CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment as to proportion of contributions payable respectively by insured persons and employers and by the Treasury.)

§ Mr. HARNEY

I beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."

There cannot be any doubt that this Clause very intimately affects the approved societies. Not only does it alter the whole of the financial structure of the scheme with which they are very closely connected, but it alters the benefits that they will be able to pay. In these circumstances, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the approved societies have been consulted before this Bill has been brought forward.

§ The CHAIRMAN

In a very long series of ruling on Motions to postpone Clauses, it has been held that the merits of the Clause may not be referred to. The only argument possible is whether it would be better to take this Clause after others.

§ Mr. HARNEY

I was aware of that fact, and was not intending to go beyond it. The point I am making is this: It is, in my submission, advisable not to take this Clause now. It is obvious that all the Clauses cannot be taken before Easter, and during the Easter holidays the approved societies have their usual annual meeting, and will, therefore, have an opportunity of considering this Clause. In supplementing that view, I was pointing out that it is part of the whole scheme that not only should the approved societies be consulted before any great change is made affecting them, but that the Advisory Committee set up in 1911 should always stand between the approved societies and any Government action. As a matter of fact, I believe in the case of every one of the amending Acts, from 1911 to this date, the approved societies 2076 have had an opportunity of considering any drastic alteration of the scheme such as is here suggested. That the approved societies are very much concerned I think I can show, and I hope I will be in order in reading some of the resolutions that have been put in my hand and which have been passed by the approved societies.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member is in order so far, but, if he goes into the merits of the resolutions, he will be out of order.

§ Mr. HARNEY

I accept your ruling, but may I point out that a large number of the approved societies are now about to hold their annual meetings; I therefore urge that, until they have had that opportunity of expressing their views upon it, this Clause ought not to be taken. The Bill cannot possibly be completed before Easter, and there is, in my submission, the strongest possible ground for this Clause, which goes to the root of the mischief as the approved societies see it, not being dealt with until they have had that opportunity of considering it.

§ Mr. HARRIS

I am going to appeal to the practical common sense of the Minister in charge of the Bill. He has One great quality—tact. By his tact he has been able to guide Bills comparatively rapidly through Committee, and I am very anxious for his reputation. I do not want him to be delayed needlessly long. I quite appreciate that the Budget is essential, and cannot be carried until this Bill become an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the more controversy and the more discussion there is, the more likely is there to be delay. I think he will be the first to admit that the most controversial Clause is this Clause. We are bound to criticise it word for word and line for line so long as the various friendly societies are not satisfied. I do not know that there are any more public-spirited or patriotic citizens than the members of the various friendly societies. The very fact that they belong to these friendly societies is proof of their goodwill and their enthusiasm in public work. They are all meeting at Easter. Easter is the period when all these societies meet for their annual gatherings. They are meeting with this terrible cloud over them, and they are bringing pressure on Members on all sides of the House to attack this particular Clause.

2077 They are reasonable people, and it is possible we may be able to placate them, The Minister may be able to make some concessions that will ensure the smooth passage of this Clause, but now is the time. If at Easter he goes round to various assemblies and argues with them and meets their objections, we shall be in a much better position to consider the Bill, and probably shall not need to keep him up all night. That is not good for his health or for the health of the Members of the House, and surely it is common sense to take the less controversial Clauses of this Bill, like the registration of electors, which do not rouse very great passions, rather than a Clause of this kind which strikes at the very root of our health system and all our methods of insurance, that disturbs all our friendly societies, and that is likely to rouse great passions. I make this appeal to him with all the more confidence because I remember he gave the Poor Law authorities 12 months' notice. When he had outlined his Bill, he gave the Poor Law authorities 12 months to sit on it. Here he comes aiming a pistol at the heads of the great friendly societies, with whom Parliament is a partner, and with practically 24 hours' notice he tries to rush through a revolutionary scheme. That is not a good way, for a Conservative majority to carry through legislation. That is not the way to strengthen the system of insurance as the foundation of dealing with health. He would be wise, therefore, he would be sagacious, in fact he would be helping his Measure if he postponed this particular Clause to the end. By that means he would have time to consult all the persons concerned and to get the co-operation of the friendly societies instead of their hostility. Let me remind him of the names of these societies—the Foresters, the Hearts of Oak—

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not think the names of the societies are really relevant to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

§ Mr. HARRIS

I was only going to add ore other—the Oddfellows. I do not want the Minister to be regarded as hostile to the Oddfellows. I think he would be very wise to postpone this Clause, and let us get on with the rest of the Bill. There is no reason why we should not to day make good progress with all these comparatively minor 2078 Clauses. Then, after Easter, refreshed and strengthened by contact with the great friendly societies, we could help him to pass his first Clause.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD

On a point of Order. Surely it is germane to the discussion of this Clause that Members may give the names of the societies opposed to it, as some indication of the volume of opinion against it?

§ The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member had had as much experience of these postponing Motions as I have had, he would know that the limits are very narrow. It is a valid argument to say that it would be well to delay the discussion of this Clause, so that it could be considered by these societies. But to go into the weight of the opinion behind that argument would practically be to go into the merits of the Clause, and I do not think that can be pursued.

