§ (1) The contributions payable by voluntary contributors shall be at the rate appropriate to their age at the date of their entry into insurance ascertained in accordance with a table to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the voluntary rate) and shall be paid by the voluntary contributors at weekly or other prescribed intervals:—
§ Provided that—
- (a) In the case of a person who comes into insurance within six months after the commencement of this Act, the voluntary rate shall, if he is below the age of forty-five at the date of coming
228 into insurance, be the same as the employed rate, and if he is above that age, be such rate, ascertained according to a table to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, as, having regard to his age at that date, will be sufficient to cover seven-ninths, or in the case of a woman three-fourths, of the benefits conferred by this part of the Act: - (b) Where a person, having been an employed contributor for five years or upwards, becomes a voluntary contributor the rate of contribution payable by him shall continue to be the employed rate.
§ (2) Contributions by voluntary contributors shall cease to be payable on their attaining the age of seventy.
Mr. WORTHI NGTON-EVANSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "person" ["(a) In the case of a person"], to insert the words "whose total income does not exceed one-hundred pounds or."
This is in connection with the rates and rules for contributions by voluntary contributors. Under the Bill it is provided that. in the case of a person coming in after the commencement of the Act the voluntary rate, if he is below forty-five, shall be the same as the employed rate. I am really moving the Amendment in order to obtain an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what this Clause means. Apparently the cost to ensure seven-ninths of the benefits at sixteen is something like 5d. a week. The employed rate, however, is 7d. for a man. I want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Clause means that a volunteer coming in under the age of forty-five is to pay a rate considerably higher than that which might be prescribed if he were over forty-five. It apparently intends to give the voluntary man some benefit if he comes in under forty-five; in fact, to let him in on a reduced contribution. I want to know whether that is so in fact financially. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, has not published the tables which are to be prepared by the Insurance Commission in accordance with Sub-section (1), and until they are published it is quite impossible to say whether any benefits have been given to the volunteer or whether he is being compelled to pay a higher rate than he would have been paying if he had come in without that exception, which appears to be intended to be in his favour.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis will add enormously to the burden. Up to forty-five a voluntary contributor is allowed to come in at the same rate as if he were sixteen years of age. If a voluntary contributor chooses to come in at any date, say twelve months afterwards, he has to come in at a rate appropriate to his age, otherwise it will completely dislocate the arrangements.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWhat I want to protect, if I can, is that small class of men—porters or some casual trade—who are not in employment but are very small employers earning not more than those who are in employment. Those who are in employment get in at the voluntary rate. Those who are not in employment may be getting in at a very much higher rate. I wish to know if that is the case.
§ The CHAIRMANIs the hon. Member seeking to raise this question on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst)?
§ The CHAIRMANIt does not seem to me to be relevant, but I would suggest that there is nothing to prevent it being raised if he moves to omit the paragraph, and it would be much more in order to do that.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of Order. What the hon. Gentleman wants to raise has already been disposed of in Clause 1—the question whether porters and persons of that class should come in.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI submit that that is not really so. They can come in under certain conditions as volunteers. What I want is to allow them in at favourable rates. I will fall in with the suggestion of the Chairman and move to omit paragraph (a). The Committee has to remember that coming in as a volunteer means that the volunteer has to pay the full 7d., and not only the portion which, if he were employed, would be deducted from his wages. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance as to the relative amount of rates of contribution between the volunteers and the employed rate. Is this a concession in favour of the volunteer or is it not?
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTI desire to support the Amendment in order to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Ex- 230 chequer to the injustice to which the hon. Member has already called attention. There is a very large class of persons who belong to what may be called the working classes and yet have no employers. These include such persons as small holders, charwomen, jobbing gardeners, boatmen, fishermen, luggage carriers, costermongers and others, forming together a very large number of persons who are in fact members of the labouring class but who, if they came into the National Insurance scheme at all, would have to come in as voluntary contributors. It will be very unfair in the case of such persons if they have to pay the full amount which might be demanded of them as voluntary contributors. The House does not know at present what is the total amount which will be fixed as the voluntary contributors' contribution, and, not knowing that, what I ask, and what I believe the hon. Member asks is that such persons, who are in fact working men, shall not have to pay more than the sum total of the workmen's premium plus that which would be paid by their employer if they had one. It seems to me a most reasonable suggestion to make, especially in view of the fact that we are bringing by Statute a very large number of small holders into existence. Unfortunately they are at present not to any large extent farm labourers, but we all hope and believe that in the future that class will be largely recruited from those who are now working on the farm. If that is so, those persons are not going to make out of their very little industry more than from £60 to £100 a year. Therefore if you choose to put an income limit at all upon it—personally I should be satisfied with a limit of £100—I desire to see these small persons, who are not either employers of labour or those employed by a master, brought under the scheme on the most favourable terms that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can offer them.