HC Deb 11 July 1911 vol 28 cc254-86

(1) Where an insured person has become a member of an approved society as a voluntary contributor, the rate of contributions payable in respect of him shall, notwithstanding that he becomes employed within the meaning of this part of this Act, remain the voluntary rate, unless at any time after becoming so employed he gives notice in the prescribed manner of his wish to be transferred to the employed rate.

(2)Where he gives such notice the rate payable in respect of him shall be the employed rate, but in such case the rate of sickness benefit payable in respect of him shall be such reduced rate as would have been payable had he not previously been insured, subject to such allowance as may according to tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners represent the value at that time of the contributions previously paid by him.

(3) Where he does not give such notice, and until he does so, the contributions payable by his employer in respect of him during any period of employment within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall be the same as if he had been transferred to the employed rate, and the contributions so paid by the employer shall be treated as in part satisfaction of the contributions at the voluntary rate payable by the contributor, and if the contributor fails to pay the balance he shall be deemed to be in arrear to that extent.

(4) Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear, as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor, to the amount of the difference between the aggregate contributions paid in respect of him as an employed contributor and the aggregate of the contributions which would have been payable by him had he originally become a voluntary contributor, and the difference between any reserve value which is credited to the approved society of which he is a member in respect of him and the reserve value (if any) which would have been credited to that society in respect of him had he originally become a voluntary contributor shall be cancelled.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I beg to move, in Sub-Section (2) to leave out the words, "but in such case the rate of sickness benefit payable in respect to him shall be such reduced rate as would have been payable had he not previously been insured, subject to such allowance as may, according to tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, represent the value at that time of the contributions previously paid by him."

The object of this Amendment is to provide that where a voluntary contributor transfers and becomes an employed insured person, he shall continue to receive the same benefits as he would have done had he originally joined the insurance scheme. The Bill provides that in the case of his changing over from the voluntary to the compulsory rate, although the contributions shall remain the same, his benefits shall be reduced, as if the man insured had not been previously insured. Let me give an illustration. Suppose at the age of twenty a voluntary contributor has to pay at the rate of 8d.,and at the age of twenty-five he transfers and becomes an employed assured person. The rate at the age of twenty-five is 9d., and the Bill then says that in respect of that period he shall continue to pay the same contribution of 8d. but shall only receive the reduced benefit that accrues to 9d. Therefore he is receiving only eight-ninths of the benefit. I contend that is unfair. Nobody is injured under my proposal, neither the approved societies nor the Insurance Fund, nor the State, and the only effect of this proposal is that it goes on the basis that the voluntary contributor has paid his full assurance, otherwise it would have been paid by the employer, whereas now when he becomes an employed insured person his employer will pay his insurance. The proposal simply is that in this transfer from the voluntary to the employed rate the person transferring shall receive the full benefit to which he would have been entitled had he joined originally.

Mr. McKENNA

I quite appreciate the object which the hon. Member desires, but I cannot agree that the effect would not be injurious to the benefit fund. As the Bill stands, the case would be as follows: A person who is a voluntary contributor, so long as he is such a contributor, builds up a reserve fund in his favour. He then becomes an employed contributor, and he will pay the employed rate. He will be entitled to the benefits of an employed contributor, subject to the conditions of this Sub-clause. That is to say he will only get such benefits as would be proportionate to the amount of reserve which he has built up. Now the hon. Member proposes to give him. the full benefit of an employed contributor, no matter what the amount of reserve might be at the time he became an employed contributor. The effect would be to reduce the total of the benefit fund. Any change which the hon. Member proposes of this kind is only a shifting of the benefits, and inasmuch as it does not increase the total of the benefit fund and gives an additional benefit to one section, it must take away a corresponding amount of benefit from the rest of the contributors. The particular class whose position the hon. Member proposes to include is the class who have been voluntary contributors and who subsequently become employed contributors. I think there is no possible reason why such a class of person should be better off or should be put in an advantageous position as compared with the ordinary employed contributor. I do not know whether I have made it clear. Necessarily it is an extremely complicated arrangement in a Clause like this which has to provide for the transfer of people from one class of contributors to another class of contributors, but I think I can assure the hon. Member that the Clause as it is drawn gives to the person who has transferred the full benefit of any previous contribution which he may have made, but it does not give him additional benefits, which could only be obtained by withdrawing something from the total of the benefit fund. I regret very much the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I thought at first that my hon. Friend was wrong, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty was right; but there is a point which I think the right hon. Gentleman did not quite notice. Under the Bill every volunteer who comes in within six months of the passing of the Act is given the privilege of paying the employed rate. There ought to be an addition to this Clause enabling the volunteer under forty-five who comes in after this six months.