§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS

Supposing we were discussing someone likely to be hanged, surely it would be in order to mention Smith's name as one who objected to it. The insured persons must be named, because they are provided by the Statute, and they have objected. Surely we must bring out the names, to inform the Committee of the measure of the objection.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think I can foresee the result of, this argument—the immense numbers of the respective societies at stake, and their merits, their enthusiasms, their zeal, and so on. We should soon be embarking on the whole merits.

§ Mr. J. JONES

Would it be in Order for those of us who have friendly societies in our constituencies to quote the names of our own constituents who have sent us letters of protest against this particular Clause?

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think there will be ample opportunity for that when we get to other Amendments.

§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)

I am bound to resist the proposal which has been put before the Committee, and I submit that there has really been no attempt to show any valid reasons why this Clause should be postponed. We are not dealing here with an ordinary Amendment 2079 of the Insurance Act; we are dealing with an Economy Bill. It is well known we cannot fix the date for the opening of the Budget until we have disposed of our business in connection with the Economy Bill. It has been cynically—I will not say cynically, but frankly admitted by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that the sole object of it is to give them time to go into the country and dig out fresh arguments and fresh reasons for opposing every sentence, every line and every word of the Clause. That certainly may strengthen their efforts in endeavouring to delay the passage of this Measure, but I submit that it is not really a valid reason why you should put this Clause behind the other Clauses in the Bill. I quite agree this is an important Clause, and we may have to take some little time to discuss it. Certainly I am prepared to sacrifice my health in endeavouring to meet any new arguments that may be adduced. As for concessions, I have had other Measures pass through this House, and it has been sometimes possible to meet new arguments addressed to me, and to make concessions. I have no reason to suppose that if on this Bill suggestions are put forward which do not affect vital matters, I am not likely to do again what I have done before. I think I can do that as well to-night, or even in the small hours of to-morrow morning, as I could do it after Easter, and, therefore, I beg to ask the Committee to resist this proposal.

§ Mr. THOMAS

I am quite sure there is no Member on any side of the Committee who desires to kill the right hon. Gentleman's Measure. It is quite true he has indicated that he is prepared to sacrifice his health, in common with the health of those whom he sacrifices. At the same time, I do take exception when the Minister says that this is not an Insurance Bill, that this is not amending the Insurance Act, but that this is an Economy Bill.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Not an ordinary Insurance Bill.

§ Mr. THOMAS

I agree. It is an extraordinary Insurance Bill. That is exactly the ground on which we are opposing it. It is because it is so extraordinary that we say it is not sufficient merely to plead 2080 that this is an Economy Bill. The Clause we are now debating vitally affects 15,000,000 insured persons. We can call it what we like. They, and those responsible, will call it by a very short name, and because of that I ask the House to support the Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Minister said that this is an Economy Bill. He cannot have read Clause 7, which says: This Part of this Act may be cited as the National Health Insurance Act, 1926. I think an additional reason for postponing the Clause is to give the right hon. Gentleman time to read his own Bill. He will find that the Bill is not an Economy Bill, but, according to his own draftsmen, it is to be cited as the "National Health Insurance Act, 1926,"and so it is—a very vital part. I know at this stage I cannot discuss the merits, but undoubtedly it is something more than an Economy Bill. It vitally affects the whole working of the Insurance Act, so much so that even in this particular Clause the Government have not had time to think out all the ramifications and the effects it will have, but are going to leave it to future Regulations.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That, I think, would be a reason for not getting sooner to Clause 7, and the result of carrying this Amendment would be that we should get sooner to Clause 7.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That point may be a good one. At the same time, may I respectfully suggest that I am entirely on the question of time now? I am answering an argument given by the Minister, and if it be in order for a Minister to advance an argument, it must be in order to reply to it. But may I point out this to the Committee and to the Minister? There is no doubt at all that this is a question which the societies ought to have time to consider. That is reasonable in itself. It is affecting 15,000,000 people, and the approved societies, who are devoted entirely to the working out of the law of the land, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, have had no time up to the present to consider it. It is not a question of whether, on merits, you ought to add this to the Bill. It is a question of whether an opportunity ought not to be given to those who are vitally affected, and know more about the matter even than the 2081 Minister himself, because they are devoting the whole of their time to it, whereas he is only occasionally attending to it, because he has so much other work to do—it is a question of whether an opportunity ought not to be given to them not only to consider this proposition, but to consider the implications of the report of the Royal Commission. There is a society called the Hearts of Oak, which has already met and rejected it, but it is the only society which has ha d the opportunity so far. It is a very considerable society numbering 400,000 to 500,000 members. But the largest societies of all are to meet next week. They will be considering this. Is it not fair, before the Minister proceeds with the Bill, to give them an opportunity to consider this, and the House of Commons an opportunity to consider what their opinion is?

