saving and will the societies be enabled from a clerical point of view to save their time? Instead of the people going to the employment exchanges, they will be able to get their cards franked, and there will be no necessity for the societies to go through their books and to send to the lagging ones information that they can come and have their benefit. This will save thousands of pounds to the approved societies and enable legitimate members, and unemployed members, to get the benefit of the Act and the additional benefit which otherwise they would not be able to get. I think on the whole that the Bill is as good as we can expect to get in the present conditions, but I hope that the Government will not crow that they are giving something different from what any Government placed in a similar position would have been bound to give. I would like to see the aid. Coming in borne by the State. The nation ought to bear the whole burden of unemployment.
With regard to the aid. For each frank, the Minister did not make it patent to the House that they had an obligation placed on them by their own act, on account of the Prolongation Act being dissolved. The re would have been 200,000 put out of insurance on 31st December, 1935. It followed that these 200,000 people would no longer be able to get medical benefits. They would no longer have their panel doctors and the panel doctors would no longer be able to collect from the approved societies the annual amount of money allowed them in regard to those on their panel. An agitation went on up and down the country in regard to the 200,000 who were likely to be thrown on Poor Law administration. Public assistance committees were being requisitioned to make new appointments of medical officers. They were already overburdened with work, and the panel patient found that his medical practitioner was about to be taken away from him and placed in another category. This has been a big burden on approved societies. You have had a saving as far
2130
as the State is concerned, and I am convinced that you have no right to charge the approved societies with a medical service you would have been compelled to give under the public assistance committees. That being so, I am at a loss to understand where the great benefit comes in as regards the approved society. The approved society is not get ting any benefit from what was an act of your own doing.
A few days ago I put a question to the Minister, and I was to ld that the number of franks was 81,000,000 for men and 17,000,000 for women for the insurance year of 1933.Therefore, we have the startling figure of about 98,000,000 franks during an insurance year, which will mean 98,000,000 three pence half pennies will go into a pooling arrangement. It is a big amount. It is a big job with which the Department has to deal. They will have a very much easier job in connection with the making up of the books of the various societies. I must certainly congratulate the Minister in straightening out the many difficulties in the old Act, and I would like to see it made simpler still, with economy and efficiency in administration. I am convinced that when the next quinquennial valuation comes the approved societies will be in a much better and more flourishing condition with less red tape in regard to administration. I think the Minister is to be complimented, and I speak as one with a full knowledge of the Act. We are right in putting for ward our suggestions, but no suggestion has been put forward from this side of the House which is a condemnation of the Bill. We welcome it for what it gives us. We hope that more will follow, and we trust that you will have God speed and good will in the working of your Act.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. MAITLAND: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is always fair in his intervention in our debates, but in his speech to-day the validity and force of two statements will be found to be destroyed, because one was founded on a misapprehension of what the Minister said, and, in the second instance, he followed up a statement with a flat contradiction. In the first case in which he referred to the Minister I think that the hon. Member, when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, will find that the

2131
Minister did not say what he quoted. The se were the actual words of the Minister:
"Subject to certain qualifications, which I will refer to in a moment, no one will be put out of getting insurance because of unemployment."
I think my hon. Friend could not have heard his qualifying statement because later on in his speech the Minister went on to refer to those qualifications.
Mr. LOGAN: I do not wish to mis represent and I believe the hon. Member. I did not hear that, and, if the Minister said that, he was absolutely correct and was wrong.
Mr. MAITLAND: I was quite sure that with the fairness that is characteristic of him the hon. Gentleman would at once wish to with draw his statement that the statement made by the Minister was in correct. With regard to his second statement, I hope he will be equally willing to make a further withdrawal. He said quite frankly that what was pro posed in this Bill was not so good as what the Labour Government had introduced when they were in office, but he destroyed the validity of that a few seconds later by saying that he admitted that that could not go on. That is what the hon. Gentleman said, and it is no use assuming that something which he suggests is better is in fact better than this Act offers, when in almost the same sentence he said what the Labour party offered could not be carried on.
Mr. LOGAN: I do not mind making one confession, but when it comes to a double dose it is a bit thick. What I wished to imply was that the benefit that the Labour party gave in the Prolongation Act was a benefit which entitled the members to all the benefits of an approved society, and that the benefit given under this Act does not enable them to get anything else except pro vision for old age. That being so, I then contrasted it and said that could not go on, but bearing in mind I am speaking from the point of view of the National Government.
Mr. MAITLAND: We shall see. Per haps it may take us a long time before we do see, but when the hon. Gentleman ventures into the realms of prophecy I will not attempt to follow him any
2132
further. We have had a most interesting discussion, and, when the Minister opened the Debate by explaining the provisions of the Bill, he did a service to the House, because wherever we may sit we must all find a great difficulty in following a Bill which very largely is legislation by reference. Any complaints about legislation by reference would always find a very sympathetic response from the average private Member. But because of the very elaborate exposition of the Minister, and because of the memorandum which has accompanied the Bill, it is possible for the average Member to obtain a clear idea of what the proposals of the Government are and, like other Members who have spoken, I would like to congratulate the Government on the proposals they have submitted. I do not suggest that it is an ideal Bill. I have been long enough in the House never to expect an ideal Bill, but I do suggest that the main purposes of the Bill are purposes which we can all support whole-heartedly. It does not profess and is not intended to be in the nature of a complete overhaul of our system of national health insurance.
I think the Minister again did the House a service when, in introducing the Measure, he referred in very general terms to the construction of our great system of national health insurance and. Also reminded us that no fewer than 18,000,000 of our people are affected by our various schemes of national insurance. The astronomical figures given by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) as to what has been accomplished in these vast schemes are sufficiently astonishing as to give one reason for pro found gratitude that under a system which has stood the stress of the last 20 years we have been able to do so much for that section of the community who, through various circumstances, have unfortunately had to suffer. It is rather in that sense that I approach this Measure. I look upon it in the light of what it purports to do. Whether hon. Members of the Opposition are satisfied or not with the extent of the provision which the Government are making, I think they will agree that in seeking to improve the position of those people who have suffered from pro longed unemployment the Government at any rate are doing something which we can admire and appreciate. As to whether

2133
they have done enough or not, that question of course always offers a fair basis of criticism but in ray judgment the Government have done a humane service, not only in bringing with in these provisions, the 200,000 people who are said to be directly affected but also in having preserved these rights for the people who will be affected in the future should bad times continue.
I can understand and sympathise with the view that this Bill ought to be ex tended so as to include maternity benefit. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) always speaks on this subject with a sincerity and knowledge which command respect, and I am sure the Minister will take particular note of what he said. He suggested that, in certain respects, the Bill would put a section of the community in a position inferior to that which they occupy to -day. If that be so, then I am certain that the spirit which has actuated the Government in the production of this Bill will lead them to remedy such a defect. It is suggested that perhaps 10,000 people out of these 200,000 will be left outside insurance. I submit that if there are only 10,000 in that position, steps should be taken to secure, as far as humanly possible, their legal rights with regard to insurance, pensions, and medical benefits.
We became so accustomed, during the War, to talking about thousands and millions that we ceased to appreciate the value of the individual human being. It ought to be the cause of the utmost concern if even one citizen of this country is in distress and how much more ought we to be concerned if 10,000 of the poorest of our people are suffering as the result of an administrative act. The re fore I say that if only this percentage of the 200,000 are left out of the provisions of the Bill, the Ministry ought to take such steps as they can to bring them with in the purview of some administrative arrangement which will secure to them these benefits. I know that such a proposal would come, in another form, under our social services. We can always rejoice at the fact that, at a time when other nations besides ourselves have been undergoing great troubles, it has been possible for us to do so much for the poorest of our people and I would like to ensure that these people should have these benefits as a matter of right, be cause that is what Britishers prize most.
2134
If we can make provision for 190,000 I would like to see it extended to the whole 200,000.
In considering the great insurance Measures which have been in operation in this country now for a quarter of a century, it is not out of place to invite Members of the Opposition to reflect upon this aspect of the question. They have spoken, with sincerity, on the subject of national pensions, and they have also spoken many times about the shorter hours which are, they claim, made possible by economic conditions, the advance of mechanical science and the like. I would ask them in the interests of the workers to consider the question of a shorter working life rather than of shorter working hours. I think if they did so they would be on surer ground. I suggest that in any reconsideration of our insurance system we would do well to take into serious account the possibility, not so much of shorter hours because that gives rise to other problems connected with the use of leisure, but the possibility of putting into operation a great national system of insurance which would make the age of retirement earlier than it is to -day. I believe that such a scheme would be a real contribution to the solution of some of our economic problems. I appreciate however that that is a much wider measure than is covered by the scope of the present Bill and perhaps it is only by forbearance that I am allowed to refer to it incidentally. I conclude by congratulating the Government on the present Measure, which, with in its scope, is intended to assist directly a poor section of our people, and I join with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool in saying that as far as they go in these and similar efforts I wish the Government Godspeed.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. BATEY: I am not going to criticise the speech to which we have just listened. I admire the way in which the hon. Member praised the Government and thanked them for this Bill. I only say that I wish he had gone a step further and asked why the Bill was necessary. Had he gone into that question, I feel sure that he would not have had words of praise but rather words of blame for the Government. We must keep in mind the fact that this Bill only partly undoes a great wrong which the