Mr. McKENNA

He comes in as an employed contributor.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think not, but at the employed rate. If you look at Clause 5 you will see that the contribution of the voluntary contributor who comes in within six months after the commencement of the Act is to be the voluntary rate the same as the employed rate. That volunteer comes in six months after the passing of this Act, and he is a man perhaps twenty years old. It is the employed rate of 7d., and it gives him ten years' time to pay that 7d. Then, under stress of circumstances, he loses what little money or business he had and becomes an employed person, and changes into the employed ranks, and he will have to pay the employed rate, which is 7d., unless there is some provision put in one of these Clauses, I do not quite think this Amendment will do it, but it might be done in some other Clause.

Mr. McKENNA

I quite see the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. I think the words cover it. If he will look at the first Sub-section of Clause 5, he will see that on becoming a member a voluntary contributor shall pay the voluntary rate, and shall remain at the voluntary rate. We are asking this person to pay the voluntary rate, but if I am wrong in that construction I will see to it.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I do not want to cavil, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 6, Sub-section (1), he will see the words that ho shall remain at the voluntary rate unless at any time after becoming so employed he gives notice, in the prescribed manner, of his wish to be transferred to the employed rate." I think he pays the employed rate all the time. He is one of the people who will come in to help the Government, and he will come in at the employed rate during the period of six months, but he is penalised under the Clause as it now stands. Therefore, I venture to suggest that it might be right to have some Amendment.

Mr. McKENNA

I quite see the point, and I will call the attention of the draftsman to it. There is no intention to penalise him or anybody else who comes in at the employed rate, and I think the voluntary contributor who comes in at the employed rate ought not to be penalised. That shall be seen to.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I am not sure that he is, as to the meaning of the Amendment, and that it would shift the benefits from one class to another, I do not think my hon. Friend wanted to do that at all. All he wanted was that the same benefits should be procured to a man, although he has changed from the voluntary to the compulsory rate. I presume the Government do not object to giving him the same rate of benefit so long as the fund is not injured. I think it would be possible to have sufficient reserves, and that the Government might treat the matter as they have treated those who were in arrear. In that case they have given them time to make up the arrears. There is a provision elsewhere relating to a similar change that a man may make up his payment by a capital sum, and that if he is in arrears he may pay up and have the full benefit. The policy of this House must be to secure a fair benefit, and we have decided that 10s,. is. not too great a benefit Under this provision that benefit will be reduced from 10s. to Vs. We have decided that the lower sum is not sufficient, and that a man ought to start at 10s., but the Government are trying to protect the fund, but in this case why should they not give the person who would otherwise be handicapped the option of at least making up by a capital payment the reserve which is necessary.

Mr. McKENNA

I will see to that point. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I beg to move to omit Sub-section (4).

This Amendment is the converse of the one we have just dealt with. Here is a case where a compulsorily insured person after a number of years becomes voluntarily insured. I propose that the whole Sub-section should be deleted because you are penalising that party unfairly. What the Clause suggests is this. In the case of a person who has been a compulsory employé, losing his qualification and becoming a voluntary employé, he should be charged with arrears amounting to the difference between the contribution, as a voluntary contributor from the date that he joined and the contributions from the time that he joined as an employed insured. This difference is to be reckoned as arrears and the arrears constitute a reduction in the benefits he will receive. Let me give an illustration. Supposing an employed contributor becomes a voluntary contributor. He joins at the age of thirty as an employed contributor and at that time the contribution is 9d., of which he has to pay 6d. and the employer pays 3d. He then transfers and becomes a voluntary contributor at the age, say, of thirty-five. The contribution would be 10d. He would then be regarded as in arrear of a penny, the difference between 9d. and 10d., for a period of five years, the difference between thirty and thirty-five. One penny in arrears for five years is equivalent to arrears of twenty-six weeks and arrears of twenty-six weeks spread over five years means an arrear of five weeks a year, and any contributor who is in arrears for five weeks in a year has his benefit reduced from 10s. to 9s. a week. I think that is an unfair proposal because the State has compelled that man to join the scheme and when, through no fault of his own, he finally becomes a voluntary employed he should not be penalised. Under these circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to meet the Amendment and delete the Sub-section.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. Member will see in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 5 that—

"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."