This House of Commons is now adjudicating upon a proposition which was never before it at the last Election. It is a new change—a change which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself did not anticipate last year. It is something which came quite suddenly, and surely those who are vitally affected ought to have a full opportunity of discussing it? Why does the Minister persist in proceeding with it, when he knows perfectly well that these Societies are on the point of considering it? There will be next week delegates drawn from 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 insured persons in this country. It will be the one subject for discussion and consideration. I venture to say there will not be a speech delivered there that will not concentrate upon this particular proposition. There will be delegates from every part of the country. They may have valuable suggestions. The Minister says he is perfectly ready to sit into the early hours to-morrow morning. There is no doubt that the strongest argument upon which he is depending is his majority. That is his argument Really, is it fair to the Committee of the House of Commons? They have no time to consult their constituents. There is not a Member of this House who has not got in his constituency thousands and tens of thousands of these poor people whose interests are affected vitally by this provision. Are they not to have any opportunity of communicating?

Communications are beginning to pour in, but none of us have opportunities of 2082 coming into contact with the people who are organising in our constituencies questions of health, and how the people can be kept alive and their families kept in times of illness. Are we not to have an opportunity, above all, of hearing what suggestions they have to make? They may take the view—though, honestly, I do not believe they will—but they might conceivably take the view, "Very well, we are prepared to make some concession to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these circumstances, but, in our opinion, certain things ought to be done."Who could give us better advice and counsel on that subject than these great organised societies who have devoted to this subject, and this subject alone, every day of their lives, and know exactly what should he done? "No,"the Minister says, "I must get your cash, and I must get it before Easter. I am not going to wait."Why? Because he knows perfecly well next week there will be a chorus of condemnation, and he wants his Bill before Members, not on this side, but on that side, have been told by their constituents that there will be a most strenuous resistance on the part of tens of thousands to the confiscatory proposals of this Bill.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I beg to support the proposal to postpone this Clause, and desire to put one or two reasons why it should be done. I understand that in the Ministry of Health there is what is known as the Consultative Council, and that Council is drawn from approved societies of all kinds. I should like to know whether the Consultative Council, by the very nature of its name, has been consulted? It ought to have been consulted, of course, and I think we ought to know from the Minister before we proceed as to what has transpired in that connection. Then there is a very strong point in favour of postpining this Clause because this Clause stands entirely on its own, and the Bill could become law, and would be workable in fact, without Clause 1 at all. The Minister described this Bill as an Economy Bill. The correct description ought to be that Clause 1 is an Economy Bill, and the other part is an Insurance Bill. We are very much annoyed at the way this Bill is being rushed by the Government. It is unfair to the approved societies, and this Bill, in fact, from the very beginning, 2083 was intended to be rushed. I hope to prove my case. As soon as the Government came into office, in November, 1924, they appointed an Actuarial Committee to inquire into this subject, and there are traces of this Bill all along the line from the day the Government came into office.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The question before the Committee is that Clause 1 be postponed, and not why other Clauses should be postponed.

§ Mr. DAVIES

The question I ask is, have the Consultative Council been consulted? I understand that yesterday all the approved societies' representatives in the country met in London. I am not sure whether they were called together by the Minister, but I think it is fair that we should know from the Minister the attitude of these approved societies towards Clause 1.

§ Mr. MACKINDER

I suggest that if the Government had been introducing a Bill which would have the effect of disturbing the Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, and that it eras known that the federation was to have a meeting shortly afterwards, the Bill would not be introduced until that employers' organisation had had an opportunity of considering its terms and provisions. The mining situation is a very good parallel. A Bill may have to be introduced to deal with that, but that Bill will not be introduced until employers and workpeople have had the opportunity of discussing the Report of the Commission. For many years I administered the National Health Insurance Act, and I have a good idea as to what the members of the approved societies will feel about this matter, and when it is reported to the representatives of these millions of people that the Government contemplate taking certain action I can well imagine the indignation that will he expressed, and rightly expressed, by the members of those societies, who will say the Government are proceeding before they have had an opportunity of considering the proposals. The Minister has said he may make concessions. I put it to the Committee that the only concessions which will he worth making are those asked for by the approved societies. Some of its here have administered the 2084 Act, and some of us have received benefit under the Act, but the real person to be considered is the member of an approved society, and the Minister cannot make concessions to Members of Parliament which will be anything like as valuable as those which the members of approved societies wish for themselves. Therefore I put it to the Committee that the consideration of Clause 1 ought to be deferred until after the Easter holidays, until after the workpeople and the members of the societies have had an oppotunity of considering, not only the Economy Bill, but the Report of the Royal Commission, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to that point of view. He will make concessions, I think, if he can make concessions which will not lose him any money, but I do urge that the only concessions which will be desirable are those asked for by the representatives of the approved societies after they have carefully deliberated about the matter and asked their spokesmen, in any part of the House, to represent their views.

§ Sir JOHN SIMON

Up to the present there really has been no answer to the request that this Clause should be postponed, except the silent threat of the majority behind the Treasury Bench. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) asked the Minister of Health a question, the answer to which may have something to do with it, but he did not reply.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)

I am going to answer it.

