Deputy Norton was anxious to have an opportunity of considering the arithmetic that was referred to by the Minister in the course of his statement. I think that even if he had an opportunity of considering, and reconsidering, the arithmetic referred to by the Minister that would not help him or any Deputy in the House to make up his mind, if he came into the House with an open mind, on the principle of unification contained in the Bill as to whether he should or should not vote for the principle because in so far as the speech gave us any information at all it merely tended to show that in connection with the administration of the National Health Insurance Acts there was a problem to be dealt with, a problem arising out of the financial circumstances of the approved societies. But so far as I could learn from carefully listening to the Minister he made no case whatever for the solution of these problems along the lines of unification which are contained in this Bill. That is the big principle that is contained in this Bill, the principle of the solution of the financial difficulties of approved societies along the lines of unification.
It must be admitted, as I have said, that there is a problem arising out of these financial difficulties and what we have to decide is what is the best and most just method, having regard to the interests concerned, of solving that problem in present circumstances. Our view is that the principle embodied in this Bill, namely, the unification of approved societies, is not the best method in present circumstances of solving those difficulties but that, in point of fact, it is the most unjust method that could possibly have been devised. Our objection to the principle of unification is based on the injustice that it will work in various directions. It will work an injustice on the employees of approved societies. It will work an injustice on insured persons whose contributions have been husbanded by these small societies which are scattered round the country and which have done very useful work during the last 20 years. It will be an injustice because it fails to recognise the work done by those people who, voluntarily, for a long period of years, gave their services to working and to helping in the working of approved societies in connection with the National Health Insurance schemes.
Everything that could possibly have been said by the Minister, had he said anything, in favour of unification at the present moment would have been equally valid as an argument in favour of unification twenty years ago when this scheme was put into operation. There are no different circumstances, even in this country at the present moment, which call for the application of that principle of unification to the solution of the problems that arise now because, in our view, those problems arise not from any lack of efficiency on the part of the approved societies in the administration of the Acts, not from any lack of organisation or lack of skill on the part of the officials and not from anything inherent in the scheme itself, but solely by reason of exceptional circumstances and exceptional times. The finances of these approved societies have been put out of joint, not by reason of the scheme which was set up twenty years ago, but because of the greatly increased unemployment that exists in this country for the past couple of years. A solution is to be found for the problem, but there are other schemes which could have been applied equally effectively in the solution of these problems and which would have caused less injustice and less hardship than will be inflicted under this Bill.
The great objection I have to this particular scheme of unification which may possibly, theoretically, be the most sound, but which I think, in practice, will be the most unsound scheme that can be devised to meet the situation, is the sudden reversal of the whole principle on which the machinery of national health insurance in this country was based at its inception and on which it worked during the last twenty years, and worked, taking it all round, efficiently and satisfactorily, so far as insured persons, who are, of course, primarily to be considered, are concerned. It was the policy of those who started this scheme of national health insurance in this country to foster the foundation of large numbers of small approved societies on the principle that it was right and proper that the insured persons themselves should have placed on them the responsibility for the working of the Act and the schemes under the Act and that small territorial or sectional approved societies would form the best protection for insured persons and that, under such a scheme, some sympathy would be shown in the administration of the Acts and in the giving of the benefits that insured persons had a right to consider they would get. In accordance with that principle, numbers of insurance societies were set up here and a number of those diocesan and vocational and approved societies have been worked with extraordinary success and quite a number of philanthropic individuals have given their time on a voluntary and free basis to assisting in the working of those Acts for the sole purpose of benefiting the insured contributors.
Their services under this scheme of unification are to be scrapped. The system under which responsibility for the administration of the Acts in the proper way and in the proper spirit was placed on insured persons, or groups of insured persons, is also to be scrapped and, instead of that, one large unwieldy society is to be brought into being which will have all the disadvantages without any of the advantages of being a big civil service department. I have little doubt that, in the administration of these Acts by such a department, which, though not, in name, a civil service department will, in fact, work as such, insured persons will undoubtedly not benefit. The sympathy which local committees can show towards their sick members and towards their disabled members will be entirely lacking and red tape will be the rule. Every little technicality, every little advantage that may possibly arise will be taken in the interest of an incorporeal entity which will probably be known as "the fund" or "the reserve." The human element, which is so necessary in connection with a scheme of national health insurance, will be entirely absent but, apart from the question of principle as to whether unification is or is not a proper remedy, surely a sudden reversal of the entire principle on which the system has been built up over a long period of years could have been taken in stages.
An experiment of a very serious and grave nature is being tried in this Bill. It may be, as I say, that, on paper, arguments could be adduced—they have not yet been adduced—in favour, theoretically, of unification, but the human element and the practical element are completely left out of the situation under the scheme embodied in this Bill, and it would have been better if some even preliminary stages towards unification had first been attempted and if it had been recognised that this problem is not really—at least, it is to be hoped that it is not—a permanent problem and that the breakdown, if there is any breakdown, in the scheme is due merely to exceptional circumstances. It could have been, I think, tried in easy stages instead of initiating such a completely revolutionary scheme all at once as is proposed to be done in this Bill.
The Bill, as I say, will work injustice in many directions but, above all, it will work injustice on the people whose livelihoods are dependent on the pay they have been getting from the approved societies. It is apparently only another manifestation of that feature of Government policy which is so characteristic of their policy—this introduction of uncertainty and insecurity into practically everybody's life, State interference with people's employment, with the people's salaries and with the people's livelihood. This is only another instance of that particular manifestation of Government policy. Everything that could be said for unification to-day could have been said 20 years ago but a different scheme was adopted and the people's livelihood depends on the continuance of that scheme. Under this Bill, they will be ruthlessly taken away, and taken away, in many instances, without compensation, and in every instance without adequate compensation. I am sure that every Deputy in this House knows that there is not a single member of an approved society who has given his benediction to any portion of this Bill and it would be interesting to know how many people really are behind the scenes in favour of this principle of unification or whose child the principle is, but, at all events, in the compensation clauses of this Bill, there is no provision made for the number of people whose livelihoods practically depend on their earnings under approved societies. There is no provision in the Bill for part-time members of approved societies. Everybody knows that even 15/- a week, made by an agent in the country, makes all the difference, sometimes, between ordinary comfort and penury. The discussion of the particular clauses of the Bill dealing with compensation, is more a matter for Committee, but it is apparent that even the drafting has not been properly thought out and that full discussion will have to take place. In the meantime I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