When the Committee passed that Subsection it was obvious that they intended to make a distinction between employed contributors who became voluntary contributors in less than five years and those who became employed contributors after being voluntary contributors for five years. Clause 5 has already dealt with the case of the man who was an employed contributor for a longer period than five years: he is to get all the benefits of an employed contributor. The effect of the Amendment is that the man who is a voluntary contributor for a period of less than five years should be dealt with in the same way as a man who has been a voluntary contributor for five years. We have already settled this point, and is it reasonable, when we have already determined that the distinction shall be made, to propose that there shall be no distinction? Where a man has not been a voluntary contributor for five years it is proposed that he shall build up his own fortunes. A man who is a voluntary contributor is primâ facie better off than his neighbours. It does not absolutely follow but, generally speaking, he has means of his own and he is not in sickness immediately dependent on his own exertions. I suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. CAVE

The right hon. Gentleman takes the somewhat technical point that we have agreed to make this distinction. All we propose is that a man who has paid in all his contributions while employed shall not, because he ceases to be employed, be deemed to be in arrears. The man is not in arrears in any proper sense of the word. He has paid every-thing he ought to pay. Surely there is a better and much simpler way of dealing especially with this kind of transfer, and that is to let the man who comes into the voluntary part of the scheme under these circumstances join that fund as a voluntary contributor at that date at the rate then appropriate to his age. But of course give him credit for what he has paid as an employed contributor, that is treat him as if he were then joining for the first time the voluntary fund and that of course will fix his rate of contribution. But give him the benefit of the reserve which he has built up during the previous years.

Mr. McKENNA

That is exactly what is done.

Mr. CAVE

I disagree. What is done is to make him a debtor at once to the fund—to put him at once in arrears.

Mr. McKENNA

Being in arrears is not the same as being a debtor. Being in arrears means that you give a man an opportunity by paying up the arrear of getting the full benefit. Being in arrear does not deprive him necessarily of benefit but only gives him benefit upon a reduced scale.

Mr. CAVE

I assume the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying he can pay up, but I am not sure that he can.

Mr. WORTH1NGTON-EVANS

He cannot.

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, he can.

Mr. CAVE

There is a special provision in Clause 10 that he can pay up to two years, and not beyond. Of course, this might exceed the two years. No doubt that will be set right, and there will be power given if it is not there already for a man to pay up arrears, but that will not meet the point I was making. I want to give the man an option. Instead of being in arrears and so entitled to reduced benefits, or possibly to no benefit at all, because there might be suspension after (certain weeks, give him the option of coming in as a man who is paying his way at the then voluntary rate—a very simple process, and one which has been adopted and recommended by the friendly societies. It could easily be done by Amendment to this Clause. If you do that you do not make him in arrear, but entitle him at once to his full benefit. You are treating him fairly instead of putting him in a difficult position.

Mr. CASSEL

What will be the position of a man who is an employed contributor and then becomes unemployed, say, for six months, and wishes to go on making his contribution? He could only do so as a voluntary contributor.

Mr. McKENNA

That is Clause 10.

Mr. CASSEL

But under the Bill as it stands his case would come under this Subsection.

Mr. McKENNA

No, under Clause 10.

Mr. CASSEL

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that if it does not come under Clause 10 he will amend Clause 10 so as to meet the case. The right hon. Gentleman does not intend the Sub-section to apply to the case of a man who was an employed contributor and becomes unemployed, say for four or five months, so as to go on with this contribution until the time comes when he becomes employed again. As the Sub-section stands a man in that position comes within this Clause, and it seems to me very hard that he should not be allowed to continue at the employed rate. He hopes to become employed again. When he does he obviously ought to be on the employed rate. Why should he be subject to the disability which this Clause places him under?