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) wanted to know whether this would be a boon to the voluntary contributor. It is an enormous boon. What this means is that the voluntary contributor might come in up to the age of forty-five as if he were sixteen. Ho pays more than twice as much at the ago of forty-five as at the age of sixteen. To allow a man of forty or forty-five to come in as if he were sixteen is a very considerable boon, but it also involves a very heavy burden on the Insurance Fund, and the more you get of that class the 231 longer you postpone the date when you get the additional benefits for the younger members. I hardly care to think what this Amendment would involve. It will involve allowing everyone over forty-five within the limits mentioned here to come in to get their benefits as if they were sixteen years of age. You would have to add I do not know how many millions to the fund, and it would postpone the benefits for the working industrial population of the country indefinitely. I should like to have had some estimate at any rate as to what the Amendment will involve. It only appeared on the Paper two days ago and I have had no time to get an estimate. I am told by the actuaries that they are appalled at the prospect which would be created by the Amendment. There are very few data on which you can go. That is the difficulty of fixing an income limit of £100. With a £160 limit know know exactly where you are. Here is another point. There is no check. It would involve an investigation into the income of every person. With a £160 limit there is always an official check but there is no official check with a £100 limit. I do not believe you could administratively work it. If you did you would very considerably add to the deficiency of the fund and you would postpone the increased benefits for the advantage of the great bulk of the industrial population of the country. I do put it that it is desirable, in view of the very great boon conferred upon the voluntary classes here under this Bill, that the hon. Gentleman responsible for this Amendment will not press it.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not admit that, at any rate, however it may be remedied, there is an injustice in this Clause of the Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot conceive that there will be an injustice. As a matter of fact, as the Clause stands, it is a very very considerable boon, as all may see. As a class those concerned are receiving a very gigantic boon. I do not think the hon. Member can consider really what an enormous boon it is that is conferred upon this class here. Those who are already in friendly societies will get a credit for their accounts which will enable them to reduce their contributions and to increase their benefits.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe object of the Amendment was to ascertain 232 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give us any information on the tables which are going to be issued as to the voluntary compared with the employed contributor. He has given us that information, and I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "a table to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, as, having regard to his age at that date, will be sufficient to cover seven-ninths, or in the case of a woman three-fourths, of the benefits conferred by this Part of the Act," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the table in the. … Schedule to this Act."
The Amendment I propose deals with that Section which provides that a person who is under the age of forty-five at the commencement of this Act shall come in under the employed rate. If over forty-five years of age he shall come in on the table hereinafter to be provided by the Insurance Commissioners. I see that this table is not included in the Bill at the present moment. I do not know whether it is being prepared or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will prepare the. table after the Bill has been passed. But I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is a qualifying period of only six months in. which a man over forty-five shall be entitled to come in on special terms. I do say that this six months is a very critical period for the Insurance Commissioners.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman proposes that we should carry an Amendment here to insert a table in a schedule of the Bill. There is no table there. What are we discussing? We are discussing a table which is in a blank schedule! It does not appear even in the form of the Amendment of the Bill. I do not see how we can possibly proceed.
§ The CHAIRMANI allowed the hon. Member to move so as to hear what he-has to say about his Amendment. His. Amendment says: "A table in a blank Schedule of this Act." The usual rule is that unless the table is prepared we cannot move an Amendment in this form, inasmuch as it is incomplete.
§ Mr. GOLDMANIt is quite impossible for me to prepare such a table. It rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should have thought that a table would 233 have been prepared showing us the circumstances under which voluntary contributors shall be entitled to become contributors under the scheme.
§ The CHAIRMANIf it is impossible for the hon. Member to give us that, I am afraid it is impossible for the hon. Member to deal with his Amendment.
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLThe hon. Member's Motion is in the form of leaving out certain words. Is he in order in moving that Motion?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member's Motion is to leave out certain words in order to insert other words which are not in order. The two must be taken together. The remaining Amendments to this Clause are either consequential Amendments to Amendments not carried, or are Amendments in the wrong place. Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys) wish to move his Amendment? He is in order.
§ Mr. SANDYSI beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1), after the words "Provided that," to insert:—
(a) In the case of a man of the Territorial Force there shall be deducted from the rate, so long as he continues to serve in the Territorial Force, a sum equal to 10 per cent. of the contribution which would otherwise be payable by him.
I think that this Amendment can be supported both on the ground of justice and on the ground of expediency. I do not know which will appeal most strongly to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill. I think it will be a tribute, some sort of acknowledgment of what the Members of the Territorial Force are doing for the benefit of the country. I think it would only be justice and a bare act of recognition that some special terms should be made so far as this Bill is concerned to the members of the Territorial Force. I am aware that so far as this Clause is concerned we are only dealing with voluntary contributors. I think it would be well at this early stage that some reduction of this character should be inserted in the Bill, even although it only-deals—
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member's Amendment apply to members of the Territorial Force who come under Clause 36? If so, it ought to come there.
§ Mr. SANDYSNo, it does not.
§ The CHAIRMANIf it is dealing with members of the Territorial Force when they are civilians when they are not called out for training on service in the Territorial Force, then his Amendment is in order here.