2135
Government did to the unemployed in 1932. This Government have committed two great wrongs on the unemployed and in the distressed areas those wrongs have been felt more severely than elsewhere. In 1932 thy took away from thousands of unemployed, medical benefits, and maternity benefits, and endangered their old age pensions. That was one wrong. The other was the imposition of the means test but it would not be in order to discuss that to -night. I am glad to find that there is a death-bed repentance on the part of the Minister of Health for the wrongs which have been done to the unemployed. If rumour and news paper reports are correct this is probably the last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman will stand at that Box as Minister of Health and I am glad to think that, even at this late hour, he is showing his repentance by taking the step indicated in the Bill. But I wonder why the Government have brought in this Bill at the present time. It is just over a year ago on 1st May, 1934, that I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary in these terms:
"Whether he will introduce legislation to amend the National Health Insurance Act, 1932, so as to restore medical benefit and old age pension benefits at 65 years of age to unemployed workmen."
That question was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said:
"this matter was fully debated during the passage of the National Health Insurance Act, 1932, and again in November last, and nothing has since transpired to call for the reopening of the question."
Then one put a supplementary question to him, and his answer was more startling still. This was the supplementary question:
"Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this question was put down to the Prime Minister, as, in view of the Budget surplus which has been achieved since the subject was discussed in 1932, I want to know whether the Government will reconsider this matter with a view to righting this wrong to so many of the unemployed?"The Parliamentary Secretary's answer was this:
"the Budget surplus has nothing to do with making national health insurance non contributory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1934; col. 155, Vol. 289.]The Budget surplus last year had nothing to do with it, but to-day we are told by the Minister of Health that it is the prosperity of the nation, which is
2136
revealed in the Budget, that makes this Bill possible. If it is possible to do it to -day, it was possible for the Government to do it last year, and one must come to the conclusion that the Government are doing it to-day because a general election is in the air and they know that if they went to the country with this great wrong being done to the unemployed, it would not be well for the m. One can only come to the conclusion, seeing that the Government have put off to this last minute the bringing forward of this Bill, that it is being introduced to-day with an eye on the general election and to put them selves right with the people of this country before the election takes place. I am glad that the Minister of Health said to-day that this Bill was possible through the prosperity of the nation. After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, when delivering his Budget speech, about there being no lees than £50,000,000 savings in trustee and Post Office savings banks, we are entitled to-night not to be merely satisfied with this Bill, but to say that because of the prosperity of the country and because of the way in which the Government boast of that prosperity, we should expect the Government to have gone much further than they have done.
The Minister talked about the improvements in the Bill for those who fall into unemployment, and he said that 5 per cent. Of the unemployed would fail in obtaining these benefits. I want to ask why any one should fail. My opinion is that the Government ought not to have come with a Bill like this, although I confess we cannot vote against it. Some one has described it as a simple Bill, but I do not regard it as simple. I have read it two or three times, and I confess that there are things in it that I cannot yet understand. It is not a simple Bill. The Government ought to have come to this House with a one-Clause Bill repealing the 1932 Act and putting us back into the position that we were in prior to that Act. That would have been a simple Bill, and then we should have known where we were. If the country is so prosperous, then the country can stand putting as back to where we were prior to the 1932 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman says we have put the unemployed, so far as medical benefit and pension rights are concerned,

2137
right. One thinks of the men who, one believes, ought to be able to claim maternity benefit. Apart from all that we are losing under this Bill that we had under the prolongation Acts, and in spite of all this, we ought really to have had maternity benefit, because that means so much to a man when his wife is con fined and he has been out of work for years and years. I come from a district, the North-East coast, where the Civil Lord, in his report last June, said there were no fewer than 63, 046 persons unemployed who had been unemployed for more than two years. This is the class of people who will feel the loss of maternity benefit. When the Government are restoring medical benefit and pension rights, the unemployed, in my opinion, have a strong claim, an immense claim, for the restoration of maternity benefit also. One thinks that there will be thousands and thousands of men on the North-East coast who will feel the loss of that benefit, and I am hoping that, while the Minister was so strong to-day on the point that there would be no cash benefits, be will not take his stand the re, but that before the Bill gets through the Committee stage he will seriously consider doing something to re store at least maternity benefit, because it would mean so much to so many thou sands of men who have been unemployed, not for a few months, but for years.
I have two questions that I would like to ask the Minister, and the first is: Does the Bill restore medical benefit to all those who had it or would have had it but for the 1932 Act? I think we ought to have that question answered. Secondly, I want to as k, will all the unemployed be entitled to pensions who would have been entitled to pensions but for the 1932 Act?
Sir H. YOUNG: I think there must be some misconception the re. Nobody has lost any pension rights at all under the 1932 Act.
Mr. BATEY: I agree that nobody has lost any pension rights, but there was the danger: of their losing those rights. It is really the first of those two questions to which one would like an answer when the proper time comes. This Bill has a special interest for some of us who come from the distressed areas, because if the Minister looks through the figures of the unemployed, he will find it stated in the
2138
Ministry of Labour Report for 1934, which has just been issued, that the bulk of the unemployed who have been out of work more than 12 months is concentrated in the north-east district, where there are 109, 635. In Wales there are 65,000, in Scotland 66,000, and in the north-western district 68, 000. In London, the south eastern district, the south-western district and the midland district put together, there are only 56, 000. This question, therefore, has a special interest for those of us who are in the north east district. We have not only men there who have been unemployed for 12 months and two years, but men who have been unemployed for years and years and have no prospect of work. I am anxious to know whether those men who have been unemployed for a long time will be able to claim medical benefit and keep their pension rights. Because they have been so long unemployed in the distressed areas, large numbers of men have ceased to register at the Employment Exchange and many have even ceased to get their cards franked. They have lost unemployment benefit and have been forced to go on poor relief.
I was looking up yesterday the number of men who were refused benefit by the courts of referees last year, and I found that the number was no fewer than 402, 510. Where men have been cut off benefit, the tendency in the north of England is for them not to go to the Employment Exchange to register. They say that it is no use registering as they have been refused benefit. What is the position of those men who have lost heart, whose benefit has been stopped, who feel that it is no longer any use going to register? Will they be allowed to be make a fresh start and get their cards franked I Will they be allowed the privilege of putting themselves right so as to be able to claim medical benefit and pension rights? I consider that the introduction of this Bill would have been a golden opportunity for the Government to go further than they have gone. We heard the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) speaking as though the working-classes should be content that the Government were spending about £500,000,000 on social services. The Government are spending no such sum. As a matter of fact, they are spending this year immensely more for past wars and

2139
preparing for future wars than they are spending on social services. The working-classes, and especially those who are unemployed, are entitled to ask the Government and to expect, when the country is prosperous, a greater share of the money spent by the Government than they are getting at the present time. I hope that the Minister will not be satisfied with this Bill as he has presented it. Let him put the unemployed back to where they were prior to 1932, and, if possible, give to the working-classes greater benefits than they obtain at the present time.
8.42 p.m.
Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: The speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who always interests us, was full of fallacies in order to substantiate the position of not agreeing with the Bill. His first fallacy was to think that in an insurance scheme and a business measure such as this you can put in all sorts of other benefits such as he—and I too—would like to have included. He wants maternity benefit for everybody and other benefits of all sorts for an increased body of uninsured persons.
Mr. BATEY: I did not ask for maternity benefit for everybody, but for those who were receiving it prior to 1932.
Sir F.FREMANTLE: Whatever the extra benefits, it is a question of what the fund can afford. The hon. Member spoke of the country as being in a, state of great prosperity. He has lost sight of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he stated that we were on the turn of prosperity. Everyone knows, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well, that the position of the whole world is such that we cannot depend from year to year on the future. We do not know what next year is going to bring. If we did, we could go ahead. Nobody can say that the position of this country a year hence will be as prosperous as it is to-day, or that we shall be able to increase these benefits beyond a certain measure. Such benefits as this Bill does introduce are a hazard banking on the fact that we are probably going to move along the road to prosperity, but we must be careful in the steps that we take. The other fallacy,
2140
which has run through so many speeches, is that the Government ought to do more because any other government would have done more and that the last Labour Government would have done more. The last Labour Government put the country in a position in which they could not have done it, and it is only because the present Government came in and saved the country that they are in a position to bring in this Measure.
It has been suggested from this side that it is only a kind of automatic cockatoo call to praise our own side. I have taken precaution, therefore, of getting the opinions of those who are most concerned with the work of the approved societies, who have great experience and responsible positions, and who certainly do not belong to my political party. Here is one opinion:
"this Bill is warmly welcomed by the approved societies."
Here is another:
"Great credit is due to the Government for the new Measure."
Another says of the Bill that it is.
"a new charter of security for our working people which will bring comfort and peace of mind to hundreds of thousands.".
Mr. BUCHANAN: Who are the people whose letters you are quoting.
Sir F.FREMANTLE: They are private letters and I do not care to say who the individuals are, but one of them is a man who is one of the main bulwarks of approved society work. Another letter says:
"This is the most beneficient application of the principles of insurance with in my experience."
A great tribute is due to the Government Actuary for his wonderful work. He has drawn up a report on five years' working, which was presented to us this year, and the results of that work are to be seen in this Measure. Honest critics of the Bill will recognise that it could not be introduced earlier, because we were waiting for the report of the Actuary, and for the statistics from 1925 to 1932 on the working of the insurance system. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) spoke of the Government having "robbed the till," and we are familiar with that phrase and the arguments based on it, but the House ought to realise what expenditure the