§ Sir J. SIMON

I gather that a. more zealous subordinate may answer it for him. It really is desirable to know to what extent it can be said that the friendly societies, so far as they are represented on the Consultative Committee, have expressed a view on the Clause. I am not asking what their view was, but only asking to what extent it is correct to suggest that the friendly societies have really had their views collected and expressed. It is most material to know that, but that very direct question has not been answered. In the second place, may I point out to such members of the Conservative majority as are present to listen to this argument, and are 2085 not merely coming in to vote, that really the case for postponement here is very much stronger than such cases usually are. It is quite true that people often put down a Motion to postpone a Clause, without having any very good arguments as to why the Clause should be postponed; but in the present instance there are two or three admitted facts which should be presented to the Committee. First of all, it is an admitted fact that we are not going to try to carry all these Clauses before the Easter Adjournment. It is not the case, therefore, that the effect of this proposed postponement will be that other Clauses cannot be taken, or that time will lie wasted as regards the Debates which, sooner or later, must take place on this Clause. We have got to take something before Easter, and we have got to leave something else to be dealt with after Easter and the question is a purely practical one of whether it is not desirable to take something else to-night in place of this Clause.

In the second place, may I point out that, if we are to judge by precedents, the law relating to national health insurance has to a very large extent been framed in consultation with and in the light of the known views of the great friendly societies. I do not say they can dictate to the House of Commons, for in is perfectly correct that we have the Bill in our charge even after we know what they have to say, but it is going contrary to the course which every Government has pursued hitherto in connection with national health insurance to say, "We will legislate first and hear what you have to say afterwards."

I am an old enough Member of this House to remember what a, very, very difficult situation was created when it was mistakenly supposed in 1911 that the National Insurance Bill was going to be brought before Parliament and carried without sufficient consultation with the friendly societies. It produced an amount of misunderstanding and an amount of resistance over a Bill which we have never seen in this generation. In face of those two facts, first, that we can take only a small portion of the whole Committee stage before Easter, and, second, that this particular Clause is just one of those Clauses which have always been the subject of discussion 2086 with friendly societies, it is most foolish to say, "I mean to use my majority "—with the threat that if hon. Members keep up the argument too long, they will lose some of their holidays—"and when I have done I will snap my fingers at the friendly societies."I suggest that we have here a case on its merits for the postponement of the discussion of this particular Clause which has not been met, and which cannot be met, unless, indeed, the Minister responsible can get up and say he has already got the views of these approved societies, and that, consequently, their meeting next week does not affect him at all. For these practical reasons I say to hon. Members on the other side, "It is all very well to use your majority, but really there is a real reason why this should be postponed,"and no answer, as it seems to me, has yet been given to that argument.

§ Mr. MELLER

I have listened very carefully to two of the suggestions from hon. Members opposite in favour of the postponement of this Clause, and am bound to say that I am impressed with them. I am impressed for this reason, that there is abroad amongst the representatives of the insured people an idea that this Bill, certainly as regards the first two Clauses, which affect approved societies and insured people—an idea that there has been sharp practice on the part of the Government. I am going to say at once that I acquit the Minister of any sharp practice in the matter. I believe that his desire is to get on with these two Clauses, because the time will be required after Easter for other things, and it is necessary that the contentious part of the Bill should be got out of the way now if possible; but if the Minister is satisfied that the approved societies, after having had full opportunity to consider the merits and the demerits of the Report of the Royal Commission, and what effect these proposals will have upon the funds and the future of the societies, will come to the conclusion that they will support him, then it seems to me there may be no harm done by adopting the suggestion for the postponement of the Clause until after Easter, and for taking the less contentious parts of the Bill now. Whatever may happen to-day with respect to these two Clauses, whether they be passed or 2087 rejected, it will leave a very unpleasant taste in the mouths of those who are administering approved societies.

Although the Consultative Council have been called together, as far as I know they were only called together after the Bill was in print, and the Royal Commission's Report was not discussed with them except in so far as its provisions were outlined to them and the proposals of the Government with regard to its recommendations were set before them; but the whale thing came as a bolt from the clouds, and they had not had the opportunity then, and have had very little opportunity since, of discussing the Report of the Royal Commission. In the short time available, no one has had time to consider the Report, to study it, to read between the lines and understand it, and to come to proper conclusions on its recommendations. Therefore, I would ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way either to give us some indication as to the line he proposes to take upon the Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, or to accept what I believe is a very reasonable suggestion from the other side, not put forward altogether, I think, by some hon. Members opposite, with the idea of destroying the proposal. I do believe that if the Minister is prepared to argue with the societies and to give them full time for consideration they will, as on all previous occasions, come down on the side of reasonable and sane action.

§ Mr. SEXTON

In pleading with the Minister to accept this proposal for postponement, I would like to put my own case before him. My own men, numbering 400,000, have asked me to meet them during Easter, to consult with them as to how these proposals will affect them. How can I say or do anything if these Clauses are passed to-night? There is a vital issue at stake. They regard this Bill as a breach of faith, and they honestly think they are being deprived of something which they were led to believe would exist for all time.

§ The CHAIRMAN

This is a discussion on the merits of the Bill, and the Minister would not be in order in replying to it.

