§ Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the funds for providing the benefits conferred by this Part of this Act and 1550 defraying the expenses of the administration of those benefits shall be derived as to seven-ninths (or, in the case of women, three-fourths) thereof from contributions made by or in respect of such contributors by themselves or their employers, and as to the remaining two-ninths (or, in the case of women, one-quarter) thereof from moneys provided by Parliament.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYI beg to move after the word "by" ["provided by this Act"] to insert the words "Section 15 of."
I move this Amendment as I rather want to limit the power of spending money in the latter part of the Bill. The Clause, as it stands, says, "except as otherwise provided by this Act the funds for providing the benefits" shall be so-and-so, under, of course, this Bill. Therefore I presume that unless some limiting power is put in it will be permissible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move another Clause which will confer a charge for benefits upon the Exchequer. The Financial Resolution which we have just passed is drawn rather broadly. I understand, Mr. Emmott, that you have given a ruling to this effect—for I was not in the House at the time—that it would be allowable for any Member to propose an Amendment which would increase the number of persons entitled to receive benefits, whilst by the Resolution which we have just passed we cannot increase the contribution to be paid by the State. If that be so, if we cannot increase the contribution of the State, and we can at the same time increase the number of persons who are to receive benefits under the Act, I think that there should be some new words put into the Clause before we go any further in relation to the expenditure which is going to be incurred under this Clause of the Act. Clause 15 is the only Clause I think which deals with the contribution of the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Clause 47" and "Clause 39."] Clause 15 deals with sanatoria, which we have been discussing at great length this afternoon. My Amendment will not in any kind of way touch or limit the amount of money for sanatoria. So far as my Amendment goes it would be quite open, within the rules of order, to increase the money to be devoted to sanatoria. All the effect of my Amendment would be that no more money could be used for any other purpose except sanatoria. I mention that because I hope I may possibly get the support of hon. Members below the Gangway on this side.
1551 My Amendment only deals with funds which are derived from the Consolidated Fund. My hon. and learned Friend above the Gangway suggests that a Clause he mentioned might be affected by my Amendment. That is not so. His Clause deals with an entirely different matter. It merely deals with the money provided by Parliament for the payment of the officers who are to be created under the Bill. One of the chief objections to the Bill, to my mind, is the creation of a large number of these people. If my hon. and learned Friend will kindly refer to the Resolution which we have just passed, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), he will see that it provides for:—
"The salaries and remuneration of any commissioners, umpires, referees, and other officers and servants appointed in pursuance of such Act and other expenses incurred in the execution thereof."
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Baronet must know that these words are absolutely unnecessary. The effect of introducing the words suggested would be to cut down the allowances of soldiers and sailors. If that is the hon. Baronet's object—
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo, it is not.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Amendment will have that effect.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERI hope the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment. It would have a still further effect than that which has been mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it would make it impossible to bring the income from the investments of the fund into the general fund out of which benefits could be paid.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt would have a limiting effect all round.
§ Mr. FORSTERPractically the money would have to be found by the actual contributions of the employers and the State. I think it is very desirable that we should get full credit for this money.
§ Mr. BOOTHIf the object of the hon. Baronet is economy, I would suggest that we should always be in our places through-out the discussions on this Bill, and then deal with any propositions for squandering money when they arise.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am prepared to attach considerable importance to the opinion of the hon. Member opposite. Supposing we are in our places until two or three o'clock in the morning—and we may be discussing this Bill at that hour—even with the assistance of the hon. Member I am not sure that we should get any assistance in our efforts from other parts of the House. It is no use being in our places unless we have some way of enforcing our desires. In reference to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not wish to interfere with any benefits which are to be given to the soldiers and the sailors, and I ought to have made my Amendment to include Section 36. I think I might amend my Amendment by adding that Section. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not met my Amendment in any hostile spirit, because during his speech on the Resolution he seemed to indicate that he would be inclined to put some check upon the expenditure. I do not want to bind the right hon. Gentleman specifically, but if he will give me some assurance on this point I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI could not give any further assurance than that which I have already given. When we come to these matters later on I shall consider the suggestions which have been made, and if it is the general desire of the House, subject, of course, to a regard for my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall defer to the opinion of the House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I may say that the right hon. Gentleman does not always defer to the opinion of the House, because he sometimes puts his own opinion upon the House. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANWith regard to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, I do not see that any of them are in order until we come to that of the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett).
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask if the Amendment reducing the contribution of women is not in order? It will not necessarily impose a higher contribution on the State, and it might be argued that the deficit would be supplied out of the employers' contribution.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment referred to by the hon. Member is one of a series of consequential Amendments which lead up to an increase in the charge.
§ Mr. GOLDMANOn a point of Order, may I ask whether your attention has been called to the admission made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the contribution of 2d. is equivalent to two-ninths of the benefit? That being so, will you allow me to move my Amendment, seeing no additional charge is made?
§ The CHAIRMANI explained that matter last night. It is an increase in the charge in the earlier years, and under the rules I could not allow it.