2141
Government have let themselves in for in respect of the contributory old age pensions Acts. From the report of the Actuary, who has prepared estimates covering 30 years, we see that the total annual expenditure will go up from£43,000,000 this year to £62,000,000 in 30 years' time, and that the Exchequer contribution is £13,000,000 at the present time and in 30 years' time will be £25,000,000.Those are big figures, and in face of them it is absurd to talk of the Government having "robbed the till." As part of the whole economy scheme the Government had to make a few small reductions, but they are very slight in comparison with these enormous commitments which they have undertaken. We are going ahead steadily with the collective services and are helping the community in many directions, but it should be understood that there is a limit.
The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) and one or two others raised the difficulties created by legislation by reference. I think we all remember the valiant and courageous effort of the Minister of Health to avoid legislation by reference in the Housing and town Planning Act. All those who were concerned with it in. Committee will re call that the result was to produce a crop of Amendments which were not in the least necessary or germane to the Bill and which prolonged the discussions on it, and in the end made it a more complicated Measure than if we had proceeded by the old system of legislation by reference. It seems almost a revolutionary suggestion, but would it not be possible to consider the question of printing the Bills with the references attached to them either as footnotes or appendices. That would save us from having to come into the House with large armfuls of reference books. No doubt it is useful for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to have two large books on which to rest his elbows but it would be more useful to have the references printed in the Bill. This is a point which might be referred to the Committee which is charged with the duty of looking after our publications, of which I am a Member, which has not met this Session. Perhaps I misheard the Minister of Health, but I understood him to say that this country was a pioneer in this insurance business. I had vivid recollections
2142
of going to see the Museum of the work men's insurance system at Charlotten burg, outside Berlin, as far back as 1905.
Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister only said that we were pioneers in widows' pensions. The hon. Member must be fair even to his own Government.
Sir F. FREMANTLE: Anyhow, we have gone ahead, and we have done so on democratic lines, which ought to fill us with confidence when we think of the position in Germany and other Continental countries. The Bill also has the great advantage of producing a more uniform, sensible and businesslike system of administration. In the past there have been great variations in administration in the different approved societies. A certain amount of variation is all very well, but differences in the interpretation of the test of unemployment and the contributions' test gave rise to much difficulty in administration and to consider able hardships. Now we are laying down clearly a definition of the unemployment test which should produce uniformity.
The Bill also sets up reasonable conditions under which the insurance status can be maintained. That is a movement in the right direction. One thing I should like to know, however, is why it is that under the interesting system by which a fund is to be provided for paying off arrears instead of the arrears being constantly debited to the insurance we pare off the penny contribution one-third of a penny in the case of a male contributor and one-ninth of a penny in the case of a female contributor. The re is a difference of 300 per cent. between the two. I have discussed this point with a number of people, and I cannot see that that justly represents the differences in the burdens of the two sexes upon the Fund. Further, I should like to know why short-term insured persons, those who have been insured for not less than four years, have to show only 160 contributions with in the four years, and why such large allowance is made for their not being franked at the employment exchanges during un employment. It is all very well to say that you must allow them to miss an occasional week when they are unemployed if it occurs by inadvertence, but it is encouraging slackness to allow such a large number of weeks to be missed. I should think the unemployed might now

2143
be expected to appear at the employment exchanges at least once every week to get their frank, as is required. The re must be very few weeks in which they cannot manage it. People are beginning to understand the system which is in vogue and there should not be so large an allowance for weeks to be missed. Attendance at employment exchanges should be a more regular and certain feature.
I join with those who wish that it were possible to provide further maternity benefit, but again this is a question of expense, as it is with other benefits, including medical benefit. I wonder whether the Minister has it in his mind to bring in during the autumn, and in the last Session of this Parliament, that Maternity Bill of which we have heard so much, and whether it would be possible in that Measure to make maternity provision for all the insured people. The re is also a general feeling in regard to ordinary medical benefit—I 'am not speaking now of the cash benefit—that it is a. Hardship that the insured person should have to leave the doctor of his choice, who is used to him and to whom he is used, and go to the public assistance doctor, and then later on go back to his own doctor. Now that we are accustomed to the panel doctor and public assistance system, some arrangement ought to be made which will apply equally to insured and non-insured persons as regards medical benefit and treatment, and I hope that there will be such an arrangement before very long. That can hardly be brought into the Bill. What is brought in carries us a stage further in the right direction, and I hope that the Bill will receive the unanimous support of the House.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. CLEARY: The Bill brings us face to face once more with the difficulties of the depressed areas. I represent one of those areas, in which the full effects of prolonged unemployment and loss of insurance benefits have been felt. In addition to the detrimental effects upon the persons concerned, an additional responsibility has been placed upon the unfortunate distressed areas of the country.
I want to raise only one point, in the hope that it will be dealt with this evening, at least by a. Promise of consideration. It refers to dental benefit.
2144
Representations have been made on the subject to me by approved societies in Liverpool. I understand that the societies are compelled to grant at least 50 per cent. of the cost of dental treatment, but they feel that although, after the valuation, they may have a surplus to devote to additional benefits, it may not be sufficient, especially in the depressed areas, to allow them to offer that 50 per cent., and they wish to ask the Minister if they could be permitted to submit schemes whereby they could grant dental treatment allowances to insured persons on a scale lower than 50 per cent. It may be suggested that such a proposal would lead to abuses, but that can hardly be so. No approved society worthy of the name would wish deliberately to reduce its own benefits, if it had resources at its disposal. The re is the further safeguard that any society wishing to grant less than 50 per cent. Would be compelled to submit its scheme to the Minister and his department. In considering the request of the society, the Minister would take into consideration all the relevant facts, and he would have a full knowledge of the resources and surplus at the disposal of the society.
At the moment the societies have to grant 50 per cent. Or nothing. Dental treatment is not a luxury in these days, but is one of the ordinary essentials of health, and, although no society should offer less than 50 per cent. if it is in a position to give the full rate, it is better that some less assistance should be given, if the full 50 per cent. cannot be offered by societies which have been badly hit by the conditions prevailing in industrial areas which are the cinderellas of the National Government's prosperity complex. Relaxation would not merely benefit the society but would help insured persons to get the dental benefit which is imperative to their health. It would be a great step if the Minister would take notice of this point—I can hardly expect a complete answer this evening—and would promise to take it into consideration.
I would emphasise the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), who hoped that the time was not far distant when the clerical and professional classes would be included in the insurance system. In the depressed areas it is those classes who

2145
have not the ordinary standby upon which many other classes of the community can to some extent rely, and who would be very grateful for such a change. I trust that the Minister will note the two points I have raised, and, will make some remark, particularly upon the former point.
9.5 p.m.
Sir JOHN WITHERS: I rise to sup port the Bill, and to say that I should be pleased to support a very considerable extension of the principle embodied in it. A person like myself who is not mixed up intimately with insurance matters finds it very difficult to go into detail, and I feel strongly that a consolidation Bill should be brought in to help the ordinary person who wishes to know something about the subject. Two important points in connection with the Bill are that the arrears are now to tally obliterated—they were half obliterated before—and that, as I understand, some 200,000 persons will be retained with in benefit. That in itself is a very great thing. I would also very strongly urge the Minister to consider, if possible, in the future, if not in this Bill, improving the maternity benefit. I think everyone who has spoken in the Debate has referred to the maternity benefit. It is a matter of very great importance, not only for the husband, but also for the wife and for the little child that is born.
Another matter to which I should like to refer is a little delicate, namely, the attitude taken up by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in her criticism of the Labour Opposition. The Noble Lady said that the Measures of the Government in these social matters were not strong enough, because, as I understood her, the Labour Opposition were not strong enough to urge the Government on; and there was also very considerable criticism of their attitude and powers. I wish to dissociate myself, as would, I am sure, most of the Members on my side of the House, from any such criticism. It has been to me and my associates a source of very great wonder that so small a body of men as the Labour party should have kept their flag—whichIdo not in the least follow or admire—jolly well flying. It is wonderful to think that so few people should have made themselves specialists in the number of intricate matters that have been
2146
brought forward during this Parliament. I heartily congratulate the m, and wish to dissociate myself and the Members of my party from any of the criticisms made by the Noble Lady, who, I am sure, must have made them by some inadvertence, and with out having really thought much about the matter.
9.9 p.m.
Mr. CLARKE: I rise to make an appeal to the Minister on one point, and that is that an additional Clause should be inserted in the Bill to provide for the insurance of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16. I have set down four reasons for this, which, with the permission of the House, I should like to give. The first is that there is at present no organised provision for the medical treatment of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16.Secondly, this is a critical period of growth, when neglect may cause irreparable damage. Boys and girls are subject to considerable strain when they first enter employment. Thirdly the examinations by certifying surgeons under the Factory Acts are confined to a section of the juvenile population, and are merely designed to prevent boys and girls with health defects from entering industrial employment; there is no provision for remedying any of the defects discovered. Fourthly, unemployed boys and girls joining junior instruction centres and classes may be treated by school medical officers, and it seems anomalous that the unemployed in this respect should be provided for while the employed are not. This tragedy of juvenile unemployment is so serious that one feels that some special provision should be made in these cases, and I am sure it would be for the future benefit of the citizenship of our country.
9.12 p.m.
Dr. O'DONOVAN: The hon. Member the Wavertree Division of Liverpool (Mr. Cleary) will, I hope, excuse me if I quote his opening remarks in which he stated that this Bill brought us face to face with depressed areas. I take it that he will not mind if I amend his statement to express the wider view that this Bill brings us face to face with the care of the health of the British people, of whom those in the depressed areas are a fraction, but not a dominating consideration. This Bill is entitled:
"Amendment of National Health Insurance Act, 1924."