§ Mr. SEXTON

I am not concerned with the merits of the Bill—if it has any—or its demerits, but I say the action of the Government in suddenly plunging upon this course without any explanation, and with little opportunity for discussing the effects of their proposals, is—well, I do not like to say it, but it savours to me of a piece of atrocious political hooliganism.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Obviously the hon. Member is now considering either the merits or the demerits of the Bill, but what we are discussing is the question of the postponement of this Clause.

§ Mr. SEXTON

I have endeavoured to obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but it is very difficult to sit quietly and to keep coal under the circumstances, when we know that we are to be suddenly bludgeoned and garrotted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shanghaied !"] "Shanghaied"is a fool to it. I know something about being Shanghaied. I have been Shanghaied myself. It is not oily hooliganism; it is something much worse. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends persist in this kind of thing, they will ultimately arrive at their political Tyburn.

§ Mr. SHEPHERD

I desire to protest against the statement of the Minister of Health when he said that we on this side merely wished to postpone this Clause, in order that we might go to our constituencies and do propaganda upon it. I think that was his remark; that certainly was the implication I received. I am perfectly certain that there is no need for any propaganda by us in this matter. As a matter of fact, there is no need for it, because everyone is coming to see us and doing propaganda work upon us. I think in the course of the next few days I am meeting, I think, no less than eight approved societies in my constituency to receive from them their protest and their indignation. I could give the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen opposite the names of the representatives of these societies if they wish—

§ The CHAIRMAN

That would not be in order.

§ Mr. SHEPHERD

Then I will be able to give them later. I do, however, wish strongly to protest against, as it seems to me, the imputations made where not in 2089 accordance with the fact. There is at least one Member on the Government Benches who has had the courage to state his conviction, namely, that there is going to be a grave injustice done to at least 15.000,000 insured people—

§ Mr. MELLER

I do not know that I put it like that. I would leave an observation like that for a later occasion, if necessary.

§ Mr. SHEPHERD

I am sorry if I have somewhat misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite used to the acoustics of this place, and perhaps did not quite hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I do hope, however, that everyone here will fully realise exactly what we are doing in this matter. This is of tremendous import to 15,000,000 insured people. These are looking upon this matter to a certain degree with desperation, because they see all sorts of things which they have been hoping for which are about to slip from their grasp—

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

§ Mr. BRIANT

Before we vote, I should like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Parliamentary Secretary very definitely as to whether they considered the approved societies need not be consulted, or whether the approved societies should express their opinion up an the Bill? If the first was the line taken by the Government, they are responsible for it; if, on the other hand, they believe that 15,000,000 persons, through their representatives, should be allowed to express their opinion, they can only support the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. The House has sometimes to deal with certain interests which are going to be created. The House, quite rightly in these cases, at all events sometimes, say, "We cannot consult the interests concerned, because we have to make a decision ourselves on the point."But that is not the case here. What we are now formulating is a proposal to take away what has already been given. This is an entirely new principle. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary sat with me for years on an insurance committee and will appreciate the point I am putting forward. Here is a question affecting many millions of people. Are the Government going to rush this 2090 through? Are they going to give no opportunities to the approved societies to say anything in the matter? If the Government do not at the outset handle this matter rightly, the longer it goes on, and the longer the approved societies have the matter before them, the more trouble there will be for the Government in the future. On the ground of public interest is it wise to upset the approved societies which have got to work the Act; to do this thing suddenly, to rush it through without giving them any opportunity to discuss the details? I do not know exactly what their view of such action will be, though I think I can guess it. It is in the interest of the smooth working of the Act that I should suggest we should postpone this Clause, and not rush it through, as the Government seem inclined to do relying upon their supporters to give them the requisite majority.

§ Sir K. WOOD

In the first place, may I say that I certainly remember sitting with the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) on the Insurance Committee to which he refers, and joining with him in endeavouring to prevent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) from attempting to raid the sinking fund. I do not—

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not know that I can allow that to pass, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will be entitled to reply.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

On a. point of Order. The statement having been made and repeated, would I be in order in saying that there is not a word of truth in the statement made by my hon. Friend?

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think having allowed one sentence to each hon. Member, we will leave it at that.

§ Sir K. WOOD

May I in the first place say that this proposal has been before the approved societies for three weeks. Secondly, they were given as much information as has been given in connection with any proposal that has been before this House for some time. There was an actuarial report, and there was an exposition of the Clauses in the Bill. 2091 So far as explanations were concerned they were fully given. It has been put forward this afternoon in Committee that no consultations have taken place with the approved societies, that no conversations have taken place. That is quite untrue. When in 1911 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs brought in his Bill he had to consult the various societies up and down the country. Under the Act of 1911 he adopted a, method by which the Minister of Health could from time to time consult with and have the benefit of the advice of the societies up and down the country. To this end he formed a Consultative Council.

