§ Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been informed of the case of the workmen in the employ of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, some 6,000 in number, who gain all the benefits afforded by the National Insurance Bill, except maternity benefit, at considerably less expense under the fund which they have established with the assistance of their company, their contribution being 3d. per week as against 4d. per week under the Bill; and their sick benefit being 12s. per week as against 10s. per week under the Bill, this benefit including workmen up to the age of sixty-five years as against 10s. per week up to the age of fifty years, 7s. per week for over fifty and under sixty years, and 5s. per week for over sixty years under the Bill, the benefits also covering the first three days of sickness which the Bill excludes; and whether he would be willing to exclude them and any other similar body who provide not less favourable terms than those offered by the Bill from the compulsory clauses of the Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Baronet. As every penny con- 1557 tributed by the employers and workmen under the National Health Insurance will be applied exclusively for the benefit of the workmen under their own administration, it follows that they cannot lose through being brought under the Bill, and since they will have the State grant in addition to their own contributions it further follows that they must gain. If they can so manage the fund as to provide larger benefits than the minimum indicated in the Bill they will be in a position to enjoy those larger benefits. I am not prepared to penalise all the best-managed provident funds by withdrawing State aid from them.
§ Mr. FORSTERIs the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put the Treasury in the position now occupied by the employer, and guarantee the benefits?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the hon. Member would be the very last who would support that suggestion, because the only guarantee of good management is that those who manage should suffer if they are doing badly.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman' aware that the company in question subsidises a sick fund at a cost of £2,000 or £3,000 a year, and that it has a bonus system in operation, and the men have to work twelve hours instead of eight?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI should not like to' answer a question of that kind without seeing the conditions under which they work. I should not have thought there was the slightest difficulty under the Bill in adapting themselves in such a way as to become an approved society.