2147
We have had in this Debate many references to employment and unemployment, and even to means tests; we have had references to actuaries and praise of actuaries; indeed, this is a Bill which deals with many millions of pounds. But, th ereferences in the Bill and in the Debate to the care of the people's health have ben singularly slight, and in no sense deep.
The first matter to which I should like to refer is an aspect of the approved societies as regards the care of the health of the people. We entrust a great deal of the financial help of the sick to the approved societies; but such societies, once they have the millions of the public in their custody, husband those millions with a care that has the full approval of the British Treasury, but is often a source of grave disquiet to the doctors and to the sick throughout the country.
Ordinarily a medical certificate is given in good faith to a sick person, but the impish ingenuity of the skilled advisers of the approved societies can see many outlets for the unwary disbursement of public money through medical certificates written in good faith but with out lawyer-like skill; and, while those difficulties are being cleared up by leisurely correspondence, the sick person often waits weeks for the financial assistance that is so pressingly necessary to him. I would like to point out also that, when the sickness becomes a matter of litigation, so that the approved societies and the insurance companies, both having skilled professional advisers, are set in opposition to one another, the needy sick per son may wait weeks and months for any assistance from either side until the eminent lawyers and specialists, with the help of the judiciary, have come to some conclusion, and then only are his needs met. I should say in passing that it is occasionally possible for the two sides to come to some temporary compromise as to which shall pay in the interim, but I notice in my work, and many of my brothers also notice, that, when this House wishes to help the sick instantly, the skilled professional advisers of approved societies, carrying out their very proper work of the custody of their funds, put a very high barrier between the poor sick man and the money that he might have.
2148
Ithink it is quite fair and proper at this stage to point out how much trust this House puts in the medical profession. On page 4 of the Bill will be found references to.
"specific disease or bodily or mental disablement."
The action taken in such cases depends upon accurate medical certification. On page 5 there is a reference to.
"satisfactory evidence of his incapacity,"
and behind the production of that satisfactory evidence is the expenditure of very large sum of public money; yet I think it is quite correct to say that the men who have the first custody of those large sums of public money are perhaps the most overworked of all the professional men in this country. Their day's work starts quite often at half-past eight in the morning. They finish a heavy surgery by half-past nine at night, and after that come night calls; and through out that day's work, in addition to their ordinary professional care of sick people, they have to give the most minute attention to certification and to the observance of complex regulations which are showered upon them with the best of intentions, but which, collected, make a full volume year by year. This work of certification cannot be escaped once we are responsible to the State for this Fund, but it does, I think, need some pointed observation in this House that all the actuarial calculations which have been referred to so approvingly would be rendered nugatory unless the actuaries could depend year by year upon consistent and accurate medical certification. The fact that this generally approved Bill depends so much upon the actuary, and the fact that the actuary depends so much upon medical certification—these two concomitant observations lead one to state fairly to the House that medical certification is pretty accurate and very reliable.
We have been to ld that it would be advisable for additional benefits to be granted. It has been suggested that these additional benefits might be maternal benefits and dental benefits, but, if I may I would put in a prior plea before the se, that specialist advice be made more available through the Ministry of Health for panel doctors up and down the country. It is not dignified or proper that this service should depend for its ultimate efficiency upon the free

2149
advice of consultants up and down the country. The more the panel system is approved and extended, and the more medical benefits are extended among the poor people, the more patients will be found to need specialist advice. The out patients of all the great hospitals are being more and more crowded by patients sent to them in pursuit of their proper aims by doctors whose work is safeguarded and increased by this amending Bill. Before we consider dental benefit we might turn our minds to the extension of maternity benefit. I refer to this matter because the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently referred in his Budget speech to the fall in the birth-rate as a possible menace to future prosperity and stability of this country, and if more can be done to encourage motherhood it can not be done more speedily and more simply than through the operation of this amending Bill.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. If the age groups of population in this country are to change greatly, the actuarial provisions for ex tended benefit will be rendered very shaky. If we are to have, therefore, through a fall in the birth-rate an in creasing aged population, then our figures to -night are based upon a shifting basis. I should very much like to hear from the Minister if the change in the birth-rate and the change in the age groups of the population, which are referred to repeatedly in specialist papers on this matter, are constantly and frequently under review by his actuarial advisers.
This is a big Bill. It covers the expenditure of millions of pounds. sit touches the lives, the happiness and the health of millions of poor people, and I am sure, therefore, that the country will welcome the attention which the Minister and his expert advisers have given to the matter. One must confess that this Bill could not have been produced by the wisdom of Parliament. We in the House have many and diverse occupations and few of us are familiar with every aspect of the difficulties of insurance benefits, but we feel that all these difficulties have been collated during the past few years and that they have been sifted and arranged from their disorder especially for our benefit. In thanking the Minister for bringing in this much awaited
2150
amending Bill, I think that it will not be out of place for a medical man who knows what specialism is to add a word of tribute and thanks to the specialist advisers of the Minister, those in the employment exchanges, and those in his own office who have made our work here possible to-night.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is not the first time that I have had the privilege of listening to Debates in this House on national health insurance, and I must congratulate the Minister on the way he managed the many technicalities of this very intricate Bill. I was not moved, however, by some of the statements made by supporters of the Government about the magnitude of the Measure. One could imagine in listening to some of the laudatory remarks, especially the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson), that the pillars of the Empire were shaking in their sockets because this Bill came before the House to -day. Some hon. Gentlemen would have us believe that this is a more important occasion than when the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced his scheme for the first time in 1911.On looking round these empty benches to -night, however, this Bill does not seem to be quite as important as the events which culminated at that time.
Before I proceed any further on these lines, it is only right to say that the main features of the Bill are very accept able; there is no doubt about that. It is no use gainsaying it. They are acceptable in the main because we on these benches have agitated for the m. It is not long since I stood at this Box to open a Debate on two problems, maternal mortality and the condition of these 200,000 men, and we were not very hopeful from the reply of the Minister that day of anything being done at all for these unemployed people.
I am really driven to the belief that this Bill has very much greater significance than merely restoring the insurance and pensions rights of 200,000 unemployed people. I have an impression that the sound of the general election is somewhere in the air. Indeed, the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth

2151
(Viscountess Astor) would have the Government give greater publicity to this Measure and the manner it has been brought before us to -day. We shall, I suppose, see this Bill and its contents blazoned upon the hoardings of the country, but I must pay tribute to the wisdom of those who are behind this advertising campaign that these great posters do not appear in my particular constituency; they have not the slightest meaning in a division like mine. There is not a word of truth in any of the statements on these posters in relation to the distressed areas of this country. I was diverted to that subject by the hon. Gentleman who smiles at me. Let me say, therefore, that we welcome the main provisions of this Bill, as I have already indicated. It is a great relief for the unemployed man to feel that he is not going to lose his pension, the one thing that would indeed have disheartened him more than anything else. He was afraid, up to the coming of this Bill, that when he reached a given age he might lose his old age contributory pension. That, of course, would have been a very terrible thing for him.
I am not so sure that it is possible in any circumstances for the employed man to know what it means to be in the position of the unemployed. Unfortunately, I have seen this actually happen: a man may have been unemployed for many months and he may know exactly what it means to stiffer prolonged unemployment, but when he gets a job even he forgets the very conditions from which he has emerged. I say, therefore, that it takes some mental effort to understand the heart-breaking situation of men who were left out in the cold until the introduction of this Bill. The Government have come to the penitent form for the second time this year. I am now a greater believer in political democracy than ever, because this is the second occasion that public opinion has roused itself to such an extent as to move even this stupid Government—and it is a stupid Government: you never know who is the Prime Minister to start with —to change its mind. That is saying a lot.
Let me say a word or two about medical certification. The hon. Member who referred to this subject should call at the Ministry of Health, where he will find a report on medical certification,
2152
which would show him that if approved societies paid benefits on medical certification alone they would require a Bill many times as big as this to get them over their financial difficulties.
I should like now to refer to the speech made by the Minister when he introduced the Bill. He used some strange arguments which I could not follow. Never since I have been here have I heard such camouflaged oratory as I have listened to in this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was introduced because of improvement in trade and employment, as if those things affected the health insured population and had such a great influence on the finances of the scheme. The n he claimed that the contributions of the insured population under this scheme have increased between 1932 and 1934. I have yet to learn that there has been any year since 1912 when the total contributions have not increased—because the insured population has increased, anyhow. Even if unemployment figures in our statistics, I cannot conceive that this scheme will ever show that there is not a greater number of persons in health insurance than there was in the previous year. That follows almost automatically. Consequently, I could not very well understand the argument of the right hon. Gentle man. I noticed hat in his speech he was always anxious about protecting the finances of the scheme; and supporters of the Government have since been thanking the Government for what they are doing to -day. Were it not for what the Government did in 1932, they would not be doing this to -day.
I will venture to tell the House what the true position is. It is just as if a man stole a shilling from me and expected me to thank him for bringing three pence of it back. That is exactly the position. As has been said over and over again, the Tory party in this country must take responsibility for shaking the foundations of the finances of the scheme. The re can be no argument about that. Does any hon. Member in this House think for a, moment that this Bill or the 1932 Act would have been necessary were it not for the fact that £2, 750,000 per annum was taken from this scheme under the Economy Act of 1926 7 Would any hon. Member dispute that? the Government, having the n

2153
taken £2, 750,000 per annum out of the scheme, now want us to thank them profusely for putting back just one-fourth of that amount.
The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I am a little critical of one or two things in the Bill itself; I have never yet known a Measure about which we could agree on everything contained in it. I should refer, to o, to the very common statement made that our social services are now costing the State £500,000,000 per annum, and that this Bill is an addition to that cost. Hon. Gentlemen who make that statement must always bear in mind that our social services are, on the financial side, built up in a large measure by contributions from employers and employed. It is never correct to say that these schemes are "costing the country" so much; they cost the workman something in almost every case. I have heard people say: "See how much we pay away from the Treasury to wards unemployment, health insurance and contributory pensions benefits." they do not take into account that the State in the main only contributes one-third of the total of these benefits.
I have indicated already that I did not like the way in which this Bill was regarded as comprehensive, generous, and as a mighty piece of social reform. I detect trumpets for the next general election whenever I hear these adjectives coming from hon. Members who sup port the Government. Something was said about agreements with the approved societies. I will tell the House what sort of agreement the approved societies always make with the Government. The societies are to ld by the Minister of Health that he has been able to get £750,000 per annum for this scheme out of the Treasury and that now the approved societies must agree how that money shall be used. That is all the agreement the approved societies are asked to enter into. What else can they do? It is wrong, there fore, to say in all these cases—as was said in 1932—that the approved societies have agreed to it all. In fact, we know that the same argument was applied when the 22,750,000 was taken annually out of the scheme. The approved societies were said to have agreed the n; but the only agreement they came to was that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
2154
going to take £2,750,000 he should appropriate it in a certain way. The money was to be taken whether they agreed or not. I therefore object to that argument being employed in this connection.
I, to o, want to pay a tribute to the Civil Service. They are in the same position as the approved societies; they have got to cut the coat according to the cloth. In my view, the civil servants have cut a decent coat out of a pretty rotten bit of cloth on this occasion.
We are setting up an Unemployment Arrears Fund and we are to ld to-day that the Treasury will contribute to that fund£750,000 per annum. It sounds a lot if you say it with a particular modulation of the voice and with a little sing song behind it. If I were a Wagner I would write it in grand opera; it would sound better still. The Government give away millions of pounds in wheat subsidy, beet sugar subidy, Austrian loans and so forth, and then expect us to be very thankful for what they are doing for these poor unemployed people in this Bill. How are they doing it 7 It is very cleverly done. First of all, there is to be a fund established of £1,500,000 per annum to help these un employed people to secure their pension rights, medical benefit and cash benefits in some cases. I understand that £130,000 of that will go to the medical profession. I have an impression that the medical profession, had something to do with securing medical benefit for the unemployed. The re never was a stronger trade union established than that of the medical profession, except maybe the legal profession.
It is a very clever way in which the Treasury are going to deal with the first year in connection with the new fund. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were going to take £701, 000 out of the surplus of the Army, Navy and Air Force Fund. They are doing that because the men in the forces never pay contributions to the fund. Consequently, as the employer pays the whole of the contribution the employer is entitled to raid the surplus. In reply to that argument, let me say that these men joined the forces under a contract of service, and if they knew that the surplus created out of this money was being filched in this way I am not sure that they would be as satisfied as the