Immediately the present Bill was introduced my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health called together the Consultative Council representing all the approved societies in the country. That meeting was held, I believe, on the very day when the text of the Bill was available to Members of this House. My right hon. Friend made a statement to that gathering and explained at considerable length the provisions of the Bill. The members of the Consultative Council came to certain conclusions about the proposals. Having considered them at length, carefully and seriously, they were willing and able to come to the conclusion, on that day, as to what they considered the merits of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBERS: "What were the conclusions?"] I am going to say. There are two important proposals in the Measure contained in the first and second Clauses. So far as the second Clause is concerned, the Consultative Council saw no objection to it. So far as the proposals contained in Clause 1 are concerned, by a majority of 28 to six they declared they were not prepared to accept it. No one can this afternoon say that there has been no consultation. There has been the fullest consultation. There has been the consultation much on the lines as laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD

Through a nominated committee!

§ Sir K. WOOD

The committee is one which consists of the representatives of all types of societies up and down the 2092 country. If I were to mention their names I think, at any rate, there would be no question about it being a committee—

§ Mr. MACKINDER

What about the approved member, who matters more than anybody else? He has not had an opportunity of getting to know what are the provisions.

§ Sir K. WOOD

With great respect that is not so. This matter was fully debated in the House in 1911, and it was decided that the most convenient method of reaching the 15,000,000 was to have this Advisory Council, and from time to time to consult it. They have been consulted.

§ Mr. MACKINDER

Three weeks!

§ Sir K. WOOD

It is no good the hon. Member saying "three weeks,"because the Consultative Council considered themselves sufficiently conversant with the matter to deal with it on the day to which I have referred. It is no answer to ask: "What about the three weeks?"By a majority of 28 to 6, they decided that they could not agree with the proposal. Therefore it is no justification for anyone to say this afternoon that a proper competent authority has not been consulted so far as this Bill is concerned. That is the point that I have to make so far as the postponement of this Clause is concerned. Secondly, I would remind the House that the Bill is now just in its Committee stage, and between now and the Report stage any proposals or any suggestions from any of the annual conferences will receive full consideration by my right hon. Friend—that is proposals that are not intended to destroy the vital principle of the alterations suggested. Anything, I say, that is put forward by the societies will receive full consideration. Obviously that is the right step to take. It can be done. It will be done. There is, therefore, no possible grounds for saying that any—

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the question of the Consultative Council, is it not the fact that members of the Consultative Council were opposed to this Bill, and asked the Minister for time to consult the approved societies? Did they not press him not to introduce the Bill imme- 2093 diately but to give them time to consult the approved societies before anything was done?

§ Sir K. WOOD

No, Sir; we had no such request. So far as my right hon. Friend and myself are concerned, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. What happened is as I have detailed it. My right hon. Friend and myself retired from the meeting of the Consultative Council to which I have referred, and the council said they would consider the matter. My right hon. Friend asked if it would be necessary to see himself or myself again, and the members of the Consultative Council said it would not be necessary.

§ Mr. THOMAS

Will he say that they did not meet the Minister yesterday and make this request?

§ Sir K. WOOD

No.

§ Mr. THOMAS

Was it not proved that the only body who had an opportunity of representing the whole of the approved societies waited upon the Minister of Health, and made the request as embodied in the proposal? You did not meet the deputation yesterday?

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

No.

§ Sir K. WOOD

Where the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen get these facts from, I do not know. My right hon. Friend met no such body yesterday, nor at any other time. These suspicious Gentlemen opposite will perhaps allow me to explain. The Consultative Council felt quite competent to deal with proposals that we made at the first meeting; they occupied a day in considering them, and they gave their decision as I have indicated. We have had no meeting since, and my right hon. Friend has not received any deputation since from the approved societies.

§ Mr. HARNEY

Is it not a fact that the Consultative Council was only approached on the day that the Economy Bill was introduced? Is it not also a fact that they were told that that was a confidential meeting, that they said they wanted an opportunity to put the matter before the approved societies, and that they were told the thing should be done confidentially that day?

§ Sir K. WOOD

No, the hon. and learned Member is quite incorrect in all those suggestions. What my right hon. Friend did say was, "I am taking the very first opportunity I can to consult with you this day. I could not call you before, because the Bill would not be available to Members of the House of Commons."He took the view that it would not be proper as Minister to reveal to them proposals which had not yet been laid before the House of Commons. I was present, and I know exactly what took place.

§ Mr. HARNEY

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I understand the function of the Consultative Council is that there should be a body who should be given the opportunity of laying suggestions and new proposals before the approved societies. Is it a fact that this was brought before the Consultative Council at a time and in circumstances that precluded them from carrying out their functions and laying them before the approved societies?

§ Sir K. WOOD

No. That suggestion is perfectly untrue. The functions of the Consultative Council are not to take proposals from the Minister to the approved societies and to consult them and come back to the Minister, but to receive suggestions from the Minister or make suggestions themselves in their capacity as representatives of the insured persons of the country. That is the statutory duty as laid down by the Act of 1911. All that was said to them was that as we were meeting that morning and Members of the House of Commons might not receive the draft of the Bill until 11 or 12 o'clock, we desired until the Bill was public property—[HON. MEMBERS: "oh, oh!"]—But there is not the slightest vestige of ground for saying that this was a confidential meeting and that they were not in a position to consider the proposals made to them. The first proposals were accepted, and with regard to the second proposals, by a majority, they intimated that they were not prepared to accept them. There is not, therefore, the slightest ground for saying that this Clause ought to be postponed on the ground that the appropriate body has not been consulted. They have been consulted, and they considered it and they have given their decision. All we 2095 have to deal with this afternoon is the charge—made very recklessly—that no consultation has taken place. It is perfectly untrue. They have been consulted and they have given their decision. Therefore, there is no proper reason why this Clause should be postponed. If in the conferences up and down the country that will shortly take place any practical suggestions are put before my right hon. Friend, we shall he glad to consider them and can deal with them at other stages of the Bill.