§ Mr. SANDYSThat is the point I was trying to make. So far as I am aware, so far as the period when the Territorials are in training is concerned, they are dealt with under Clause 36—about which I think there is a considerable amount of doubt, because we know they are to be exempted on the ground—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf this issue is to be decided, I think it ought to be decided once for all. May I call attention to the fact that this Clause deals with the rates and rules of contribution by voluntary contributors. The members of the Territorial Force will probably be insured persons. They would not be voluntary contributors. If they are brought in here the thing must be confined to persons who are in the Territorial Force. I submit this Amendment is out of order unless this Amendment is confined to those who are not to come within Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore the Amendment in form is quite out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I still submit that this is not the proper place to confine the Amendment partly to those in the Territorial Force who are voluntary contributors. It would not apply to the majority of the Territorial Force at all. I submit, therefore, if it is to be in order at all and we are to discuss the matter with reference to Territorial Force it ought to come under Clause 36 where we are dealing with special provisions in regard to the naval and military servants of the Crown.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI understand you to rule, Mr. Emmott, that the Amendment standing in my name and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division, on Clause 4, would be better in order on the schedule. I think that is what you ruled. That raises this point generally for both Clauses.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a different point altogether. I said that we could not mix up rates in the Schedule and also the two leaves enclosed in the Clause, and we must have the rates all in one or all in the other. That was my point against the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. 235 That point has nothing to do with the point of Order put to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I read Clause 36— I shall be glad to have the assistance of the Attorney-General in relation to this matter—that Clause is confined to members of His Majesty's Forces, to members of the Army and Navy or Territorial Force when serving. If it only applies to members of the Territorial Force when they are serving, then I do not think that this Amendment can be moved on Clause 36. I do not want to extend the bounds of Clause 36 unnecessarily. I think that would be inconvenient. If I am correct in that then the Amendment is not out of order on that ground at this point. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised another question. He says that most members of the Territorial Force when in civilian employment are employed within the meaning of this Act, and therefore do not come under Clause 5. The question is whether the Amendment, as I told the hon. Member, is confined to the members of the Force who are voluntary contributors. I really think it is. At any rate, it is wished to confine it to the voluntary contributor. I think it is in order.
§ Mr. SANDYSAs you say, Mr. Emmott, this is to take in strictly voluntary contributors, members of the Territorial Force not engaged at the time in military training. It would only be a fair acknowledgment to the members of the Territorial Force to make this concession in their favour. After all, it is not merely a question of the actual time that the man is out training. The Territorial Force has to take part in drills which go on through the year. The member is under the obligation at the same time of embodiment in the time of national danger. I certainly think some recognition of this sort is highly desirable and is simple justice to the members of the Force. From the point of view of expediency I also think that it is very necessary, and those who have examined the question of the Territorial Army of the present time I think will agree with me, that something should be done in order to encourage recruiting. I think a reduction in the rate of contribution so far as the voluntary contributor is concerned would have a considerable stimulus in inducing recruits to join the Territorial Force. I am not over-stating the case in saying that there are great difficulties in 236 recruiting at the present time. The Secretary of State for War said in this House on March 14th:—
The greatest difficulty has been recruiting. It has been a bad year for recruiting. I cannot say it is going on satisfactorily or as quickly as I should like.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order. May I ask whether Members of the Committee will be allowed to go into the question of recruiting for the Territorial Force?
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly not.
§ Mr. SANDYSMy object was to show that some stimulus was necessary to induce men to join the Territorial Force. I do not think that could be more satisfactorily achieved than by a reduction of the voluntary rate of contribution of insurance. It has been admitted that this question of recruiting is a very vital one for the future of the Force. The difficulties which have been felt during the past few years with regard to getting men to join I do not think are likely to be lessened during the next few years. In fact we know it is highly possible that a large number of those who have joined at the particular time when stimulus was given by various methods, are not likely to re-engage when their time is up. Under these circumstances I think that by reducing the amount of the contribution of voluntary insurers we should be showing to the young men of the country that we appreciate their services in the Territorial Force, and we should be encouraging them to join. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think it unfortunate that this Amendment should be raised, because it is confined, as I understand it, and necessarily must be, to voluntary contributors. It does not apply at all to employed contributors who also are members of the Territorial Force. It is of very limited application at present. The whole object of the Amendment really is not relevant whatever to the consideration of the Insurance Fund. What the hon. Gentleman's argument is is to say that so far as for purposes of stimulating recruiting in the Territorial Force the Amendment will do good.
It may be very desirable and very necessary to provide some stimulus to people to join the Territorial Force, but that really is not the question we are discussing. I do not know whether the hon. Member has considered the matter as to whether the 10 per cent. is to be deducted from the whole of the contributions. I understand from his Amendment that it 237 is confined to voluntary contributors, but I should have thought he would have claimed that everybody would be entitled to the deduction in the Territorial Force, and that if this Amendment was moved at all it ought to have been moved with regard to employed as well as voluntary contributors.