2155
right hon. Gentleman thinks they are. The argument used is: "Do not worry about our appropriating this surplus because the men in the forces will still be entitled to additional benefits similar to those paid to the civil population by the approved societies." That is a very neat way of putting it. What is happening I the right hon. Gentleman and his Department know full well that the main purpose of the whole scheme is to put a levy on the contributions pay able by the civil population. That will automatically reduce the capacity of the approved societies to pay additional benefits. It stands to reason that that will happen once you adopt this scheme, about which I am not complaining [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I am not complaining, but I cannot under stand that kind of argument coming from the Front Bench. Once you adopt this scheme you automatically reduce the surpluses available in the approved societies for paying additional benefits. It is no use, when you have reduced the additional benefits to the civil population, telling the men in His Majesty's Forces: "We shall secure for you the same additional benefits, on the average, that are available to the civil population".
Those of us who are in the administration of approved societies will take some convincing about some of the arguments we have heard to -day. Let me quote the case of one society which al ready provides four additional benefits at a cost of £2, 300 per annum. The levy on contributions under the Bill for this society will be £2, 800 per annum. The levy swallows up more than the cost of four additional benefits at one stroke. What is the use, there fore, of saying to the men in His Majesty's Forces that they will get the same additional benefits that are paid in this particular society, when that society may not be able to pay any 'additional benefits at all? In spite of all that I have no hesitation in saying that the time has arrived when well-to-do societies ought to help the weaker ones, and I happen to be connected with what is called a fairly fortunate society.
I should like to call 'attention to one particular Clause in the Bill, and I want to deal with it rather delicately. The point has already been raised by the hon.
2156
Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), who knows great deal about this business. The re are 500,000 voluntary contributors in this scheme. Most of them are non-manual workers, whose income has been increased beyond the rate of £250 per annum. They are fairly well off among the working class in receiving £4 16s. 2d.a week, and although I am not speaking particularly on their behalf, there is one thing in equity which ought to be said about the m. They pay out of their own pockets the combined contribution of employer and employed. In some cases they will be unemployed. They have been induced to become voluntary contributors by Members of Parliament, at the instance of the Minister of Health. They have been to ld that if they wanted they could come in as voluntary contributors, and they did so with out knowing that this Bill would be produced. They have lost their medical benefits, because the medical profession have to ld them long ago that they are capable of paying for their own medical attention. They cannot get medical attention through panel practice.
I have never been able to understand why the Government do not include the non-manual worker, irrespective of his income, in the same category as the manual worker. What is happening to these people? Not only have they lost their panel doctor, not only do they have to pay the combined contribution of employer and employed, but they are going to have to pay a levy with the rest in order to establish an unemployment arrears fund, from which they will not benefit. Although they have to pay the full combined contribution, when they themselves are unemployed they will not be able to benefit from the unemployment arrears fund. The basis and foundation of the assurance principle is that you do not call for contributions from any person unless he is entitled at some time to benefits in common with the rest of his fellows. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) shakes his head.
Sir R. MELLER: The hon. Member is dealing with the case where a man makes a selection as against a group of persons who are compulsorily insured. He usually comes in at a very much later age and has had the advantage of a flat

2157
rate of contribution, whereas if his contribution were based upon age at entry the contribution would be very much heavier than under the present scheme.
Mr. DAVI ES: The re is a good deal in that point, if these men were not unemployed after they have become voluntary contributors. A large number of them have entered into business, they have taken little shops and after a short period the business has been lost and they find themselves un employed, and yet they are called upon to pay a levy, although some of them may be in a worse position than the ordinary unemployed. The re is something wrong in such a case. Having induced some of these unemployed to become voluntary contributors, on the assumption that this Bill would not be introduced—and six months ago no one believed that it would be introduced—I am sure that the Minister does not want them to be in a worse position than they would have been if they had never become voluntary contributors. I understand that there is one society with 80,000 insured members, 60,000 of whom are voluntary contributors. Consequently, the problem is really one which requires some attention.
Let me turn to what the actuary has said about the amount of the weekly levy, and put the position as I see it. The actuary has made a suggestion that the levy should be based on so much from the man's contribution and so much from the woman's. An hon. Member asked why the difference—one third and one-ninth? Unless I am mistaken the reason is that a woman leaves insurance on marriage, whereas a man hardly ever leaves. He does not go out on getting married; indeed, that is all the more reason for remaining. But there is nothing in the Bill to prove what the hon. Member said. I should like to know whether the levy is going to be based on the suggestion of the actuary.
There is another point upon which I hope I shall secure the agreement of hon. Members in all parties. Every child in this country is examined by a doctor Four times on the average during his elementary school career. The vast majority of them never see a doctor again after they enter employment until they reach 16 years of age, when they come into this scheme. How many of the se
2158
children are left out of health insurance? For every argument you can give for including boys and girls from 14 to 16 with in the unemployment insurance scheme, there are a dozen in favour of including them with in this scheme. How many are the re? they were included in unemployment insurance for the first time in September last year, and 499,000 boys and 400,000 girls, 899,000 altogether, between 14 and 16 years of age were registered under the unemployment insurance scheme by last March. I am sorry to say—I thought it would have been otherwise—that children are still being dismissed from their jobs by some unscrupulous employers merely because they come into health insurance at 16, the employer arguing that the cost of the contribution upsets his budget. I trust that the Government will be able to do something to take that excuse away from such an employer altogether. Let us, therefore, include these boys and girls in health insurance.
Then there is the question of the test of 10 years which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It seems to me that the test is a little to o rigid. I know some of the arguments against another test, that the approved societies may not be able to trace membership further back than 10 years, but I think most approved societies are able to trace their membership at least for 17 years. They can test their membership not only for benefit purposes but for contribution purposes as well much further back than 10 years. I would also urge the point which has been referred to already, in connection with the loss of cash benefits in certain of these cases. I was much tickled, shall I say, with the new provision whereby the benefits beyond £50 of an insured person who is in an institution are to be transferred to the Central Fund, and that the Central Fund is going to be used for the purposes of equalising the finances of the scheme. Most of these people will be in lunatic asylums. All approved societies have a proportion of them. If you accept the fact, as it seems to me to be a fact, that all approved societies will have about the same proportion of members in this category, then what is the use of taking this money from the approved societies into the Central Fund of the Ministry of Health and then sharing it out again among the same

2159
approved societies. It would be much better to let each approved society retain the money in order to extend their additional benefits, if they have a surplus. I do not think I am putting it too strong when I say that this provision is devised in order to compel lunatics to secure the benefit rights of sane persons. That may be a rather strong thing to say, but it seems to me that it comes to that in the end.
There is one small point of administration at which I should like the Minister to look. Approved societies are not quite satisfied with the case of a person surrendering medical certificates for three days only, he only becomes entitled to benefit on the fourth day un less there is an additional cash benefit payable. A man can fall ill for three days, six or seven times, but if these three days fall with in a given period, he may pass through the scheme with out receiving any sickness benefit at all. Those three days should be regarded as a waiting period, and he should be paid benefit on the first day of his second illness. It would not cost much. The re is one further important point. Am I right in assuming that about 20,000 unemployed persons will not be covered by this scheme at all? I am under the impression that this figure has been given, and I think officially. It would be well, there fore, if we were to ld what type of person is not covered in spite of all these pro visions. Am I right in assuming that it will be the young fellow of 25 years, who enters insurance at 16 years, with nine years, but who has not ten years continuous insurance? We are not quite satisfied on that score.
Then there is the other point which has been stressed, the loss of maternity benefit in some of these cases. On that score the Bill does, indeed, put some of the unemployed in a worse position than they were before its introduction. It may be but a small number, but there they are. Let me put one pertinent question, to which I should like a reply, in connection with the pensions scheme. How comes it that the contributions of women for pension purposes are increased by one penny per week while the employers' contribution remains stationary? It has been the practice up to now that when
2160
the contribution of the insured person has been increased there has been a pro rata increase in the employer's contribution as well.
The Bill is long overdue. Let me give the case of a Lancashire approved society—and approved societies, unfortunately, are not national organisations. Some of them are based on counties, some on districts, some on towns, some on religious denominations, some on crafts and some on industries. Take the case of a Lancashire society, where the unemployment rate in one year not long ago was 19 weeks on the average per member throughout the year, and in another society it was only about three weeks on the average. The old scheme is unfair on that score.
I would pay a compliment to the Minis try in one respect, and that is on Clause 7,the provision to cover border-line eases which were thought to have been covered by the Act of 1932.I refer particularly to slaughtermen in abattoirs, who were thought to be covered already. I ask whether the Minister cannot see his way clear at this stage to deal with one other matter. We are in the difficulty, in a Bill of this kind, that we cannot table Amendments that will increase the charge upon the Exchequer. I am going to appeal to the Minister to deal with one or two other things. Some friendly societies have branches, and each branch is a separate unit in itself. But we have this anomaly: You have a branch of a society, say, in Norfolk, a rich branch with plenty of surplus on valuation. You have a branch of the same society in Durham or Glasgow or Cardiff, but it is in deficiency, and, lo and behold, as the law stands now there is no means of allowing the rich branch of the same society, with its surplus, to come to the aid of the poor one. We have made an attempt on more than one occasion to secure redress in this matter. I am hoping that the Minister may be able to do something on that score in this Bill.
Whatever our criticism of the acts of Governments may be, this scheme stands out as the most effectively ad ministered social insurance scheme in history. In travelling abroad I have taken a little interest in finding out what is done in other countries. Whatever our criticisms of Governments or schemes or