Mr. McKENNA

If he ceases to be employed that does not mean that he becomes unemployed in the sense in which the hon. and learned Gentleman uses the words. This deals only with the case of the transfer from the category of employed to voluntary contributor. The point the hon. and learned Gentleman is raising will arise on Clause 10.

Mr. CASSEL

As soon as he ceases to be employed he does become a merely voluntary contributor; he is nothing but a voluntary contributor. There is no compulsion upon him, and I am only calling attention to what I think the Government themselves would recognise as being a case in which he should not be put on a different rate. That is to say, he ceases to be employed, he necessarily becomes a voluntary contributor, and he certainly ought to be able to go on under the same rate.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

A point with regard to this Sub-section has been put to me by the working men in my Constituency. Supposing a mail has been employed and wants to leave his employment and take a small shop. At the moment when he wants to make a new start, and perhaps wants a little cash, he will be subjected to a very heavy fine. A man in failing health, who has been advised by his doctor to leave some heavy work, and sees his way to get a livelihood, either as a small shopkeeper, or in some independent way, will have to pay a heavy fine besides increasing his weekly payment. With regard to the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman this turns on the question which has come up once or twice, what is unemployment? Is. a person who is out of work for three or six months an employed person or not for the purposes of this Act?

Mr. CASSEL

May I make clear the point I was putting? It seems to me that Clause 10 does not apply to the case I was putting. Clause 10 deals with the case of arrears. The case I am dealing with is a person who has become temporarily unemployed, but does not wish to be in arrears, but wishes to continue to make his contribution. I do not think Clause 10 deals with that. I think the case comes within this Sub-section.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. McKENNA

A person who is an employed contributor remains an employed contributor, whether employed or unemployed. He can only transfer himself to the category of voluntary contributor by giving notice. The mere fact that he is out of employment does not make him a voluntary contributor. Under Clause 10 and the 5th Schedule, he does not alter his character by the mere fact that he is unemployed. That is the difference.

Mr. NEWTON

If a man who starts as an employed contributor becomes unemployed and desires to pay his own 4d. and the employer's 3d., will he remain an employed contributor?

Mr. McKENNA

Certainly, he will remain an employed contributor, although he pays the 7d.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

If he goes on paying his own 4d. and the employer's 3d., which is the employed contributor's rate, surely he must become a voluntary contributor.

Mr. McKENNA

The case put to me was that of a man out of employment—a person who is ordinarily employed. Being out of employment, he will remain an employed contributor. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW long?"] Well, that is a matter that will arise on Clause 10, and I do not wish to discuss it now. On Clause 10 the whole matter will come up again.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think the question comes up on Clause 5, Sub-section (1). If a man, say, at the age of twenty, enters as an employed contributor, and at the age of thirty becomes a voluntary contributor, will he in future have to pay as a voluntary contributor, beginning at the age of thirty, or will he have the privilege of paying the contribution of a man beginning at twenty?

Mr. McKENNA

A man who has been an employed contributor for ten years will then become a voluntary contributor at thirty, but he will go on paying the employed contributor's rate. Of course, he will not only have to pay his own contribution, but also the contribution which would have been paid by his employer if he had still been employed. There will still have to be paid the two contributions amounting to 7d.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

At what rate would he have to pay?

Mr. McKENNA

The rate he would have to pay would be according to the amount that stands at his credit. He will get credit for everything he has paid, but no more. If he begins as an employed contributor and afterwards becomes a voluntary contributor, he will not be credited with more than he has paid.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Supposing an employed contributor who begins at twenty becomes a voluntary contributor at twenty-four, will he at twenty-four get the benefit of the employed contributor's rate?