§ Sir CHARLES HENRYCould I move an Amendment providing that the contribution from the members of the Territorial Force should not exceed 2d. per week?
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member's Amendment, if it could be moved at all, should come on Clause 4.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEReally what my hon. Friend suggests is something in the same category as the soldiers and sailors. He proposes that the charge should be 2d. The difference would have to be made up by something, and it would therefore have to be made up by the State.
§ Sir CHARLES HENRYI do not want to place any particular charge upon the employer or the State, I want the Members of the Territorial Force to have the same benefits. The difference, if any. would be borne by the approved societies
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member's Amendment would come on Clause 4, if it is in order at all.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThere is a provision in the Resolution that the payment by the Army Council and the Admiralty shall be such a sum as is fixed in the Bill itself. It is not a limited sum. Would the hon. Member be in order in moving his Amendment, seeing it is not limited by the Financial Resolution?
§ The CHAIRMANNo, because as I understand it, when the members of the Territorial Force are not called up for their training or for service, they come under the other part of the scheme. That is what I am informed. The hon. Baronet has conversed with me about the matter, and I know he desires that the Amendment 1554 should apply to the time when they are civilians. It is not therefore in order under the wording of the Clause.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSOn a point of Order. You have ruled out my Amendment on the ground that it increases the cost to the Exchequer. May I point out that all I am asking for is that the benefits should be paid as to one-third out of moneys provided by Parliament. That depends upon the amount of the benefit. For example, one-third of a benefit of 6s. would be less than two-ninths of a benefit of 18s. It therefore entirely depends upon the amount of benefits finally assigned to the health committees whether it does, in fact, increase the charge on the Exchequer or not. I submit the Amendment is in order.
§ The CHAIRMANIn other words, it may be more, it may be the same, or it may be less. It may be more, and it is not in order.
§ Mr. JOWETTI beg to move, to leave out the words "or in respect of such contributors by themselves or their."
I take it, notwithstanding the Resolution we have passed, that this is in order. I wish to move the Amendment, because many people are absolutely unable to pay the amounts set forth in this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the many speeches he has made from time to time in public, has made it clear that he wants to relieve the burdens of the poor. It does not appear to me to be using the funds of the State to remove poverty and misery by placing a burden of 4d. per week upon a large section of the population which have not at present sufficient for their needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) yesterday alluded to the fact that no less than two millions of families are in such an unfortunate position that their income does not amount to £1 per week. In my own town there have been serious disturbances in the last fortnight because of the effort of a very large section of men to get 25s. a week wage for a full week's work. As a matter of fact these men are so subject to intermittent employment that I do not exaggerate the position of affairs when I say that if they get 25s. a week their average wage all the year round will not exceed 18s. Allowing 5s. for rent, and bearing in mind the cost of gas and fire and necessary clothing, what is left to maintain a family of four? How can these people pay 4d. per week out of their wages to this insurance fund?
1555 I should like also to call attention to the inquiries made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Money) as to the position of affairs with regard to the finances of the working classes and the progress of the workers as compared with the progress of the better-off classes in the State. He has shown that during fifteen years, although the workers' wages have, according to the Board of Trade returns, advanced a fraction over 13 per cent. the prices of forty-five articles used by the working classes have advanced 17.9 per cent. Having regard to that fact, is it possible to think that the promises of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are effectively met when he is placing upon the poorest section of the community this charge? The conditions of employment of many of these people, it must be remembered, are of a casual character. A large number of them will be comprised in the Post Office contributory scheme and will not receive as nearly good benefits as the members of approved societies.