§ Mr. THOMAS

I must confess I have never heard a Minister so twist the facts. I am going to speak quite as plainly, because I know just as much about what took place as he does. First, he says the appropriate, body, namely, the Consultative Council, were consulted, and they were the only body that ought to have been consulted. Let us see what took place. On the morning that the Bill was to be introduced into this House the Minister called them together, and submitted the proposals for the first time. They are the representatives of 15,000,000 insured persons. Their title is the Consultative Committee to the Minister of Health. Does the Minister deny that the primary function of this body, not only since his term of office, but in the term of every previous Minister, has been that on insurance matters they have not only been consulted before this House was consulted, but they have been asked to give assistance before the House knew anything about it? When we took office we were faced immediately with a crisis with the doctors. We found ourselves landed with a 3s. charge on the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) suggested to the Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) that he himself should consult those responsible — the Consultative Council—and ask them whether they would relieve the Treasury of the obligation. We explained the Government's difficulty, and they promptly took over the liability. But they were consulted. We did not go to them and say, "This is a Bill; you can take it, or leave it."We did not go to them and say, "We have an absolute majority, no matter what you do, but for courtesy we are consulting you."We said, "You are the consultative body and the people who 2096 know this job; can you help us? "And they did help us.

Compare that with what you have just heard from the Minister. How diplomatically he climbs over their decisions. He himself says they are the most representative body. He himself says they are the people who speak with authority. He has told you they know all about it and that they decided to agree to one Resolution and on the other, well, by 28 to six they were not quite so definite. That is the way he puts it. Now I will put to him what happened. The second Resolution, he knows perfectly well, has nothing to do with this Debate. No. 2 Resolution has nothing to do with the Amendment. You know it and there was no need to introduce it. It was the medical benefits alone, and he knows it. Therefore, the Resolution that they passed on the Clause that we are now discussing was a wholesale condemnation of these proposals. Then he says, "by a majority."Very well; the majority, taking his figures, is 28 to six. If they are the most representative body, according to his own phrase, and the people who know and, as he says, who are entrusted with responsibility, what right have you to come down this afternoon and place before the House of Commons a Bill which these people say is bad? This Bill goes much beyond that. Fifteen million people—and it is estimated that at least 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 will be meeting in the Easter conferences in the next few days ! When we trade union leaders do something, and it does not always met with approbation, the first thing you hurl at us is, "Why don't you consult your people?"We hear frequently the phrase, "What about the rank and file?"Now we are pleading for the rank and file. Sometimes you want a ballot. Will you take one on this?

Let us come to the other practical side of it. After all, the trade unions, the friendly societies and I he approved societies can only spend money from their administration funds. The hon. Gentleman has been on deputations with me to plead that it was not quite enough. They can only spend this money. Very well, that being so, surely the conference could not be called in a day. Three weeks, he says, this has been before the country. The railway men affected reside in Scotland, England and Wales. The delegates they have to elect have to be elected or 2097 they will not be representative. With all this knowledge of geography, the hon. Gentleman says three weeks was enough for them to be consulted. I put it quite definitely that it is not only not fair, that it is not only not giving a chance, but that he himself perfectly well knows that the explanation or excuse he gave that it is only one stage of the Bill will not hold water. If he believes that after an opportunity has been given to consult these societies, and the Government are prepared to take their view, what is the difficulty about delaying the matter? The Prime Minister has announced to-day that when this House re-assembles we are going straight back into Committee on this Bill. If at that time the societies have come to a decision, then the Parliamentary Secretary will say, "Yes, but we have passed that stage of the Bill."When the Report stage is reached and we move an Amendment we shall be told, "This will seriously interfere with the Budget proposals,"and so the Government will go on, not relying upon the arguments of the case, but upon the number of hon. Members who will probably walk into the Lobby on that occasion. I would like to say that when they consult their constituencies on this question they will get quite another view placed before them.

§ Mr. MACKINDER

We have just been told that if in conference the approved societies make any recommendations, they can be dealt with on the further stages of the Bill. I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if a decision is arrived at on the Committee stage of this Bill, and further recommendations are brought in afterwards which increase the charge imposed by this Bill, would they be in order on the Report stage?