Mr. McKENNA

The case has been put of a man who begins at twenty. He immediately begins to build up his reserve. At the age of twenty-four he becomes a voluntary contributor. He has then a reserve at his credit, and he gets credit for that.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I think the Sub-section is obscure, and the discussion which has taken place does not enable me to say with confidence that I understand it even now. It is extremely difficult to put clearly to the House without careful thought beforehand the exact points we want to raise. The point that puzzles me is this. We are dealing with the man who has been employed and who in less than five years becomes a voluntary contributor. The Clause contemplates that when he is transferred or transfers himself from the one class to the other, he may have to make good something which he has not made good already in order to entitle him to the full benefit. In the first place in the case of the compulsory contributor you begin by a process which was claimed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as renewing youth. I think that anybody who reads the Bill will say that the renewal is very imperfect, but we may take that as a general statement of the case. You treat all the contributors as if they were young men. That you do by the aid of the debt you create, and which you are to gradually wipe out. If they join young, then the payments made on their behalf are calculated so as to provide against liabilities incurred on their behalf at any age at which you may strike the balance between the two. If he becomes a voluntary contributor, how can he be deemed to be in arrear? How can the reserve in his name not provide him with full benefits? I quite understand that henceforth his contribution has got to be different, but what I do not understand is how there should be any difference in regard to the reserve credited to him already, and which has been considered adequate in the opinion of the Government actuaries to give him as an employed contributor, if he remains so, the full benefits of the Bill. Why should that disappear when he comes into the voluntary class? The failure to have an employer to contribute for him raises the contribution henceforward which he must pay, but it does not decrease the reserve which he has already accumulated. There is some difficulty, at any rate, in this matter, and I hope I have shown to the Government what it is that is puzzling me at this stage.

Mr. MACMASTER

I understand this Clause contemplates the case of an employed contributor who in five years is transferred and becomes a voluntary contributor. After that he will be regarded as a voluntary contributor. A certain amount has been heaped up to his credit during the period he remained an employed contributor. It seems to me that the latter part of the Clause contemplates that he may be in arrears with that reserve, and that what he has heaped up to his credit shall. when he becomes a voluntary contributor, be cancelled. It seems to me that the object of the Clause as it stands is this: When a man changes his status from an employed contributor to a voluntary contributor, then it shall not be assumed that his reserve shall go to his credit, and that such sum shall be deemed to be cancelled.

Mr. McKENNA

I agree that the Subsection is somewhat complicated in form. Where a man has been an employed contributor for less than five years and then becomes a voluntary contributor, he will be treated for the purpose of calculating what his contribution or his benefit shall be, as if he had been a voluntary contributor from the start, so that if you take the case of a man who entered as an employed contributor and pays 7d. a week, then at the end of a couple of years by reason of the acquisition of private means becomes a voluntary contributor, he will have to pay up the difference between the 7d. a week which he has been paying in the past and the amount he would have to pay had he been a voluntary contributor in the past. The amount might vary according to his age. Suppose that a man at a certain age, which I shall call X, started under this scheme, and that if he came in under the ordinary insurance tables he might have to pay 9d. a week for the benefits which the Bill offers at his age. If such a man would have to pay 9d. as a voluntary contributor, and as a matter of fact has only paid 7d. a week for two or three years, he would have to make good the amount he has saved by paying for these years at the lower rate. If he does not make that good he will be treated as in arrears to that amount. He need not pay up the arrears, but if he does not he will only get the reduced payments, which are set out in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAM THORNE

What has become of the money he has built up under the compulsory scheme?

Mr. McKENNA

I am assuming that he and his employer have paid 7d. a week. If he came in at the age of X and became, four years later, a voluntary contributor, he will receive the benefit payable to X. He will get the credit of the reserve built up in four years.

Mr. W. THORNE

Surely you have to give him some credit for what he has paid during the compulsory period?

Mr. McKENNA

He will get credit for the reserve which he has built up while paying 7d. a week. And he gets the whole credit of the reserve. When he is a voluntary contributor he requires a reserve credit of 9d. It is a most complicated and technical arrangement, but it is the corollary of what we have already passed in Clause 5. After that explanation I think it must be clear that it is a reasonable condition.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I am not quite certain even now that I understand what is meant. If you took a man who became insured at the earliest possible age as a compulsory employed contributor, and came under this Section, and in less than five years he became a voluntary contributor, the reserve you would have then as an employed contributor would be exactly the same reserve which he would have built up if he had been a voluntary contributor from the beginning.

Mr. McKENNA

There will be nothing to deduct.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Then the case we have to deal with is the case of people who at the passing of the Act are above the minimum age, and who therefore have not built up the reserve which is suitable to their age. But that is exactly the class which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the country on platform after platform that he is going to provide for.

