§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)By leave of the House, I should like to make a personal explanation arising out of certain questions that arose during the discussion on the Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill. I am sorry to have to refer to the matter, but there are two points. One arose out of a certain challenge which I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). On Friday I gave notice to the Opposition Whips that I proposed to raise these matters, but I 1912 understood that it would be inconvenient then. I have since had an intimation from the Noble Lord that he proposes to make a statement on the subject. I shall therefore wait for what he has to say, as it may be unnecessary for me to make any further statement in reference to that matter. I shall confine myself for the moment to a certain statement made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), the Noble Lord, and the Leader of the Opposition, on a book, for which I accept full responsibility, published under my name in reference to the Insurance Bill. The statement was that I had misled the public by implying, in a paragraph quoted by the hon. Member for Colchester, that the Post Office insurers could draw an unlimited amount in respect of disablement benefit, and that I did not make it sufficiently clear that the amount they could draw was limited to the amount of their deposits, the State contribution and the employers' contribution, and such bonus as would be received under the tontine arrangement. If it rested entirely on the paragraph quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I agree, the words are ambiguous. But it does not. On page 25 of the book—and I call attention to it because the thing has been quoted outside by a writer who usually sits opposite—I enter very elaborately into the provisions for Post Office contributors, and there I make it amply clear that the amount which a Post Office contributor would draw is limited to those amounts. I not only state it, but I emphasise it, and I say that the Government deliberately made that arrangement in order to induce people not to become Post Office contributors, but rather to enter friendly societies. I say:—
We shall distribute the funds first of all in medical needs. They have paid their own contribution, and there is the contribution from the State and the contribution of the employer. You will make a deduction for medical relief, and for sanatoria, and you will distribute the balance on purely deposit principles. There are societies in this country which do this thing now: it is really a kind of banking transaction. You pay an amount in and you draw to the extent you paid in.Then I proceed to say that in addition you get a bonus derived from the lapses of other Post Office contributors. I go on:—Therefore those who are inside the Post Office Society will be able to draw to that extent upon the fund, and will get that additional advantage.I go on, and I have a separate heading for the next: "No inducement to become a Post Office contributor."It is quite clear that there is no inducement to join the Post Office contribution, and we do not want that there should be.1913 On page 51 I again call attention to the fact that they can only draw to the extent of those contributions, and I do it again on pages 86 and 87, and once more on page 140, where I head it: "The Advantages of the Friendly Society and the Post Office." I say:—But if a man is not in a friendly society, all he gets will be benefits to the extent of the money he has contributed.After giving figures, I end:—From this you will see that there is every inducement held out to a man to join a friendly society. We have framed our scheme deliberately on these lines, because it is our object to make it worth everybody's while to do so. We desire to make use of the experience and organisation of these bodies.Four times do I explain, not merely what deposit insurance means, but I emphasise its limitations, in order to induce people not to become Post Office contributors. When I come to the paragraph which the hon. Gentleman quoted I simply say:—Men and women whom friendly societies will not take in, work on the deposit principle in the Post Office.After my four explanations it would have been fairer to me if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Worthington-Evans), in making the statement he did, had called attention to the fact that I had four times already emphasised the limitations of these contributors. I say that also of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law), because he used very strong words in the Debate. He said, "My hon. Friend below the Gangway has pointed out the misrepresentation—made by him on his own responsibility—as more scandalous than has ever been made on any Bill by any Minister in any Government."
§ Mr. BONAR LAWHear, hear.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had known that I had already explained four times what the deposit principle meant, whether he would have made that statement? Supposing, in the by-election leaflet from which I quoted, the benefits of the Bill had been four times stated, and at the end there had been a sentence which did not fully explain them, would he consider the quotation of the sentence the same as referring to all the passages together? I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after my explanation, he was justified in using the strong language he did?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAs we could have been perfectly certain of in advance, the 1914 explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is an attack upon somebody else. As regards my share of it, I was careful to say—a charge of misrepresentation "more scandalous, etc.," it is true, had been made by my hon. Friend—that my charge against the right hon. Gentleman was, not that that charge was well or ill-founded, but that with it unanswered, he himself should have made charges against anybody else. I am perfectly certain that what the right hon. Gentleman has said just now represents his intention in regard to this book, for which he is responsible.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI say what is in it.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished. What, when examined, is his defence, stated by himself in the best way he can state it? His defence is that in one part of the book explanations are made which are not made, and are distinctly contradicted, in that part of the book to which we took exception. There are no qualifying words whatever in that part of the book to which my hon. Friend drew attention—none! Undoubtedly, if a book is published under the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman, with the position of the deposit contributors clearly stated in it, use will be made of that part of the book without any reference to the explanation in the other part of it. What does the right hon. Gentleman say?