§ The CHAIRMAN

No; and they would not be in order on the Committee stage either.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD

I think if any further arguments were needed in favour of postponing this Clause, they have been supplied by the explanation given by the Minister himself. Approved societies do not usually do their business in the way indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary because they must have some consultation with their members, and I cannot believe that any committee formed to confer with the Government in regard 2098 to this scheme would ever think of committing the members of these societies to so drastic a step as that which is contemplated by this Bill. The Government have absolutely no mandate for the introduction of a Measure such as this which has never been placed before the country. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that this proposal has been before the members of the approved societies for three weeks, but you could not hatch a clutch of eggs in three weeks and yet the Government produce a Bill like this. The idea that this matter can be adequately discussed in the three weeks in which the Bill has been before the country has no reality in fact whatever. The mandate of the country does not extend to economy in this direction. The supporters of the Government may claim that they have a mandate to introduce measures of economy and on that we are all agreed. They may have a mandate to put into operation certain proposals for economy in public expenditure, but there is no economy in this proposal. The economy suggested by the Government is of the meanest and most despicable kind.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now entering into the merits of the question.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD

I was saying that as an additional argument why we should have more time for discussion. It seems to me that from every point of view mere justice demands that there should be a postponement of Clause 1 of this Bill. Added weight has been given to this contention by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has completely demolished the case for the Bill put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Unless the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is answered, I cannot believe that any hon. Member on the other side dare go back to his constituents and meet the members of the approved societies and defend the passage of this Bill. For these reasons I support the postponement of the discussion of this Clause, and I hope the House will carry this Amendment.

§ Sir J. SIMON

I cannot believe that the account given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the position of this matter is entirely accurate, and I know it is 2099 inaccurate in one particular in which I am in a position to check his statement. The hon. Member explained that he had consulted this body which he spoke of as being created under the Act of 1911. I do not think the Act of 1911 contained any such Clause as the one which he says set up this Committee. The Act of 1911 contains no Clause giving power to set up such a committee, and when the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to this committee he was quite wrong in saying it was set up under the Act of 1911.

§ Sir K. WOOD

I remember the occasion perfectly well, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) set up the first committee.

§ Sir J. SIMON

There is no Section of the Act referred to which gave power to set up this committee at all. A purely advisory committee was constituted, but it is inaccurate to say that it was created by a Section of the Act of 1911, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs took very good care to have effective consultation with the approved societies, although it was not done by a statutory enactment.

§ Sir K. WOOD

I am advised that Section 58 of the Act of 1911 gives power for a consultative council to be set up.

§ Sir J. SIMON

Then I am wrong. What is quite certain is that the Consultative Council in fact is created under the Act of 1919, and an Order in Council was made under it. There is presumably an Order in Council made for this particular purpose. I want to know, if there is an Order in Council passed to create this consultative council, does it not make provision as to what it is that is really to be put before that body? Is it the case that the Order is being properly carried out if you present to that body a scheme of legislation which you are going to introduce, and ask them to express their view upon it I cannot believe that that was the intention or spirit of the Order in Council. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary has heard of the well-known French story of the lady who went into her farmyard, and told her fowls that she wished to consult them as to whether they would like to be roasted or boiled, when the leading fowl replied that he and his friends did not want either. The lady 2100 retorted, "My dear fowl, you are wandering from the point."When the Government used this Consultative Council, is it the case that they never put before it proposals which the Government had decided upon without getting any previous information, and without making themselves acquainted with the views of the friendly societies?

§ Mr. LAWSON

I was very much interested in the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary with the account he gave of his dealings with the Consultative Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) completely demolished that case. There is one thing, however, which the hon. Gentleman did not say, and it is that the-Committee were so dissatisfied that they held further discussions, and last night the Minister received a telegram from a joint body representing practically 14,000,000 people who come under the Insurance Act. I ask the Minister of Health if he received a telegram last night from a joint committee representing something like 14,000,000 people who come under the Insurance Act, asking that he should postpone the discussion of this Bill until they had had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the members of their societies during the week-end? I also want to know, if the right hon. Gentleman received that telegram, what was his answer to it. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's case was that the Government had discussed these matters with the committee representing the contributors and they could not get any further. On this point I think we are entitled to a straight answer. Did the right hon. Gentleman receive such a telegram, and if so what was his answer to it? The telegram definitely asked that the Government should postpone the discussion of this Clause until the members of the approved societies had had an opportunity of discussing it.

HON. MEMBERS

Answer !

§ The CHAIRMAN

It is sometimes in my power to make hon. Members sit down, but it is not in my power to make them rise.

§ Mr. THOMAS

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

2101 We have reached a stage at which we should move to report Progress. After all, we are discussing a very simple and straightforward Amendment. Grounds have been put forward, and we have heard from the Minister that the reason why this Amendment is resisted is because every opportunity has already been given. A plain, specific question has now been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), to this effect: Is it true that the Minister himself received a definite, telegram to the effect indicated, and what was the answer? Surely, that is a simple, straightforward question, and one that ought to be answered. If my right hon. Friend feels that he ought not to answer, or if he does not intend to answer, I feel that there is no other alternative than to move to report Progress.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I have no objection at all to answering the question, but I thought, as I saw that a number of hon. Members opposite were desirous of putting some further considerations, I might postpone my answer. Since the right hon. Gentleman feels

§ Mr. THOMAS

That being so, I think it is the strongest possible ground for this Motion. The issue is now boiled down to much narrower limits. I do not blame my right hon. Friend now; he was too busy; he was engaged in other matters—