Mr. McKENNA

No; this only deals with the case of men who are transferred from the employed class to the voluntary class. These are not the volunteers.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman has interrupted me too soon, because he himself does not quite appreciate the point. We may eliminate everybody, as I understand, who comes into the scheme at sixteen, because in his case there would be no difference of reserve value whether he comes in as a voluntary or an employed contributor. But take the case of a man who at the passing of the Act had already passed the age, and therefore has not got accumulated by his contributions directly made the reserve which is required to pay him full benefit. Surely when the Chancellor says he renews the youth of the nation what ho means is that he is coming to the assistance of those employed contributors. Now take the man who comes in at X age, which is over sixteen. At the age of X plus four he leaves the employed class and he is to forfeit that benefit. That is what the First Lord of the Admiralty has just explained to us. If he does not forfeit that benefit there is no need for this Sub-section, because it carries with it a reserve which is exactly equal to what would have been his reserve if he had been a voluntary contributor. If the Sub-section is required, it is on the ground that when a man is in a position to be a voluntary contributor he does not require or deserve the same amount of State help as when he is in employment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his assumption. This is the case of the voluntary contributor over forty-five who would not be entitled to the reserve at all. It is really to protect a case of this kind.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Where is there anything about the age of forty-five? We are discussing Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, and I do not see any words anywhere in the Clause to limit that to people over the age of forty-five.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is to prevent a person from becoming a sort of employed person and being treated as an employed person for a few weeks may be, or for a short period in order to work himself into the position of an employed person. Whether these words carry out that intention is another matter, but that is their object. Unless we had a provision of this kind he might engage himself for a few weeks, he might be treated as an employed person, and get the reserve credit, whereas if he only comes in as a voluntary person paying the rate appropriate to his age he would get rid of his deficit which otherwise would be put against his name.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

If the object is as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the draftsman has chosen the most inappropriate words possible to carry out the object. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) indicated words which would carry out the avowed object of the Government under this Clause. Those words have been suggested at the National Conference of Friendly Societies. They suggest that when an employed contributor, within five years of his entry into the insurance, ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act, and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall pay the required contribution for those under forty-five years of age, and if above that age he shall pay a contribution in accordance with the age he will be when he becomes a voluntary contributor, on the same scale as provided for in Section (5) (a).

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Wipe out the assumption that he is a person who is employed. The amount appropriate at any age is sixteen, unless you treat it as arrear. That does not come in.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

There will be a credit to this man which has accrued due during the time he was an employed contributor. He ought to have the benefit of that. If you will read the last part of the Clause you will see that there is something cancelled which belonged to him. There has been no explanation of that, or if there has been I do not know whether the Committee has followed it. I certainly do not know what has been cancelled. There is something gone which apparently belonged to the employed contributor, and which he loses when he becomes a voluntary contributor. What is that? The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston seems to me to meet the case. The power to the voluntary contributor, or rather the late employed contributor who now becomes a voluntary contributor, to pay up any arrears so as to put him out of arrear should be extended. The power to pay up arrears is limited to two years, the current year and the preceding year, and, as has already been pointed out, this question of arrears may spread over three or four years. I cannot see when it is a man ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of the Act. Are there only two things which cause him to cease to be employed, one death and the other transfer to a voluntary society? Is there any other way in which a man can cease to be employed within the meaning of this Act? This is a matter of importance. Take the case of a clerk who has been an employed clerk. He might conceivably be out of employment for two, three, or six months. Does he thereby cease to be employed, or are there any other ways in which an insured person ceases to be employed except by death or transfer to a voluntary society?