§ Mr. SANDYSIt was my intention to move that later on.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat only shows what we were saying just now, that this Amendment should properly be raised in regard to Clause 36. The hon. Member said that he wished to raise the point with regard to employed contributors on Clause 36, and I appreciate what he says because it is directly under Clause 36, or under the Schedule, that this matter could be raised. I should have thought it the proper place to raise it would be later on, when we could have discussed the whole question. The hon. Member's Amendment is at present confined to voluntary contributors, but I suggest we ought not to deal with the matter of this kind piecemeal, and if this large question is to be raised, it ought to be raised so as to be dealt with as a whole. Here we can only discuss what would happen with regard to voluntary contributors. When we come to the question of employed contributors, which is, of course, a very much larger question, you may find that by deducting this 10 per cent. you would be taking out of the pockets of those who are not members of the force money or credit which they ought to get, and postponing the benefits they are to receive at the end of fifteen and a-half years, and that you are disturbing the whole balance of the insurance problem now before the House.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONI desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Emmott, on a point of Order. You ruled that this matter cannot be raised on Clause 36, except in regard to the time in which the Territorial soldier is called up for permanent duty during the year.
§ The CHAIRMANYes, so far as I can see, if it is desirable to raise the whole point both as regards the employed and the voluntary contributors, I think it should be done on a new Clause. I am prepared to consider whether it could be done on Clause 36, but I think it should be done on a new Clause.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPSI should like to point out in reference to what the Attorney-General said about this point being 238 raised now, with regard to voluntary contributors, that if it was not raised now, it could not be raised at all. You cannot pass this part of the Bill and move Amendments to it later on. As regards Clause 36 it only deals with deduction from pay. Of course, it is quite clear Clause 36 only applies to someone in actual service, and therefore if I may put it not as a matter of order but of substance, the point raised now in the present Amendment could not be possibly raised on Clause 36. I think that must be the view of the learned Attorney-General, because when you appealed to him, Mr. Emmott, in giving your ruling, he did not suggest you were wrong. It is quite clear Section 36 deals only with deduction and pay, and therefore the point raised in the present Amendment could not be raised there at all. If you pass this Clause without inserting a proviso of this kind in favour of the members of the Territorial Force, then it appears to me as regards the point raised by this particular Amendment, it would be out of order at a subsequent stage where the question to be raised would be in regard to compulsory insurance in the case of employed persons. That is a different point. I quite agree if you want to put the members of the Territorial Force in a proper position you must first give them exemption as regards voluntary contributors, and afterwards by putting in some privilege as regards compulsory contributors. I admit I am not going into the question of recruiting, but I think that the members of the Territorial Force, having regard to the public duties they perform, are entitled to special consideration on a matter of this sort, and I only hope the hon. Member will press his Amendment, and if he divides upon it I will support, as I believe that a question raised here could not be raised at a subsequent stage.
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps I might say one word more upon the matter of Order. I am perfectly confident that this matter could be dealt with in a new Clause or the Schedule—one or the other—otherwise I should have allowed the Amendment to Clause 4.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKAs I have an Amendment practically to the same effect on the Paper, I desire to say a few words upon this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed this Amendment not upon its merits, but because it did no go far enough, and because it only covered part instead of the whole 239 question. Of course we are quite ready to raise the longer part with regard to employed contributors at the proper time, but surely we are not precluded from discussing this question at the first point where it appears to be in order. I am not going to deal with the question whether it is the right thing from the point of view of recruiting, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that had nothing to do with the question of insurance. Is that so certain? Is it not a very great benefit to the insurance fund that you should bring within the scope of that fund lives that would be absolutely selected lives, and the very best lives and most profitable. No possibly selected lives could be found better than those young men who join the Territorial Army. Not only are they strong and healthy when they join, but their health and physical condition becomes vastly improved by the training they receive, and the more you induce them to come in, the more you will benefit from the absolutely insurance point of view the funds which you are now establishing.
We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has taken his example from Germany. I need hardly say if he is going to copy Germany, it would be very difficult to separate the question of men who render some service to their country by acquiring military training from any scheme of insurance established in Germany. I cannot conceive any German statesman who would wish to separate the two considerations, and if we are entirely to follow the example of Germany, I think we surely might find there a pretty strong argument for forcing this claim which we put forward at the very first point where it is in order. Of course the question might be raised at a later stage upon a certain Clause, but it would be foolish to omit this opportunity of raising it when it is distinctly in order and open to discussion.
§ Sir C. HENRYI heartily support this Amendment. I tried on a previous Clause to get the whole of the Territorial Force included for preferential treatment. There is no doubt about it that recruiting for the Territorial Force at present is very unsatisfactory, and I think it is a case for preferential treatment, whether for the employed contributor or the voluntary contributor, and I believe such treatment would give a stimulus to recruiting. There is another reason. I consider that those who offer themselves voluntarily to the 240 service of their country in the Territorial Force should receive some recognition. I agree with what has fallen from the previous speaker—that there will not be any great charge upon any approved society. All the members of the Territorial Force would be members of societies whether approved or not. The demand made upon the benefits of the funds of the approved societies will be very small, while the men are in the Territorial Force, as they will be the best lives the approved societies will have among their members.