Men and women whom friendly societies will not take in, work on the deposit principle in the Post Office. Their insurance will be 9d. per week: 4d. from the employé, 3d. from the employer, and 2d. from the State. Thus in five years they will have £10 to the good, 'and.' in addition to that they will have a bonus which will be given to them——
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE"'But' in addition."
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is "and" here, but perhaps it does not matter.
they will have a bonus which will be given to them as certainly a large number of these people will neither be ill nor die. If they are ill for thirteen weeks in the year, they will be allowed 10s. per week. That is to say, they will get back £6 10s. For fourteen weeks beyond that thirteen weeks, they will get 5s. per week.That is to say that apart from bonus all those who are ill—for those who died do not come in now as I understand—apart from the bonus this pamphlet tells them they will get about £10 when the total amount which is available is something like £6. But that is only the beginning. He then goes on:—Then if the illness continues, they will receive an invalidity pension of 5s. per week.1915 That is to say, if a man continues an invalid for ten years, he will receive in addition to £10—which he could not possibly receive—£130 as well. I say, as I am always ready to say, I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of wilful misrepresentation, but I do say that in a book for which he was responsible it was utterly unjustifiable that a statement of that kind which could be quoted without the context of the rest of the book and which entirely misled everybody who read that statement, should be made.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to the statement I made on Third Reading, quoted from page 25 of his book.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are not debating this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any personal explanation to make, I am sure the House will be willing to give him the same indulgence as it gave to the two right hon. Gentlemen.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo one has attacked the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what he wishes to explain.
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSI understood the Chancellor has attacked my accuracy. He said I had no right, as I understood him, to quote one part of the book without quoting the other parts, and it is in answer to that charge that I wish immediately to speak with your permission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted from page 25 of the book, which is a reproduction of his First Reading speech; from page 50 of the book which is the same thing and from page 68, which is a reprint of the Bill and not his statement at all, and then when he comes to the explanation of the difficult point and it is to the explanation of difficult points written in the first person by the Chancellor that I want to deal——
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAnd page 140.
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSYes, page 140 and 150 are both parts of the fourth part of the book which are explanations of difficult points. I will deal with page 140, which is only just a little less inaccurate than page 150. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman did I not give the principle of deposit insurance correctly, but what I did say and what I 1916 now repeat is that when he works the principle out in figures he is hopelessly inaccurate.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not the opportunity for making an attack. This is an opportunity for making a personal explanation. If the hon. Gentleman has any explanation to offer, now is the time, but this is not the time to make a personal attack.
Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSThe form of the personal explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to accuse me of picking and choosing in the book and not making a correct statement. With your permission, Sir, I would like to deal with page 40 which the Chancellor has asked the House to consider in his own personal explanation. I will not take more than a moment or two. On page 140, he says:—
Let us take an illustration. Supposing a Post Office contributor is paying in for three years at 9d. per week, he will have £5 17s. to his credit.As a matter of fact, he will not have £5 17s., but £3 3s.From this must be deducted 5s. a year for the doctor.This is the first time we have ever heard of the 5s. a year. The healthy man is to pay 6s., the unhealthy deposit contributor will not get it for 5s.and 1s. sanatorium treatment.There never has been a shilling, it has always been 1s. 3d., and the Chancellor conveniently leaves out the administration cost of 4s. a year, and he brings out the total of balance at £4 19s., but the fact is it will not be £4 19s., but it will be £3. So that instead of getting the benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says on working out the principle of deposit insurance, he will get six weeks instead of ten weeks. There is one other point. I made a statement on the Third Reading which I would like to correct to the effect that the Chancellor has not dealt with deposit contributors in his Tabernacle speech. I find I am wrong. He did deal with them and also in a most misleading way.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is abusing his privilege. This is not the opportunity, I repeat, of renewing old attacks but for making a personal explanation. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to apologise for or explain, he is at liberty to do so; he is not entitled to take this opportunity to make an attack.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I have nothing to apologise for and nothing to explain.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI desire, with the indulgence of the House, to make a personal explanation. The House will recollect that on Wednesday last the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an attack upon myself which, I at any rate regard as a very serious matter. It was strongly worded; I do not know whether it is necessary to repeat it, but, coming from a Gentleman in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and speaking of a fellow-Member of this House, I think it is a matter of serious importance, and one which I am bound to deal with to the best of my ability. The attack was made in reference to a leaflet issued in the course of the Hitchin by-election; no notice was given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore I am sure the House will pardon me if, in dealing with that attack at the time I was not able to deal with every portion of it on the spur of the moment. Fortunately, I did recollect the leaflet, and was able to deal with a good deal of it. I do not intend to repeat what I then said, because, in my opinion, what I then said was quite sufficient for my justification. But the House will recollect that the attack fell into two divisions. The Chancellor charged me, in the first place with omitting to set out certain portions of the Bill which he thought I ought to set cut. That portion of the attack I dealt with on Wednesday last; and I have nothing to add except to say that the document was a leaflet dealing with a particular point in the Insurance Bill, and was not a treatise upon the whole Bill. In addition to that the Chancellor charged me with special and specific misstatements. He said this:—
This is a leaflet which the Noble Lord circulated … 'North Herts By-Election. Radicals say you will get 9d. worth of insurance for 4d.'Then there were some cheers, and the right hon. Gentleman said:—I will wait and see whether the next sentence will be cheered. 'You will pay much more than 4d.' What does that mean? If it means anything at all, it means that the contribution that will be levied on the workman will be more than 4d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1911, col. 1460.]I explained, upon the spur of the moment, that that was not at all my meaning, and I did not believe anyone was misled, but I had not at that moment the leaflet before me. Here is the leaflet, and, as hon. Members will see, it consists 1918 of a preface and a table. It is quite true that the preface contains the words,You are paying more than 4d.but it is equally clear that there could be no misapprehension, because in the very table itself is set out the full contribution that will be made, namely, 4d. from the workman's wage, 3d. from the employer, and 2d. from the Government. Therefore the suggestion that there could be any possible misapprehension as to the phrase used in the preface falls to the ground. The next charge made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this: he says:—The first thing I have got to say about that is, that the funeral benefit involves an extra payment of 1½d. per month.That I contradicted. It is all included in the 4d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the contradition. He said:—It is not included in the 4d., it is not included in the tables of the Buntingford Association.I said:—It is included in the 4d. per week. I will explain it if I had an opportunity of joining in the Debate,and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—I hope the Noble Lord will. There is a good deal more that he will have to explain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1911, col. 1461.]4.0 P.M.If I may venture to say so, the charge was persistent and in a very offensive form. I have now, but I had not then, owing to want of notice, the rules of the Buntingford Society. Here are the figures. Age sixteen: per week in sickness, 1s. 4d. for 10s. benefit, 1½d. for funeral at thirty, and that makes 1s. 5½d. These are monthly contributions. Multiplied by twelve that comes to 17s. 6d. per year. That is 210 pence, which, divided by the number of weeks, leaves 2d. over for the extra day of the year, and it makes the amount 4d. as nearly as possible within 1–40th of a 1d. the one way or the other. I therefore venture to say that that accusation is perfectly groundless. There was a third accusation. He says:—