Mr. CAVE

There is one point that has been pressing on a good many of us. I quite understand the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to meet. He wants to meet the case of men who join the employed class for a short time only and then transfer to another class. I do not think that that is likely to be done to any extent in order to evade payment. There are two ways of dealing with the case. The Bill proposes to treat him as voluntary from the beginning. The effect of that is, of course, to make him in arrear with his contributions; so he is in the position of either having to pay up something or take reduced benefits or have his benefits suspended altogether. A man who has made proper contributions for three or four years ought not to be put in the position of taking benefits too small in case of sickness or otherwise or having to pay a sum which he might not be able to find. That is why I do not like that way of dealing with the matter. The other way suggested was to treat him as having joined as a voluntary contributor from the date at which in fact he does join as a voluntary contributor, so that if there be any device at all the device fails. Let him come in then at the rate appropriate to the date. Let him join then for the first time as a voluntary contributor. He ought to have credit for the reserve which has been built up for him, so that the voluntary contributions ought to be reduced to that extent according to their actuarial value. It seems to me right, at any rate, to give him the option. I think in many cases it would be exercised.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If anybody suggests that there is a better way of carrying out the object aimed at, of course, we shall certainly consider it very carefully, but there is no difference in the object we have got in view, and I would suggest that the words stand at the present moment. It would be very much better to leave out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not want the contributor to get the credit of the reserve. He gets the credit during the time he is there, but he comes in at the appropriate age. I think it will be found that the Clause is really very much better, but if there are any other suggestions I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

There is a point which I wish the Government to take into consideration. I do not think it is possible for private Members to draft the sort of Sub-section which is necessary to deal with intricate matters of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an earlier reply which he gave to me, explained that the man under forty-five who has been an employed contributor until within five years, and becomes a voluntary contributor, would carry with him to the credit of his new voluntary account whatever contributions have been paid by himself or his employer on his behalf. But he shall not carry with him the contributions which he had from the State, or would have had, had he remained an employed contributor, to equalise his age. As far as that goes the Sub-section is not dealing with anything in the future, but it is dealing with a special provision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his scheme for persons over the age of sixteen, in order to prevent their having to pay a higher contribution. If the words remain exactly as they are, if the Sub-section is made to read exactly as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one result will follow: The man who joins within six months as an employed contributor, being over the minimum age and under forty-one, and within five years becomes a voluntary contributor, will be worse off than the man who starts as a voluntary contributor.

Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM

On a point of Order. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches are talking so loudly that I have great difficulty in hearing what the right hon. Gentleman says. These hon. Members are not referring to the Bill at all.

The CHAIRMAN

Hon. Gentlemen who are sitting near the hon. Member for Mansfield, and have been talking so as to prevent his hearing what is said, should cease to do so.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The provision to which I was referring is paragraph (a) of Section 1 of Clause 5 which we have just passed. That provides in the case of voluntary contributors who come into insurance within six months after the commencement of this Act, if he is below the age of forty-five at the date of coming into insurance, that the rate shall be the same rate as the employed rate; that is, the minimum rate unweighted by anything on account of his age. The voluntary contributor under the age of forty-five coming in within six months of the Act into insurance does get the State assistance to counterbalance his excessive age. If he comes within five years as an employed contributor, and he is then transferred, he loses it. That is the difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me, taking the Sub-section as expounded by him.

Mr. CASSEL

I do not wish to be unduly insistent, but I should like to have the point cleared up. The Member for West Ham took the case of a person who is an employed contributor. For two years he remains an employed contributor, and he then loses his employment. He hopes to get employment again, but for six months or so he is out of employment. He does not wish to get into arrears but continues to pay both the 4d. and the 3d. He does not hope to get the 3d. any more, but he pays the whole 7d. voluntarily. He is not in arrears, therefore Section 10 does not touch him at all. He is a voluntary contributor, and being a voluntary contributor he is hit by this Section. The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I know he thinks that notice has to be given, but the provisions applicable to notice relate only to the case where the person who starts as a voluntary contributor, becomes an employed contributor. But in the case of a person who starts as an employed contributor, when he becomes unemployed and does not wish to get into arrears, if he pays the contributions, he is a voluntary contributor. He is certainly not a compulsory contributor, and cannot be anything but a voluntary contributor. Therefore his case is hit by the Sub-section. Supposing he continues being unemployed for three, four or even five months, hoping to get back to employment, and not wishing to get into arrears he makes his contributions, and therefore is a voluntary contributor, and hit by this Sub-section. In justice, I think he ought not to be hit by the Sub-section, and for that reason, unless I am satisfied to the contrary, I shall vote in support of the proposal of my hon. Friend.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The person does not become a voluntary contributor, and he still remains an unemployed contributor. This does not deal with voluntary contributors at all. I should like a little more time to consider the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I am rather disposed to think that the case which he has put is one which has got to be dealt with. I should like to consider it, because for the moment I cannot quite see the answer to the point. In the case he has put the person ought not at any rate to be worse off than if he joins at the start. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the point until I have had an opportunity of considering it.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

How long would a person go on being an employed contributor, if he is out of work and avoids arrears? There must be a limit somewhere—six months or nine months. If a man wants to leave his employment all he has got to do is to give notice and profess to seek some other employment, and in that case he would be better off than the man who does give notice, and is transferred under the Section. Surely there must be some limit where a man is out of work, and ceases to be a voluntary contributor.