I do not think it would be in order to dwell upon the whole scheme of the Territorial Force, but I would like to say this— that if the voluntary contributors and the employed contributors were taken together in the Territorial Force you would only have about 260,000 men, and if the whole of them got preferential treatment it would not amount to more than £100,000. I consider that £100,000 would be well spent. The scheme which the present Government has fostered under the Territorial Force, and the enthusiasm which it aroused will not continue at the same pitch if something is not done by which the Force will get some recognition. I do not consider that the Government will in any way hurt their measure by accepting this Amendment and also the other Amendments which I have laid down on the Paper. On the countrary it will do good to the scheme, and certainly no one should more readily support this Amendment than the Secretary of State for War. I hope the Amendment will receive very careful consideration from the Government, and that they will give the other branches of the subject careful consideration later on. I suggest that if this Amendment be withdrawn now, the whole of the Territorial Force should be included at a later stage.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSMay I put that position clearly, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the minds of the Committee. What I suggested, and the Chairman ruled, was that this matter could properly be discussed at a later stage on a new Clause or on the Schedule when the whole question could be raised. I suggested to the Committee that it was very unsatisfactory to deal with a problem of this kind piecemeal when the whole question, both of voluntary insurance and employed contributors, could be brought up for discussion. I suggested it would be better to leave the matter open and that we could deal with it later on.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYThe Committee would be very foolish if they followed the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and for this reason. We have an Amendment before us which deals only with the contributors on a voluntary basis, but if the principle is accepted that voluntary contributors should be exempt it follows that when we come to that part dealing with this question necessarily the same treatment must be meted out to them. Therefore it is quite possible to discuss the whole thing and practically the principle upon this Amendment. Supposing we take the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I point out that the Chairman has given a ruling that this question cannot be discussed on Clause 36, and that it must be discussed either on a new Clause or on the Schedule. Therefore if we put it off for an indefinite time our chance of coming to a determination upon this subject will be very uncertain. Only a few days ago we were told that this Bill was going to be guillotined, and what guarantee have we that the guillotine will not be brought on before we reach the Schedules. Those who attach any importance to this Amendment should take the opportunity which the gods have given them and divide upon it now.
Mr. PARKERI rise to oppose this Amendment on two grounds. In the first place I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen who stand for compulsory service should endeavour to introduce it by a proposal of this kind. They are asking us to believe that the average man who enters the Territorial Force will go into that force more readily if he gets a benefit by way of an allowance equivalent to about 1d. per week. That is how it will work out financially. The benefit you propose to give them is 10 per cent. When you have given this benefit you reduce the amount which they can receive and which all the other voluntary contributors can receive under this scheme because their contribution has been reduced. It is suggested that the total value is something like £100,000.
§ Sir C. HENRYThat is upon another basis altogether.
Mr. PARKERWhatever the number may be under the head of voluntary contributors they are certainly not the 260,000 of which the hon. Member spoke, but a much less number. If it is the desire of this House to include recruiting in the Territorial Force they should go about it 242 in an entirely different way, and not endeavour to tack it on to an Insurance Bill of this kind.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONOn the merits of the question there are good grounds for this Amendment, and if we wanted any further evidence in its favour we could find it in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The Attorney-General tried to ride off on a debating answer. He-was not, however, quite frank with regard to Clause 36, because he alleged that an opportunity would be given for the discussion on the whole question upon that Clause. Now we know that that cannot be so in view of what has been pointed out by the Chairman.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is not what I said. The hon. Member appealed to me about Clause 36, and I did not dispute his view. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said it would probably come under that Clause, and I said if he was right it ought to be moved on that Clause. I suggested that we should discuss it on the Schedule, and the Chairman pointed out that it should either be raised on the Schedule or upon a new Clause.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONIf the Attorney-General objects, of course, I do not wish to press that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not wish to make any point of that, and I apologise most freely if what I have said has been in any way taken amiss. I want to point out that these things do not matter because on report, or at another time, consequential Amendments may be carried which will bring in all the compulsory contributors under the scheme if the principle be accepted now. It is not such a small thing as some hon. Members seem to imagine. In the Yeomanry there are 26,000 men, and at least 50 per cent. of them come under this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I speak with some knowledge of this matter, and I say that about 50 per cent. would come under this Amendment. In regard to the rest they might come in, and I wish to point out that it is putting it on much too low ground to represent it as a bonus on recruiting. That is not the ground I take. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said ¾d. a week is not sufficient to induce them to come in as recruits, but may I point out that that is more than the three days of the pay which the State gives them when they are out training.
243 I do not attach much importance to that, but I think the recognition by the State, apart from the money value, counts for something. The real thing I want to say is that those who enlist in the Territorial Force do their best to make their lives better for the benefit of the State. All that happens under Clause 36 is to allow for fifteen days, and mostly for the eight days, during which they are called out for permanent training; but there is not a Territorial regiment or battalion worthy of the name that does not exact from those serving at least forty other days of good physical work which improves the condition of the men and makes them better lives for insurance purposes. Therefore there is good ground for insurance reasons for extending these special terms to these men. I think the two advantages combined constitute a very fair case for this Amendment. An opportunity to do this now presents itself to the Committee, and I do not think, at any rate, it ought to be decided on technical grounds. If the principle is accepted now it can easily be introduced into the whole system, and if the percentage is thought to be too low it can be raised when the Amendment is carried in another form. In any case, I submit it is in the interests of the State, because you are improving and putting a premium on improved lives. You are also encouraging the men indirectly to make their physical condition better, and that is in the interests of the country. No sneer at the Territorial system can meet the case, because in every battalion physical drill is part of the routine, and there is no denying that that is a benefit. I hope for these reasons the hon. Member will persevere in his Amendment, and if he does he will do so with the knowledge that there is no difficulty so far as the forms of the House go in making this a complete and logical arrangement by introducing later on those who are compulsory contributors.
