NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL. (Hansard, 15 December 1911)

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Most of these Amendments are of a purely drafting character. An undertaking was given in the House of Commons with regard to the local health committee, and Amendments have been introduced to carry it out. The only Amendments, in substance, are alterations in the maternity benefit; and again there is an Amendment on Clause 21, inserted on the Motion of Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and I am afraid we shall have to make some slight alteration in that because it would not work as it appears on the Paper; and it would make it impossible to get any contribution from the borough, in certain events, in regard to sanatoria. There is an alteration in pages 60 and 61 in the Clause dealing with the seamen and relating to the engineers who are in the mercantile marine. The only other Amendment of substance is on page 81, where power is given to the Insurance Commissioners to apply to the Courts of obtain an opinion as to whether a class of persons should be included within the 2786 insured persons or not. There is another alteration in Clause 109 dealing with maternity benefit. There is an alteration introduced in the unemployment part of the Bill which is an Amendment of some substance, although it has not so much importance as it appears on the Paper, because it only applies to one part of the additional benefits. I understand that the Board of Trade's suggested Amendment will meet the views of those who object to the provision in its present form. Those are the only Amendments of substance, so far as I can find out at present. The rest are purely drafting Amendments.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I hope that when the Clerk reads these particular Amendments the right hon. Gentleman will call our attention to them, because certainly on some of them something must be said. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 87, which is now in the Bill, is again to be amended. The Amendment was made to-day in the House of Lords, not in the form in which notice was given on the Lords Amendment Paper. I understand it is now to be further amended.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I was misinformed. The alteration which I referred to is the very alteration that was made in the Lords. It will not be necessary to move any alteration here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause as it stands now seems to be most objectionable, and when the Amendment is put from the Chair we shall have to deal with it. My difficulty is that the Amendments are not printed. I understood that this House was entitled to know what Amendments it was going to be asked to agree to. The right hon. Gentleman called the attention to another Amendment at the bottom of page 9, converting the age of sixteen into seventeen and upwards. It may mean something or nothing, but I am not sure what it does mean. As the Bill left this House it was at the age of over sixteen, and now it is converted into "at the age of seventeen and upwards." The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain what that means and what its actuarial effect is going to be, because it might have a very considerable actuarial effect. I do not say it is; I do not know; but it might bring in a totally different class of people from those who were in when the Bill left this House. There seems at least to be a difference of a year between sixteen and seventeen.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
There is no difference between the age and seventeen and over the age of sixteen.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am not prepared to argue it at the moment, but it seems it is quite possible that there is a very considerable difference. Two new Clauses have been put in by the House of Lords. Clause 19 in the reprinted Bill, if I am not mistaken, is a Clause which was proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Annan Bryce) and ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill. It provides for the punishment or summary conviction of a husband who does not make adequate provision to the best of his power for the maintenance and care of his wife during confinement. Perhaps the Attorney-General can say whether it is in order now.

§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not explain the verbal Amendment which, I understand, has been inserted in the new Sub-section of Clause 57. We on these Benches are very apprehensive of what the effect of the new Sub-section may be, and I should like to know if the representative of the Board of Trade could explain the Amendments.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)
The verbal Amendment made this morning was to avert the danger apprehended by some of the labour representatives that the phrase "or allowance" might be taken to apply to maternity or sanatorium benefit. It was our opinion that the phrase could not be so read, but as there was some apprehension on the subject we altered it to "or disablement allowance," because in one of the Schedules a disablement allowance is permitted under the Bill.

§ Mr. MALCOLM
I want to associate myself with what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) in his complaint that we have not got the Amendments to the Insurance Bill before us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so jealous for the dignity of the House ought to have allowed us to have the Amendments. The same remark would apply to another Bill which is coming before us. Effective discussion under these circumstances is really impossible, and all that remains for us to do is to register the decrees and decisions of an autocratic Government. It is impossible to do more 2788 than register their decrees now, and we can only enter a protest and express regret that the House of Commons should be reduced to this position of ineffectiveness as regards discussion at a late stage of a very important Bill which affects the best interests of the country.

§ Mr. SANDERSON
I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. I saw it stated in the morning papers that two Clauses of the Bill had been struck out wholly by the Government in another place and that another Clause had been substituted in their place. I have not been able to ascertain whether that is a fact or not. If it is so, I think the House would like to know something about it. What are the Clauses which have been struck out? I submit it is a matter of great importance to the House, and we ought to have an answer to that question.

§ Captain JESSEL
I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) as regards the Lords Amendments. It is very difficult for us to follow what has taken place, and my only purpose in rising is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a pledge given by his colleague has been carried out, namely, that the Metropolitan boroughs of London should not be grouped together in regard to the local Insurance Committee, but that they should be left separate for that purpose. I am under the impression that words were put into the Bill in the House of Lords to carry out that pledge.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am not sure, but I think there were some words inserted in Clause 56 with the intention of meeting the pledge given in the House of Commons.

§ Captain JESSEL
That was not the number of the Clause in the old Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have not had time to look into the matter, but I think words have been inserted in Clause 56. I will let the hon. Member know. In reply to the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Sanderson) I have to say that the only thing which was done was that certain Clauses were amalgamated and put in one Clause. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) I have to say that so far from this House registering the decrees of an autocratic Government, almost the only Motion I have to make is that this House 2789 register the decrees of an autocratic House of Lords. I am going to move with respect to the vast majority of the Lords Amendments that we agree to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are drafting Amendments."] Some are, but they are not all drafting Amendments. Some were moved by Lord Balfour and other Noble Lords and carried. As to one of Lord Balfour's Amendments, I am going to move that it be altered, and I am sure he would agree to the alteration I propose to make.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's last observations were very relevant to the question now before us, but I cannot really allow it to be suggested, as one of the right hon. Gentleman's leading points, that all he is doing now is correcting the mistakes of a wicked House of Lords when, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself told us that the thing was poured out of this House in such a way that nobody knew in what condition it was, and he himself used the House of Lords in order to remedy one or two only of the hideous mistakes which were left in when it loft this House.