What is the next thing? This is a society which was started at the beginning of the nineteenth century. And gets something which is equivalent to a Grant-in-aid. from the Government. They are getting, in respect of all their investments before 1850, £4 11s. per cent. per annum under an Act of Parliament. That is more than sufficient to pay surgical aid, and it also pays a part of the management expenses.As a matter of fact every single statement made in those observations is inaccurate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, and knew it at that time, that this association was started in 1832, 1919 because I told him so across the floor of the House myself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that by the Statute of 1882 it is only societies formed before 1828 that get the £4 11s., and societies established between that date and 1850 get £3 16s. for their investments, so that the £4 11s. is altogether inaccurate. But that is not the only thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says:—That is more than sufficient to pay surgical aid, and it also pays a part of the management expenses.That is altogether untrue. The difference between the normal interests from investments and £3 16s. would obviously be altogether insufficient for making any such contribution, but as a matter of fact I have communicated with the secretary and I find that no part of that sum goes towards surgical aid or management expenses. The accounts have always been kept distinct from one another. In point of fact, whatever advantage does accrue from that old Act of Parliament which gives an interest of £3 16s., does not in any way advantage anyone who joins the association at the present moment. Therefore, that statement is altogether inaccurate, and it was upon those three statements and some others equally inaccurate, which I do not want to repeat that the Chancellor thought it right to say that I had withheld the facts, that I had borne false witness, and that I had grossly and scandalously misled the electors in my Constituency. I prefer to leave the House to judge upon those accusations.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOne story is good until another is told. [Interruptions.] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to what I have got to say. The Noble Lord has referred to two or three charges of misstatement which he says I made in reference to this leaflet. There were at least five, but the Noble Lord has left out those that represent several pence a week, and has only alluded to those which represent fractions of 1d. per week. The two statements in this leaflet which he did not read are the most important of all. This leaflet shows that the Government 9d. is not worth more than the Buntingford Society's 4d., and the part of the statement which referred to that the Noble Lord has not alluded to. [An. HON. MEMBER: "He did that on Wednesday."]
§ Lord R. CECILI understood from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I was not entitled to refer to anything which I dealt with on Wednesday last, and it was only 1920 on that account that I did not deal with the other points.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think it is both unnecessary and undesirable to go over old ground. The only raison d'être for a personal explanation is that hon. Members have been taken by surprise by something said in Debate, and they should only make explanations about something due to the fact that they were taken by surprise.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is one reason why I thought the Noble Lord would refer to that point. [Interruptions.] Hon. Members on this side of the House listened to the Noble Lord's statements without any interruption, and I claim the same right. I gave the Noble Lord the figures on Wednesday.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not now transgressing the ruling which you laid down a few moments ago as applicable to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester? The right hon. Gentleman is now attacking the hon. Member under the guise of making a personal explanation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is impossible for me to answer that question until I have heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI would preface my statement by saying that out of the five charges which I made against the Noble Lord two of them, which are the most important, have not been cleared up by him at all.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThey were dealt with on Wednesday.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThey were not dealt with on Wednesday. I will come to the three points which the Noble Lord has dealt with. What did he mean by saying that they would have to pay much more than 4d.? Surely he did not mean that the employers and the State would pay it? I say that the Noble Lord has circulated a statement of that kind, and when you state that those men will have to pay more than 4d. you are entitled to expect that that does not mean that somebody else will pay it. Now I come to the second statement, that the 1½d is included in the 4d. The way the Noble Lord worked it out is this. He says the month is a calendar month, and, adding it together, he 1921 makes forty-eight weeks. The 4d. of the Government is a forty-eight weeks' payment, and if the Noble Lord had only looked at the actuarial tables he would have discovered that the 4d. a week is not for fifty-two weeks, but for forty-eight weeks. The Noble Lord is perfectly willing to take advantage of the forty-eight weeks.
§ Lord R. CECILNo, no.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWill the Noble Lord allow me to finish. He is willing to call attention to the fact that it is forty-eight weeks in the Buntingford scheme, but he will not give credit for the fact that it is forty-eight weeks in the Government scheme.
§ Lord R. CECILThe right hon. Gentleman is wholly misrepresenting what I said.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Noble Lord said it was a calendar month.