§ Mr. H. T. CAWLEYAs a member of the Territorial Force I wish to oppose this Amendment. I admit that the Force requires more money, but this is the wrong way of getting it. By this method you are not applying the money in the best way possible. The proper time to vote money for the Territorial Force is when the vote for that Force is under discussion. In that way you would be applying your money in the best possible way. The main 244 reason suggested for this proposal is that it is going to come not out of the general fund for the State but out of the Insurance fund. Therefore, hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment are endeavouring to be patriotic and generous to the Territorial Force at the expense of other people. This fund out of which it is proposed to assist the Territorial Force, is money which belongs to the insured, and they are not by any means the best off people in the world.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEThe right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Attorney-General, have both made a great point on the fact that this only applies to voluntary contributors. My point is that the voluntary contributor is the very man who ought to be assisted as far as possible in this Insurance scheme. Very often the voluntary contributor in the Territorial Force has to give up his own time when he goes out training, and he is not in the same position as the employed contributors who would be getting full pay probably from their own employers whilst training. The man in the Territorials who is a voluntary contributor is giving his own time and he has no employer to pay his wages when he is with the Force. I think that is the class of man we ought to endeavour to give an advantage to, and 10 per cent. is a very small advantage indeed. Take the number of voluntary contributors at 50,000, and that is the outside number. The proportion who are voluntary contributors in the Territorial Force will not amount to more than £75,000 a year. I think this Amendment might be accepted without any question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would only be doing the fair thing to those who are patriotic enough to join the Territorial Force.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI think the hon. Member opposite has not quite appreciated the object of this Amendment. Its. object is not for the purpose of making grants to the Territorial Force—this would not be the right time to make such a grant—nor is it a mere question of giving this ¾d. out of the pockets of some other poor insurers. Really in this Amendment you will find the acceptance of the position that a flat rate is not fair all round. This Amendment provides that a slight benefit should be given not to a Territorial soldier per se, but to a class of people who are picked lives, and by 245 charging them the same as the infirm life you really are doing an injustice to the picked life. You are not really taking the |d. away from the other poor people. The whole hardship, and there are hardships in this Bill, is upon this question of the flat rate, stretching from the age of sixteen to forty-five, and from the really picked life down to the man who is very far from being a picked life. Here you have an opportunity which has not occurred before of doing a slight act of justice to the Territorial soldiers who are picked lives. I need not labour the point. It is admitted on all bands. When he joins he is a picked life, and in his position as a territorial soldier it is contrived that he shall continue to remain a picked life.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am prepared to say, as one who has had some experience in insurance, that the ordinary rank and file of the friendly societies are not anything like the picked lives of the ordinary rank and file of the Territorial Force.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIt might equally be claimed that teetotalers are picked lives.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am delighted to hear that teetotalers are picked lives The hon. Member knows I have been one for some time. I am really trying to speak seriously on this question, and by voting for this Amendment we shall be voting in favour of doing an act of justice where it can be done. I freely admit you cannot do this act of justice in the case of every man who is a picked life as against the man who has not nearly so choice a life, but, when you get a large class like this admitted to be picked lives, you have the opportunity of doing an act of justice without in any way doing injustice to any other members of the insured body, and I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
§ Colonel HICKMANI hope the Committee will treat this as a non-party question and as one absolutely of principle. I hope the hon. Gentleman who brought the Amendment forward will press it to a Division so that we can have an opportunity of expressing our opinion, and so that later on when the opportunity occurs for the further extension of this principle we shall have something laid down in its 246 favour. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that this is. only a question of picked lives.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI certainly did not mean to say, and I do not think I did say, it was only a question of picked lives. I left the Territorial side of the question to be dealt with by those who are more closely acquainted with the Territorial Force than I am.
§ Colonel HICKMANI quite accept that, and I quite agree with what the hon. Member has said about picked lives. I should like to carry it a little further and say the State should recognise that something is due to the men who do their duty by the State in contradistinction to other people who do not go out of their way to do their duty by the State. I am painfully aware that at the present time the War Office are in very great straits to fill the Territorial Army, and I think if in a measure of this sort we could do something to help them out of their difficulty it would be a very great advantage. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are pleased to laugh, but I assure them that, although one might speak in this House in favour of universal service, yet at the same time every one who has the interest of his country at heart, must also wish if possible to bring this Territorial system to a success so that we shall have some sort of Army in time of need. It is the duty of us all to try and help the War Office to fill the Territorial Army and to make it a success. I think, therefore, if we can establish the principle, that the man who serves in the Territorial Army should have a premium above his ordinary brethren we shall do some good. I myself should like to go further and give some benefit to the employers who go out of their way to employ members of the Territorial Force in contradistinction to the employers who do not encourage them, because employers who have men in the Territorial Force very often give them leave from work and pay them at the same time, and employers who do not encourage them have a distinct advantage. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will press his Amendment to a Division.