2161
institutions may be, I am proud to think that this scheme stands pre-eminent among all schemes of the kind in the world. I do hope that after the passage of this Bill, whatever Government may be in power, that some administration some day will take a very much deeper interest in this problem of health insurance and pensions, and will try at any rate to do one thing—to extend its operations and to widen its scope so that we may achieve some of the noble aims of its originators in 1911.
9.59 p.m.
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Although this is a very complicated and very technical subject, we have had a great number of interesting and valuable views expressed on it. Personally I do not remember a day, with a Health Insurance Bill under discussion, when the Government received so many bouquets, and I start therefore by thanking several hon. Members for their appreciation of the purpose of this Bill. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson), the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller), who have deep knowledge of the subject, made most interesting contributions; and I must include also the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool(Mr. Logan), and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).The hon. Member for West houghton started by welcoming the Bill, but finished by saying it was long over due, and he introduced in the middle a lot of irrelevant facts based on claims that cannot be sustained. The interesting thing to know, however, is that all those Members of the House who have had experience of approved society work, bless the Bill. Indeed we claim that it is a humane, just and practical Measure.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that the Bill would not have been possible but for the Act of 1932.We have never pretended that the Act of 1932 was a popular Measure. The National Government were not returned to do popular things; they were returned to rescue the country from the deplorable financial condition into which it had lapsed, and among our essays we passed that Act, which did in fact restore the solvency of the health and pensions insurance scheme. But it was always understood that when things improved —not in relation to a general election—
2162
when the Government Actuary reported on the scherna—the Government Actuary does not report in relation to a general election—steps would be taken to review the situation in the light of the improved situation. It is true that the finances of approved societies do depend on the contribution income. It is no good saying that more people come into approved societies year after year, for if we look up the figures for 1930, 1931 and 1932, in spite of the increased membership of approved societies the fact that unemployment increased in those times meant that the finances were straitened and the contribution income decreased every year.
I will deal with some of the main points that the hon. Member raised, but let me, in passing, refer to one thing which he called a flaw. He said that the voluntary contributor was put in the same category as the employed contributor, that a levy was being put on him for the purposes of the Unemployment Arrears Fund, and that in spite of that fact he did not get the same benefit as the employed contributor. That is true. But then the hon. Member for Mitcham, who has a far greater knowledge of this question than I have, pointed out the reason for it. The great bulk of these voluntary contributors came under the Act of 1926, and they came in, not at the age of 16, but at various ages in middle life. Had they been asked to pay a contribution in accordance with the benefits or the risks they might have paid 3s., 5s.and even 7s., whereas they were admitted at a flat rate spread over a number of years. But what has been the consequence of that? High reserve values have been created in respect of these voluntary contributors and these reserve values have to be redeemed by levies on contributions over the whole field of insurance, including employed contributors. To that extent members of approved societies have had to wait, and will have to wait, much longer for additional benefits, owing to the fact that a part of their contributions instead of going some day to additional benefits goes to redeem the high reserve values of the voluntary contributors. It is very technical.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not possible that you will have in the scheme as many employed as voluntary contributors who joined at a late age?
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That may be, but that is another point. The point is this If you wish to treat voluntary contributors as a class by themselves in logic it will be plain that they must be admitted at different rates of contribution and you will have a graded scheme as you had in 1912. The hon. Member raised the question of the gap in insurance between 14 and 16, and here one is in sympathy with him. I think there is a demand for medical benefit. I think that we should all like to see that gap removed, but we have not the finances to do it at the moment and we must leave something for posterity. Several hon. Gentlemen raised the question of the complicated nature of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend authorises me to say that it is our intention to consolidate these Health Insurance Acts as soon as possible. That will be to the benefit of everybody.
Now we come to the big question of the 200,000 who but for this Bill would have fallen out of all pension rights at the end of December of this year. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) challenged the assertion of the Minister that all but 5 per cent. of these would qualify for the 10 years' test, because he thought that the average would be higher in the distressed areas.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman and also the Minister I neither maintained nor insinuated that the average for the distressed areas would be higher. What I actually said was that the numbers in the distressed areas would be higher than in some other areas.
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sorry if I misinterpreted what the hon. Member said, but I do not think that it is true, for this reason: In the distressed areas there has been prolonged unemployment and the age of the unemployed is higher. As we have framed our 10 years' test not on work, nor on contributions but on insurance the chances are that there will be a greater percentage of unemployed men who have satisfied the 10 years' test in the distressed areas than elsewhere. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) asked who the 200,000 were. As far as we know, 180,000 of them ore men and 20,000 women. Everyone of them must have ceased work
2164
before 31st December, 1932, and the bulk of them form the hard core of unemployment who have been kept in by successive prolongation Acts. The bulk of them have paid nothing in recent years either to health or pensions insurance. They are men in middle age or even older. The great bulk of them must be over 30. The re are very few young men among them. In so far as a very small part of the 200,000 do not satisfy the 10 years' test the chances are that they are the young men, under 30, who have left the field of insurance. We are satisfied that we have done substantial justice to a very real grievance among these 200,000 people. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that it is hard for men who have been used to family life to have to go else where. All except a fraction—young men who have gone elsewhere—are men who were turned out of work at the age of 50, and whose pension rights might be affected unless something were done. It is the man who has done some work since the War but who has been unemployed for many years who is kept in. That is the man whose full pension rights have been safeguarded. I am sure that all of us in all parties are glad that the finances are so improved that we are able to do it. The re are one or two doubts as to the 10 years' test but we are satisfied that on the whole it is a very fair test. We do not say: has a man been 10 years in insurance when he ceased work? We say: has he been 10 years in insurance? It is the widest test he could have. All but the young will satisfy that test.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White) raised the question of Clause 7 and asked whether certain casual workers would qualify. I do not know as he did not give me enough information to go on. But there are certain hard cases which the Clause is designed to cover. I am thinking of a footballer who was deemed to be in insurance, contributed, received benefit and then suddenly as the result of a high court decision was held to be no longer an insured person. All that we do is to validate the past.
the hon. Member for Gorbals made several interesting criticisms, as he always does on questions of insurance, and he stated that we were not so generous under this Bill as we were under the 1932 Act in one particular point. It

2165
may be that if you look at just one corner of the whole field you do not get a right conception of the whole. Let us take the case of two men who fall out of employment and qualify for insurance under the 1932 Act and under this Bill and see who is most fairly treated. First forget this Bill and take the old case. A man fell out of insurance; he had his 21 months as a start and cash benefits. He might have been subject to arrears. Then he had an extended year. The chances were, in the ordinary case of an unemployed man, that although he had his free insurance period, 21 months plus an extended year, he received no cash benefits. If he had been unemployed for 21 months it was very rarely that any cash benefit was payable because the right to benefit was governed by previous contributions. In point of fact, that concession was not worth very much to him as the hon. Member for Mitcham has pointed out. What are we doing, under this Bill? If a man falls out of work now, whatever his contributions, he starts off by getting 21 months full cash benefit. If he was unemployed for the whole of the previous contribution year and paid nothing, he still gets his full cash benefit for 21 months. After that, he gets a full year's pension cover if he has the four years insurance qualification. If he has the 10 years insurance qualification, as the great bulk will have except those young people to whom I have referred, he will be entitled to medical benefit year by year and covered for pensions for the rest of his life, even though he remains unemployed and does not pay anything further. Taking the large and wide view, I suggest that under this Bill we are treating the man in a far more generous way than was possible under the 1932 Act.
Mr. LOGAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean full cash benefit subject to the ordinary conditions of the society, even though a reduced rate has been paid?
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: He will get the full cash benefit. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked what would happen if a man had not franked his card. There is always provision for supplying alternative evidence.
Mr. BATEY: The n if he had ceased to register at the exchange, if he has not his card franked, all he needs to do is to prove that he was unemployed?
Mr. BUCHANAN: He has to satify his society.
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The re is no change in practice. If he has not his card franked he can get corroborative evidence that he has been looking for work. There has not been much trouble with regard to this question among the approved societies. The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Cleary) raised a point about 50 per cent. dental benefit. That matter does not come with in the scope of the Bill. It is a matter for a recommendation to the Minister by the consultative council and, as far as I know, the consultative council have always been against it. To sum up.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the details will he answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and myself as to the position of the voluntary contributor—the man who, not knowing that this Measure was going to be introduced, chose to become a voluntary contributor and is now in a worse position?
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I meant to deal with that point, which I may explain briefly to the House. A part of the 200,000, that "hard core" who had exhausted their free insurance period and extended period and were only kept insured for pension until the end of this year, may have decided that they were finished with pensions and that they had better become voluntary contributors, so that whatever happened some form of pension would be preserved to them. In the Bill all the se, or 95 per cent. of the m, with out the exercise of any such caution on their part are safeguarded. The hon. Member suggested that a man ought not to be penalised for his caution in this respect. Although I cannot give any definite pledge, we will look at that point sympathetically to see whether, somehow or other, we can ensure that these per sons are not ranked as ordinary voluntary contributors, but that they will come in for the benefits of this Bill.
Let me sum up. In future, after the 1st January, 1936, any person who falls out of work will get 21 months' full cash benefit, and if he has been four years in insurance and has paid 160 contributions he gets the extra year of full pension rights. If, as the bulk