§ Lord R. CECILI said that in monthly payments it came to 4d. a week. I said nothing about forty-eight weeks.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is really the point. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The hon. Member asks me why. If you are comparing like with like you ought to state the facts on both sides, and not deal with one set of facts. The Noble Lord dealt with the question of Government investments. What are the facts? Here, again, he has not told the whole of the facts. It is perfectly true that this is one of the points I meant to explain on Friday when I gave notice. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Does the hon. Member challenge me?
§ Lord EDMUND TALBOTThe right hon. Gentleman said he had the intention of doing so.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, but I gave notice.
§ Lord R. CECILBut you never gave me any notice.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI understood notice was given to all the Whips and others interested, and if notice was not given to the Noble Lord I regret it. What are the facts? It is true this society when it was registered instead of coming on the 3 per cent. basis came on the 2½ per cent. basis, and instead of getting a bonus of £2 it got a bonus of 1.5 per cent. Instead of getting 2.10 per cent. on Government securities it is getting £3 16s., and that is 1922 a bonus of 26s. When I made my statement I thought it was £2 upon £2,500, but it turns out to be 26s. on something over £4,000, and that is the extent of my inaccuracy.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the right hon. Gentleman put that statement forward as if it explained the benefits which could be given to the new members now enrolled?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhy does the right hon. Gentleman say that when I was only just beginning my statement.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI interrupted because the right hon. Gentleman said that was the extent of his inaccuracy.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman might have at least waited until I had reached that point. I meant the extent of my misstatement so far as the cash is concerned. Now I come to the second point, and if the right hon. Gentleman had had the civility to wait he would have heard it. This small society since 1888 has had the advantage of a subsidy from the State and this special provision alone came to £1,200 since the year 1888. Then they had over £9,000 invested at those high figures. They have now over £4,000. I propose to circulate a statement by Mr. Watson, the actuary, who acted on behalf of the Unionist party upon this particular society.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhat are the figures? There is a surplus of £3,416, most of which is attributable to this subsidy of over 26s. per cent., which is given by the State in respect of this society, which came into existence in 1832.
§ Lord R. CECILA surplus of which fund?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am referring to the fund of the old members.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWas the right hon. Gentleman alluding——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is an occasion for personal explanations and not for argument.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am sorry to take up so much time, but, of course, interruptions must be dealt with. The 1923 surplus on the fund of the old members is £3,416. Most of that is due to this exceptional advantage given to the Buntingford Association and all other associations brought into existence before 1830. If the Noble Lord will look at the book in his hand, and which I had in my hand on Wednesday, he will find the charge in respect of surgical aid and also in respect of management is partly cast upon the surplus; and when I said the money in respect of surgical aid came entirely out of that fund and there was a contribution towards management it was strictly accurate. He has only got to look at this book, and he will find it for himself.
§ Lord R. CECILWhere?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIn Article 19 he will find that
The necessary expenses of management shall be defrayed from the interest upon the surplus fund of the society.He will also find in Article 17 with respect to surgical aid thatany such payment to be defrayed out of the surplus fund of the society.The whole of that surplus comes out of this State subsidy.
§ Lord R. CECILNo.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAnd I shall circulate a Paper.
§ Lord R. CECILI have the balance-sheet here.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGESo have I. Therefore, when I said that the whole of the surgical aid and a proportion of the management came out of this special advantage which was given to this society it was strictly accurate. The Noble Lord will see for himself if he will only look at his own rules and at the balance-sheet which is circulated. There is another thing I have to say finally to the Noble Lord. I am not allowed to enter now—I accept your ruling absolutely upon that point—into the much larger question which I put to him on Thursday that he had omitted to give the value of the large benefits in the Bill, and which are not given by the Buntingford Association. I challenge him to find any actuary in the whole of the United Kingdom and put to him this proposition which he has got at the end of his leaflet, that the Government 9d. is not worth more than the Buntingford 4d., who will not say my statement in regard to it being grossly inaccurate is absolutely true.
§ Mr. SPEAKERBefore we pass to the business on the Order Paper, I would like to say that if I had had any idea that these so-called personal explanations were going to lead to personal recriminations and to a renewal of old attacks, I would never have permitted the time of the House to be occupied for five and thirty minutes in this manner. I hope this day's proceedings will not be drawn into a precedent.