§ Sir C. HENRYI shall support this Amendment if it goes to a Division. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House seem to think the allowance is not enough. They object to the allowance of ¾d. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The Amendment 247 which I wish to press and which is ruled out of order would give preferential treatment to members of the Territorial Force to the extent of 2d. per week. I hope, when the time comes, to be able to move, that Amendment on the Schedule. It is well to remember that every man before he can join the Territorial Force has to
§ undergo medical examination, and the scheme would, therefore, suffer no disadvantage by allowing these men to come in on a preferential basis.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 252.
249| Division No. 267.] | AYES. | [6.10 p.m. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Gardner, Ernest | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gibbs, G. A. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J. | Goldman, C. S. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Goldsmith, Frank | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding, E. A. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Haddock, George B. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barnston, H. | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Harris, Henry Percy | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Butcher, John George | Hills, John Waller | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hoare, S. J. G. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Cave, George | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunt, Rowland | Stewart, Gershom |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Joynson-Hicks, William | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Kemp, Sir George | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Clyde, James Avon | Kimber, Sir Henry | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford | Valentia, Viscount |
| Croft, H. P. | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Waring, Walter |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Falle, Bertram Godfrey | Mackinder, Halford J. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fell, Arthur | Macmaster, Donald | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Younger, Sir George |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Sandys and Major Archer-Shee. |
| Forster, Henry William | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Boland, John Pius | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Adamson, William | Booth, Frederick Handel | Clynes, John R. |
| Addison, Dr. C | Bowerman, Charles W. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Brace, William | Cory, Sir Clifford John |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Cotton, William Francis |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Brunner, J. F. L. | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot |
| Armitage, Robert | Bryce, J. Annan | Crooks, William |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Burke, E. Haviland- | Crumley, Patrick |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Dawes, J. A. |
| Barton, William | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Delany, William |
| Beale, William Phipson | Byles, Sir William Pollard | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Carr-Gamm, H. W. | Devlin, Joseph |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Doris, William |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Duffy, William J. |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Chancellor, Henry George | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Lewis, John Herbert | Richards, Thomas |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Essex, Richard Walter. | Lundon, T. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lynch, A. A. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Furness, Stephen | McGhee, Richard | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Maclean, Donald | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Gibson, Sir James puckering | Macpherson, James Ian | Rowlands, James |
| Gill, A. H. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Glanville, H. J. | M'Callum, John M. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Manfield, Harry | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sheehy, David |
| Hackett, John | Meagher, Michael | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Shortt, Edward |
| Hancock, John George | Menzies, Sir Walter | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Millar, James Duncan | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Harmsworth, R. (Leicester) | Mooney, John J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Morgan, George Hay | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Morrell, Philip | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Harwood, George | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Neilson, Francis | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Norman, Sir Henry | Tennant, Harold John |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Hayward, Evan | Nuttall, Harry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South) | O'Doherty, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Dowd, John | Wadsworth, J. |
| Hinds, John | Ogden, Fred | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Grady, James | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Hodge, John | O'Malley, William | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) | Webb, H. |
| Hudson, Walter | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Hunter, W. (Govan) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Johnson, W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P. |
| Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pointer, Joseph | Wiles, Thomas |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H | Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen) |
| Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Joyce, Michael | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N) |
| Keating, Matthew | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Pringle, William M. R. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Kelly, Edward | Radford, G. H. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| King, J. (Somerset, North) | Rainy, A. Rolland | |
| Lamb, Ernest Henry | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Reddy, Michael |
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. CAVEBefore the Bill goes through it is extremely important we should see the tables which are referred to in this Clause, as we cannot tell whether the contributor will get a benefit proportionate to his contribution.! Neither can we tell how far the finances of the scheme are adequate for the purpose. There are two tables referred to in this Clause. One is a table fixing the voluntary rate, and the other is a table affecting persons who come into insurance 250 within six months from the commencement, of the operation of the Act. That is a different table altogether. I have no doubt that both tables are in course of preparation, but I should like to know if we cannot have them before the House parts with the Bill: before, in fact, we are asked to deal with the Schedules.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEEvery endeavour will be made to get the tables out as soon as possible, but I would point out to the hon. 251 and learned Gentleman that they will only affect people who come into insurance six months after the Bill is in operation.
§ Mr. CAVEThat observation applies only to the second table. My particular point affects the first table
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThat affects people over forty-five years of age, and there will be an interval of time in which, even if we are not able to get the insurance table out before the Bill is read a third time, the persons affected will have a period in which to choose whether or not they will adopt the scheme. It is very difficult to say if the actuaries will be able to get the table out while Parliament is sitting, but, at any rate, there will be adequate time for voluntary insurers to consider whether or not they will come under the scheme.