2167
will be, they are men who have been continuously employed for many years and they satisfy the 10 years test, then they are entitled to medical benefit and have their pension rights safeguarded year after year subject to proof of unemployment. As regards arrears they all go, and they go as it were retrospectively. The House will appreciate that if a man falls out of employment next year and starts his 21 months' full cash period, but for this Bill his sickness benefit next calendar year would be governed by contributions as from last July, 1934. This Bill means that such a man—and there are hundreds and thousands—will get full cash benefit what ever his contributions in the year 1934-35. Indeed, some 5,000,000 persons, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, who would have expected a reduction in sickness benefit next year owing to their unemployment experience in the previous contribution year, will under this Bill be entitled to the full cash benefit.
Finally, we have made it easy for the man in his free insurance period, that is, the 21 months, or in his extended period, to requalify. If in the free period of 21 months he does eight weeks' work in two consecutive half-years, he requalifies for another free period as soon as he becomes unemployed. In the extended period when a man, perhaps year after year subject to unemployment, is kept in full pension, he can requalify for all benefits, that is, full cash benefits and so forth, by 26 weeks' work. When one considers that the new entrant has to wait until, he has paid 104 contributions for disablement benefit, the House will see how generous these provisions are and how we have done our best to secure a title to the full benefit of insurance.
I will conclude by repeating what my right hon. Friend said and in congratulating the societies on their far-sighted ness and their willingness to share each other's burdens in this matter, because it is the more fortunate societies that will contribute most and the less fortunate societies, those whose finances have been straitened by unemployment among their members, who will contribute least and gain most. Therefore, it is a real sharing, and the approved societies ought to be congratulated on their vision. I venture to think that this Bill will long be remembered, not only as a popular
2168
Measure, but as a humane and practical Measure. Indeed I have noted with pleasure that a very experienced man in the insurance world referred to this Bill as the charter of the unemployed, and I should like the House to think of that when it comes to pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committeed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday, 17th June[Sir G. Penny.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No.69.
[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment in respect of each contribution year out of moneys provided by Parliament to an unemployment arrears fund of a sum which will, together with so much of any disposable surplus certified as a result of any valuation made after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, to exist in the Navy, Army and Air Force insurance fund (after providing for the cost of maintaining the prescribed additional 'benefits) as may in pursuance of directions by the Treasury be transferred to that arrears fund, be equal to the total sum to be paid to that fund in respect of that year out of amounts retained from the weekly contributions in respect of members of approved societies;

(b) the payment out of moneys pro vided by Parliament of such increases in the sums payable out of moneys so pro vided under the said enactments and the enactments relating to Old Age Pensions as are attributable to—

(i) the treating of all moneys credited to approved societies out of the said Unemployment Arrears Fund as wholly derived from contributions made by or in respect of contributors;

(ii) the extension of the period of free insurance allowable in cases of unemployment to persons who at the beginning of their free insurance period are employed contributors who have been continuously insured for at least ten years;

2169

(iii)the extension to officers of the reserve forces, with or with out adaptatations, modifications, or conditions of sub-section (3) of section sixty-one and sub-section (2) of section one hundred and eight of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924;

(iv) the conferring on the Minister, where the High Court has given a decision inconsistent with, or the Minister has on new facts revised, a previous determination of the Minister, of a power to direct that persons by or in respect of whom contributions have been paid by reason of the previous determination or in the reasonable belief that the previous determination was applicable, should he treated as though they had been in insurable employment during any week in respect of which those contributions were paid;

(v) the extension of paragraph (e) of Part I of the First Schedule to the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, to cases where the use of a vessel or vehicle is obtained from a person who is not the owner thereof;

(vi) the enabling of persons who, while insured as voluntary contributors, become insured as employed contributors again to become voluntary contributors on ceasing to be employed;

(c) the repayment to the Exchequer ofso much of any sum paid under section seventeen of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, to the Central Fund as is derived from moneys provided byParliament."—[Sir H. Young.]—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I ask whether the Government take power in this Resolution only to take the £701, 000 surplus which is in the Navy, Army and Air Force Fund at present, or does the Resolution give them power to take any surpluses in future? the Resolution seems to imply that.
10.28 p.m.
Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Resolution, he will see that it is framed in general terms, and the purpose is to enable the Government to transfer the credit from the Navy, Army and Air Force Fund to the general unemployment arrears fund in order to cover the deficit. If the hon. Member will consult the Actuary's report he will find it stated that this balance is riot likely to be a recurring balance. It cannot be counted on from year to year, and we must only look upon it as a casual aid for this year because it is due to circumstances which arose after the War and which are of a non-recurrent character. I would ask the hon. Member
2170
to look at the actual terms of the Resolution. The crucial words are the se:
"The payment in respect of each contribution year out of moneys provided by Parliament…together with so much of any disposable surplus certified as a result of any valuation made after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two."
It is clear that the transfer of such balance would be authorised under the terms of the Motion as regards each contribution year in respect of which any disposable surplus was certified as the result of any valuation of the fund; but actually on consulting the Actuary's re port, we find that it is not probable that there will be such a surplus.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday, 17th June.

COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY (CONVENTION) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
10.32 p.m.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think it requires very many words from me to explain this brief Bill, which has come down to us from another place. The reasons which have led to its introduction are that in 1929 a Convention was signed at Geneva to deal with counterfeit currency, because some three years before the French Government had called the attention of the League of Nations to certain instances in which currency was being forged in a foreign country. There had been, of course, the notorious case of French banknotes being forged on a large scale in Hungary. As a matter of fact, we in this country suffer from counterfeiting in foreign countries as much as any country, perhaps for the reason that our currency is so good and a Bank Of England note is thought a valuable thing to possess. As a result of the discussions a Convention was signed in 1929 with all the countries whose delegates were present at the League of Nations, and with the United States and Russia as well. The Convention laid it down first, that counterfeiting of currency should be a crime; secondly, that the counterfeiting of the currency of a foreign country should be

2171
punished in any given place as severely as the counterfeiting of the domestic currency; thirdly, that counterfeiting or attempting to counterfeit foreign coins should be an extradition crime; and, fourthly, that the investigation of the counterfeiting of coinage should Le organised by a central office and that central officers in different countries should be in touch one with another. This Bill is to give effect to that Convention.
The appointing officers we do not need to deal with, because Scotland Yard is already our central office for that purpose. Indeed, both English and Scottish law is already mostly in conformity with the legal proposals of the Convention. At the present time the penalties for counterfeiting domestic coinage in this country are heavier than they are for counterfeiting a foreign coinage, and, therefore, the more important Clauses, which appear rather grim as printed, are to bring up to our own home level the offence of counterfeiting foreign coinage in this country. That is why we have to legislate.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Does this apply to Colonial coinage?
Captain CROOKSHANK: Clauses 1 and 3give foreign currency the same protection as our own in this country. Clause 2 enables the court to order the delivery to the Secretary of State of any forged banknote or apparatus used or intended to be used to forge notes. That is not because we want to have a great collection of those things in the Home Office, but in order to enable us to pass them on to the State concerned. The Clause does not deal with coinage be cause we already have that power in regard to it. Clause4deals with extradition proceedings. At present it is possible to extradite for actual forgery and counterfeiting in this country, but not for attempting to do so, and the Clause remedies that omission in accordance with the terms of the Convention. The House will want to know that there is no new power of seizure under the Bill.
All the powers which are added by the Bill bring up our domestic law to the standard set down in the Convention. It is satisfactory to know that our
2172
law is already so good in these matters that we need do little to wards altering it. If the Bill be passed, it will enable us to place on record at Geneva the formal ratification of the Convention, to which, I think, 22countries are already bound. It will be one more example of our desire for friendly co-operation with other States with in the framework of the procedure of the League of Nations. When there are so many critics of the League of Nations, it is worth bringing before the House the fact that this is one of the kinds of measures which may be carried out to-day by the League of Nations for the general advantage of the world, and which at an earlier time might have been much more difficult. I would sum up this humble little Bill by saying that it is one to provide for the collective security of coinage.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The re was a notorious case in this country some time ago of the forging of insurance stamps, and I am wondering whether the term "coinage" covers a case of that kind. It might be so, in view of the growth of the social services in all the countries concerned, because the value of the stamps runs into millions of pounds every year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be able to enlighten us in that respect.
10.38p.m
Mr. TINKER: One welcomes this Bill, and also a remark made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has brought it forward. When he sat up yonder, on one of the higher benches, he was one of the sternest critics of the League of Nations.
Captain CROOKSHANK: Oh, no.
Mr. TINKER: It appeared so to me, and I look upon him now as one of the converts. We all agree with his description of the Measure. It is the work of the League of Nations to try to bring about common ground in a case like this, which is to prevent counterfeit money from passing from one country to another.
Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time," put, and agreed to
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday, 17th June.—[Sir G. Penny.]

CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
10.40 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Before we start to discuss this Bill I should like your guidance Mr. Speaker, as to what is to be the procedure to-night—it is now 20 minutes to 11 o'clock —if we intend to go on.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill can go on until 11 o'clock.
Sir G. COLLINS: This is a simple little Bill.
Mr. BUCHANAN: It is not so simple.
Sir G. COLLINS: There may be one or two small matters which can be dealt with in the Committee stage, where the wording can be carefully considered. In this matter the Government are entirely in the hands of the House, but I hope that when I have given this explanation we may be able to get the Second Reading to-night. As hon. Members from Scotland know very well, the situation which has caused this Bill to be produced is a very unsatisfactory situation. It may be that there are points in the mind of the hon. Member which could be dealt with at some further stage. I do not think it is necessary to go through the Clauses of the Bill, but it is clear that the building at Perth is inadequate and out of date, and it is purely for that reason that we are anxious to proceed with the erection of a new building on land which belongs to—
Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not explain the other Clauses, about taking over criminal lunatics?
Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain particularly Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, which is entirely a different matter from the erection of a new criminal lunatic asylum?
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to make a speech, but merely to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the changes he is making with regard to the
2174
criminal lunatics and their asylum status. Will he explain the reason for making the changes?
Sir G. COLLINS: The reason is a very simple one. It is that the present situation at Perth needs a complete overhaul, and the Bill will authorise the establishment and maintenance of a new criminal lunatic asylum to take the place of the existing institution at Perth. Legislation is necessary in order to enable the criminal lunatics who are now detained at Perth to be detained at some other place. At the same time we thought it well to ask Parliament for powers to erect at Carstairs a new State institution for defectives. That is the sole purpose of the Bill. I am not anxious to hurry the House, but I thought that the Bill was a non-controversial Bill, which will lead to a certain amount of work being done on the proposed new building near Carstairs, which is long overdue. There is still a quarter of an hour left, during which we might have a short discussion, and then, perhaps, get the Second Reading.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. MACLEAN: I have asked for an explanation of Sub-section (2) of Clause 4. I agree that the present conditions at Perth are quite unsatisfactory, and that the erection of a new criminal lunatic asylum is necessary; and if the proposed new premises at Carstairs are going to be used for the segregation of the younger criminal lunatics who are put there, there again I think we should be able quite easily to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I take it, however, that in Clause 4 new powers are being asked for, because otherwise it would be unnecessary to insert it in the Bill, in view of the powers which already exist in the law regarding criminal lunatics in Scotland. Sub-section (2), which probably is really the essential part of the Clause, says:
"Where it is certified by two duly qualified medical practitioners, with in fourteen days before the expiry of the sentence imposed on any person detained in the criminal lunatic asylum in pursuance of the last foregoing Sub-section, that such person is insane, that he cannot be set at liberty with out danger to the public or to himself, and that it is advisable that he should be detained after the expiry of his sentence in the criminal lunatic asylum rather than in any other asylum, the Secretary of State may order that he be

2175
detained accordingly, and thereupon such person may be dealt with in like manner in all respects as if such order were an order for his custody until His Majesty's pleasure be known."
This is a matter upon which the Minister might have given us a brief explanation, which might have cleared away some of the fears which are entertained by Scottish Members. As this Clause stands, with out any safeguards, two doctors can be brought in with in a fortnight of the end of the period of the term of imprisonment of someone who has been so mentally defective that he is looked upon as criminally insane, and can so certify him that the Department of Scotland under the Secretary of State will have power, after his sentence has expired, to detain him in a lunatic asylum for the rest of his life. Surely, in a new law affecting even those who are criminally insane and may have committed some horrible crime there should be something done to safeguard the m. The re should be periodical re-examination of the individual to see that he is not kept confined for the period of his life.
10.48 p.m.
Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I regret very much that a Bill of this importance, but which appears to be a small one, should be taken at this hour of the night. After all is said and done, it is a Bill which affects the liberty of the subject, and I for one strongly resent the introduction of a Bill at this time of night where the liberty of the subject is cencerned. I yield to no one in my admiration of the attempt of the Scottish Office to deal with prison reform. It is a very good step indeed, and I am satisfied that hon. Gentlemen, after a full and free discussion of a Bill of this kind, would gladly welcome any steps in the direction of reform. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made a very strong point the other day when he suggested that there should be differentiation between convicted and unconvicted persons. It would be a very good thing. It does not exist in Scot land, but it exists to a great extent in England. The reason why I support this Bill is that we are establishing in Scotland a Broadmoor which we have never had before. In England you have a prison devoted entirely to criminal lunatics. If a murderer is found insane he goes the re. The inmates are separated
2176
from all the other prisoners in the Country. That is a very good thing in itself, but it is a very great mistake, before we have any opportunity of discussing fully and adequately a Bill of this kind, that we should be asked at this time of night to give it a Second Reading. There is no great and immediate hurry; we have waited years for this. We resent, as Scottish Members, that a Bill of this kind should be brought forward at this hour with out full and free discussion. The re are not more than half-a-dozen Scottish Members in this House, and it is unfair that this House should be asked to proceed with the discussion now.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. MILNE: I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The need for a new asylum is urgent, but I want to take the strongest possible exception to Clause 4. This is the Clause which deals with the detention of criminal lunatics. When a man has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment he goes to prison, and, if he is in good health, he performs his allotted task, whatever that may be. He experiences the ordinary routine of prison life. If he falls out of health, he is removed for treatment to the prison hospital, and serves his sentence there. But if his malady takes the form of mental illness and he becomes insane and treatment in the prison hospital is inadequate, then he is transferred to Perth and put under the control of the Criminal Lunatic Department. When the Financial Resolution speaks of the Criminal Lunatic Department it is not referring to the Scottish Office; it means a department of the general prison at Perth. What happens to him after his sentence has expired 1 I can tell the House what I think ought to happen, and I think the House will agree. He has served his sentence and the slate should be wiped clean. He ought to be re stored to the ordinary status of a citizen.
I do not suggest for a single moment that all control should be relaxed. In our country anyone, whatever his rank in life, who becomes insane is liable to be placed under control. The machinery for dealing with people who become insane is that there must be two medical certificates by doctors, an application to the sheriff, and the sheriff orders his removal to a civil asylum. I have signed

2177
many of these warrants when acting as a sheriff. But look at Clause 4 and see what it provides. Clause 4 provides:
"(2) Where it is certified by two duly qualified medical practitioners with in 14 days before the expiry of the sentence.. That it is advisable that he should be detained after the expiry of his sentence in the criminal lunatic asylum rather than in any other asylum, the Secretary of State may order that he be detained accordingly…"
for a period unspecified. It may be, whether he likes it or not, for the remainder of his life. That is utterly wrong.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
Mr. MILNE: In these circumstances somebody might say: Surely, his relatives could apply for a writ of habeas corpus, or what corresponds to that in Scotland, a petition to the Court. If this Bill becomes law petitions to the Court are of no avail. The wisdom of Parliament will have handed over the man's destiny to two medical men and a Government Department. He has served his sentence, he has paid his debt to society, and paid it in full. He has purged his offence, and yet he may be confined for the rest of his life in a criminal lunatic asylum. Anyone who has passed along the road in front of the penal settlement at Dartmoor will have noticed the motto carved on the granitegateway—"Parcere victis". If the Government want a motto for our new criminal lunatic asylum at Carstairs, I would suggest that the only appropriate motto would be: "All hope abandon ye who enter here."
But I am not concerned solely with the interests of the victim. It is bad enough for the man himself, because surely even a person of deranged mind has some civil rights. The associations and surroundings of a criminal lunatic asylum may occasion him acute distress. But what about his relatives? It may be that a man or a woman has been convicted of some minor offence and sentenced to a short terms of imprisonment. He or she becomes insane and the insanity proves incurable. The man, say, is to main at Carstairs criminal lunatic asylum for the rest of his natural life. His children want to write to him. They must conceal the address from their companions.
2178
pay periodic visits. They must be surreptitious visits, because the neighbours must not know where they are going. I know what the answer is going to be. We shall be to ld that this Bill makes no change in the existing law. I am well aware of that. Since at any rate, 1862 this has been the law of Scotland. But the public have little idea what our lunacy laws are. I have not the time or the inclination to undertake a crusade for a reform of our lunacy laws, but it is another thing when the Government invites hon. Members to sanction afresh a grievous injustice and when it asks the House by express statutory enactment to perpetuate a wrong. I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but 1 shall await the Committee stage and there renew my protest, and I hope that I shall not be alone in it.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to point out—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

WATER RESOURCES AND SUPPLIES.
Resolution of the House [24th May] relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Water Resources and Supplies, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and so much of the Lords Message [4th June] as signifies their concurrence in the said Resolution, read:
Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider and report on measures for the better conservation and organisation of water resources and supplies in England and Wales:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records;
Ordered,
That Three be the quorum.—[Sir G. Penny.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them there with, and to request them to appoint an equal number of Lords to join with the Committee appointed by this House.
Mr. Cadogan, Mr. Richard Evans, Sir William Jenkins, Lieutenant - Colonel Llewellin, Major Mills, Sir John Pybus, and Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise nominated Members of the Committee.

REFRESHMENT ROOMS AND LAVATORIES.
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [4th June] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Refreshment Rooms and Lavatories be now considered.
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Six members he appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider and report upon the accommodation for Refreshment Rooms and Lavatories in the Palace of Westminster:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered,
That Three be the quorum.—[Sir G. Penny.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Mr. George Harvey, Mr. Janner, Mr. Neil Maclean, Sir Hugh O'Niell, Sir Isidore Salmon, and Sir John Worthington nominated Members of the Committee.—[Sir G. Penny.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

PUBLIC HEALTH.
  BIRTH RATE.
  BIRTH RATE.
  STERILISATION (LONDON HOSPITALS).
  STERILISATION (LONDON HOSPITALS).
  SCARLET FEVER (ETON RURAL DISTRICT).
  SCARLET FEVER (ETON RURAL DISTRICT).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  IMMUNISATION CLINIC (HACKNEY).
  IMMUNISATION CLINIC (HACKNEY).
  RE-HOUSING (ACCOMMODATION).
  RE-HOUSING (ACCOMMODATION).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NAVAL REVIEW (FISHING VESSELS).
  NAVAL REVIEW (FISHING VESSELS).
AGRICULTURE.
  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
  CATTLE (TUBERCULOSIS).
  CATTLE (TUBERCULOSIS).
  BRITISH-BORN SUBJECTS (RENATURALISATION).
  BRITISH-BORN SUBJECTS (RENATURALISATION).
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (STATISTICS).
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (STATISTICS).
  YOUNG OFFENDERS.
  YOUNG OFFENDERS.