The hon. Member (Mr. Chiozza Money) has shown beyond all possibility of doubt that the present industrial system leads to very large savings in the hands of a very small class, and those savings, I say, should be available for such purposes as we are considering to-day. He has shown that in the fifteen years from 1895 to 1910 the gross assessments to Income Tax have increased no less than £42,000,000—or 59 per cent. increase, to the advantage of those who are fortunate enough to be called upon to pay Income Tax. Is it not, therefore, clear that if our industrial system so operates as, on the whole, considering prices and wages, to depress the position of the working man, whilst, on the other hand, at very considerably advances the financial strength and power of the richer classes, and is it not fair, having regard especially to all the hopes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised during the last two or three years, that he should do more than he is proposing to do in this Bill and relieve those to whom I have referred of the payment of this 4d. per week. Having regard to these facts, I ask that this Amendment be carried and that that beautiful state of affairs to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer so often alluded may be brought nearer by this Bill, and it cannot be brought much nearer unless that section of the community which is now suffering through inability to maintain them- 1556 selves and provide the necessary food and clothing for their families are relieved of the incubus of the payment to which he proposes to subject them. If he does not do this I have no hesitation in saying that those purple patches in his speeches were unjustified, that they are a mirage roused by him, time after time, and sooner or later they will be shown to be so. Something must be done to improve the comparative position of the working classes. If it is not done by this House it will be done by other action. outside, and whoever observes the trend of events in the various industries and the unrest that there is throughout the country must come to this conclusion: that unless we in this House pass laws which will tend to alleviate the distress which now exists and relieve the working classes of the burdens to which they are already subject, we shall throw them back upon other more violent action, which has become all too common, and which in the end will be a grave danger to the State.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because it is obviously an impossible Amendment for us to accept. I can understand the objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) that the State should bear a larger proportion of the contribution, but this proposal means that the whole of the 7d. will be found by the employer. I really could not undertake the responsibility of passing the Bill through with that proposition. The hon. Member has made his case. He must know that the Amendment could not possibly be accepted, and I trust he will enable us to go on with the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI must say the Amendment is of rather a startling character, and I am very glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the hon. Member no encouragement. This is an important matter, because it shows the attitude which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway take up on this subject. The matter is of great importance, and requires to be dealt with rather at greater length than was done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we must bear in mind that 1d. means £3,000,000. That made a very great impression on my mind. What the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is proposing to do is to put a charge of £21,000,000 on the employers. When you are dealing with this question 1557 you must look at it from a business point of view. You cannot do that without going into the question whether the persons who are to get the benefits should contribute. I think the carrying of this Amendment would, in effect, be a disastrous blow on those classes whom the hon. Gentleman desires to benefit. We know that employers in many trades at the present moment are making a very narrow margin of profit. If you put upon them £21,000,000, what will the natural effect of that be? In any case it would have the effect that the employers could not go on with the business they are carrying on at the moment, and consequently instead of receiving any benefit a very large number of men would be dismissed. Not only would they receive no benefit from the sick fund, but they would lose by the action of the hon. Gentleman those wages on which they live. That shows that very often hon. Members below the Gangway, in their desire to do what appears to them to be a service to the people they wish to benefit, are rather inclined to make mistakes of that sort. They seem to imagine that employers are making vast profits out of which they can disgorge large sums for the benefit of the working millions. I think that the sums deducted from the employers and the employés are fairly distributed, and any attempt to put an enormous burden like this on the employers would recoil upon the men themselves. I am not making this speech in any party way. I am trying to deal with this as a question of business. It seems to me, looking at the question from the business point of view, that the hon. Gentleman's proposal could not possibly be acted upon. I will deal with the question whether or not the people who are going to benefit under the Bill should contribute something themselves. I know the general sentiment of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and I believe the alterations they wish would' put the scheme on a great charitable basis. Under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the scheme would be nothing but a great charity.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe working people are contributing to all of us all the time.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is not the point. If the hon. Member likes to challenge me he can follow me in the Debate. The object of this Bill is to inculcate thrift among the working classes, and the way to encourage thrift is to induce those who 1558 are going to benefit to contribute themselves in some small degree. I believe that later on there will be an Amendment moved reducing the contribution by the agricultural labourer. With that I am to a certain extent in sympathy. It is an entirely different thing. The Amendment of the hon. Member is conceived in an unbusinesslike spirit, and, if carried, would injure the working classes.
§ Mr. JOWETTI would like to withdraw the Motion. On the question of principle a vote was taken last night. Other hon. Members and myself feel strongly, and we wished to register a protest.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI feel a difficulty in the position in which we are now. Many of us feel that the contribution of women is too great, having regard to the benefit they receive. Owing to the Resolution which has been passed, and the fact that the Amendment to this Clause which was put down on the Paper has not been allowed, I do not see how we shall get an effective discussion on that point. It seems that the only way we shall be able to raise it will be possibly by trying to increase the benefit later on at the expense of some other parts of the scheme. Of course, I notice the words "except as otherwise provided in this Act," but having regard to the fact that we have now passed the point at which we have said what the contribution shall be I am afraid that in stereotyping the proportion of contribution we have passed the point at which we might move to exempt certain classes of women. But what many of us regard as a distinct grievance is that, although the contribution may be less in the case of women, still it is not as much less as it ought to be in view of the reduced benefits. We feel that that is no injustice. I thought it might have been raised by certain Amendments in this Clause. I thought it could be raised by moving Amendments on the Clause. If we cannot raise it later, the only plan open to us to register a protest, is by dividing against the whole of the Clause, a course I should be very unwilling to take.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member has misunderstood the machinery of the Bill or perhaps he was not here when I made a statement on the subject. The women's funds will be kept separately and they will get the full benefit of the State 1559 contribution. Amendments may be moved and there is nothing in the Resolution to prevent the House coming to any decision on the subject. I may say we do not propose to start Clause 4 now.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI was afraid we could not move Amendments with regard to women's contributions. I thought we could not do so on the Schedule because you must have enacting words in order to move Amendments to the Schedule.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYou can do so on the benefit Clause. There is nothing to prevent Amendments, but you cannot increase the State charge.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg to move, "That the Committee do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. BOOTHIt would be a convenience if we could have some indication of how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to go at Monday's sitting.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHShall I have an opportunity of moving my Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANI think the first Amendment on the Paper is in order.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
1560§ Committee report Progress; to sit again Monday next, 10th July.
§ ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
§ Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Five o'clock until Monday next, 10th July.