§ Mr. BOOTHI would like to ask for some pronouncement from the Attorney-General as to the policy to be pursued in this matter. The tables are to be prepared for the Insurance Commissioners; if they lie for a period on the Table of the House that will ensure that anyone concerned shall have time to make representations either to the Insurance Commissioners or to this House if it is desired to vary the decision. In response to an Amendment of mine, words were inserted in Clause 1 to the effect that the whole regulations would be "under a Special order made in the manner provided." I want to know whether that same policy will apply to these tables. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kingston that the House ought to see the tables as early as possible. My point is that whenever they are prepared, and whenever there is any alteration at all in them they should be laid on the Table of the House. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. It does not impose any delay, and it would give an opportunity to hon. Members and their Constituents to see the decision in time to question Ministers or to make representations to the Insurance Commissioners as to any alterations that may be deemed to be necessary.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSMy hon. Friend, the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), has said quite rightly that an Amendment was made in the Bill dealing with the regulations. With regard to the tables which have to be prepared if we are able to produce them during the time the House is sitting, and while the Bill is still under 252 discussion, they will be produced, and there will consequently be an opportunity for raising any question upon them. But it is impossible to know, in view of the actual work thrown on the actuaries at the present time, if these tables can be ready at any given date. Supposing that the Bill passes and that this House is no longer sitting, what is to happen with regard to the tables? They must come into force at the time stated. But there will be six months in which persons interested will be able to decide and make up their minds whether the rates are sufficiently tempting. What is prescribed by the Bill is that the tables are to be prepared in order to show whether, having regard to the age of the insurer, the contribution will be sufficient to cover seven-ninths of the benefits conferred by this Act. It is a question of actuarial calculation which I have no doubt my hon. Friend will appreciate. It cannot vary very much. It is not as if we were prescribing whatever rate we liked; it is only a question of arriving at the result of figures actuarially based upon data prescribed by this House in the Clauses of the Bill. Therefore there is no need to lay the tables on the Table of the House.
§ Mr. FORSTERThe matter is not quite so simple as the Attorney-General would lead us to believe. The actuaries have to frame their tables in order to cover the risks created by the Bill, and I do not believe any actuary can say actuarily what is the proper provision to be made. I do not believe any of us can say from experience what is the proper provision, and, in my opinion, any table framed by actuaries dealing with the benefits proposed under this Bill will be largely in the nature of an experiment. Experience alone can show whether or not the figures are fully justified. I therefore desire to enter this caveat. I think it will be a great mistake to allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that the whole Bill is a great experiment, and we are by no means certain of our ground in approaching the question of the liabilities which it involves. The Attorney-General told us, with reference to the tables being laid on the Table of the House, that it was desirable that it should be done, provided it were feasible, and provided, too, that the House is sitting. I think it is essential that the tables should be laid. No doubt they will be incorporated in one or other of the various sets of regulations which the insurance companies will be called upon to frame. We have already had an under- 253 taking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the regulations shall be laid on the Table of the House.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf they come within the regulations the tables will, of course, be laid.
§ Mr. FORSTERThe Attorney-General said that the tables would be laid provided the House is sitting. At any rate the regulations have to be laid.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt does not follow that the tables will be published in the regulations. They may be published separately, and, as I have already stated, if they can be laid during the time the House is sitting there will be an opportunity of considering them.
§ Mr. FORSTERWe do not want to have the tables taken out of the regulation to which they belong and published separately merely to avoid the necessity of laying them on the Table of the House. If it is absolutely impossible to produce them before, the end of the Session we can say no more, but, within the limits of what is feasible, we do hope that the Government will lay the tables as well as the regulations.
§ Mr. NEWTONI hope the Government will agree to lay the tables as soon as possible. We are proposing to enable voluntary contributors to come in at certain rates. At present those rates are undetermined. It may be that they will turn out to be impossible and totally unacceptable to the contributor. No doubt the Committee desires to encourage the voluntary contributors, and it is not well that we should place ourselves in a rather foolish position, which we should do, if we say that they are to come in at rates which this House will have no control over. I think the utmost efforts should be used to see that the tables are produced before the Bill finally passes from the control of the House.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINSurely the Government must have made use of exactly the same tables in order to frame their own scheme with reference to those who are subject to compulsion. They have to make provision for the sufficiency of what will be payable by those who come in later, as compared with those who come in at the early stages. They would have a calculation that would be sufficient for this purpose as well, and I 254 assume that in getting that information they have got tables which will show what the persons who have not gone in are to pay when they come in. I may be expressing it rather obscurely, but my point is that the information we are asking for must be in the possession of the Government, because without it they could not have framed that portion of their own scheme which applies compulsion.
§ Mr. W. F. ROCHMay I ask whether you gave a ruling to the Amendments in the names of the Member for Crowe (Mr. W. S. B. M'Laren) and myself, allowing certain women to come in as voluntary contributors was out of order?
§ The CHAIRMANI said that it was in the wrong place. There is a special Subsection to Clause 34 dealing with that very point.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI should like to add my request to the Government that they should lay this actuarial table on the Table of the House. It is a new experiment, and I am quite certain that this is a matter which requires to be considered as a whole by the House. We do not want to hand ourselves over, bound hand and foot, to these experts and permanent officials. It is not merely a matter of knowing the best way to do it. We should remember the tradition of this House, and we should retain the control of the contributions levied upon these voluntary contributors. I have no doubt that the House when it gets the tables, will not alter a figure, but still we should reserve the right to do so, and it would be a bad precedent to let that right go. There does not seem to be any great difficulty, for they have to lay the regulations, and they might as well lay the tables at the same time. I hope they will reconsider it.