Mr. CASSEL

I would point out that the provisions for notice are not applicable to this case at all. I think that is where the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was wrong.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I think we should have a better understanding as to the question of arrears. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, if we are right in our impression, that the rates in respect of voluntary and employed contributors are identical. If the rates on the ordinary working of the Bill are identical, then the Sub-section falls through.

Mr. HOHLER

I have listened carefully to the discussion, and I confess I cannot follow this Clause at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us it related to the ago of 45, but there is nothing in the Section to say so, not one word. It would apply equally to anybody who was an employed contributor at any rate, and became a voluntary contributor at any time. I further desire some explanation of the language employed in the next Subsection:—

"Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this Part of this Act and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear, as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor, to the amount of the difference between the aggregate contributions paid in respect of him as an employed contributor and the aggregate of the contributions which would have been payable by him."

May I call attention to the fact that the difference is not between the contributions, but in regard to contributions paid in respect to him, and those which would have been paid by himself. The only contribution paid in respect to him would have been dealt with by the employer. Why is he not to have the benefit of both the contributions paid in respect to him and those paid by himself? It seems that the contributions paid by himself are lost sight of, and I confess the Clause to me is quite unintelligible.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

If a man is in employment and then ceases to be in employment because there is no work for him, he may go and look for a situation for an indefinite period, and it becomes a very curious question for the purposes of this Section, because he may keep up his own payment and voluntarily pay the proportion his employer would have paid if he had remained in employment. At what stage is it that he becomes a voluntary contributor? If we pass this Section in this form, he would become a voluntary contributor immediately he ceased to be employed, and immediately he paid out of his own pocket not only his. own contribution but the contribution which should have been paid by the employer. If that be so, then the whole mischief of the Section immediately arises, and we come to the difficulty which has been discussed. But there is one point on which we have not had any explanation yet, although we have pressed it on the First Lord of the Admiralty and also upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this point has reference to the last lines of the Sub-section. What is it that the man who is out of employment does? He does not want to get into arrears, and he pays the two contributions. What is it he is going to lose? If he is not going to lose anything, what is the necessity for the last lines of the Sub-section. It is a case for consideration. It is a hard case, where the man is out of employment, and to prevent himself from getting into arrears, he has paid not only his own but the employer's contribution. Yet this man under this Clause is to have something cancelled because he has gone out of his way to make these voluntary contributions; whereas, as far as we can make out, if he had been without any past history at all under the Bill, and had simply joined as a voluntary contributor, there would then, of course, have-been nothing for him to lose. The Subsection, as far as we can understand it, is calculated, I think, to do a very serious injustice to a very considerable number of people.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I really do not think there is any such difficulty as the hon. Member suggests. It may be necessary in Clause 10, Sub-section (6), that it should be made absolutely clear that they should not be applied to a person who pays his arrears when he is out of work. I think Sub-section (5) of Clause 10, as it stands, would cover the case, but this point would be more properly raised then. If it is not adequate, I agree with the hon. Member that we ought to make it still more clear. This refers to a totally different category, that is the person who pays under another class and who is a voluntary contributor; I do not think he ought to get the benefit of a great reserve because he is in the employed class for a short time.

Mr. NEVILLE

I would like to ask what attitude does the Chancellor adopt with regard to the voluntary conributor. Does he desire to attract them? I am now speaking of the class of man who by increased prosperity is enabled to get out of the ranks of the employed contributor and to become a voluntary contributor. Does the Chancellor want to have as many people as possible pass from the ranks of the employed contributors to the ranks of the voluntary contributors? That seems to me to be the key of the whole position. Suppose a man has passed from the ranks of the employed to that of the voluntary contributor, what is his position? Either he has to pay increased contributions, which we could understand if he is to be treated actuarially, or he is to forfeit something. Supposing a man gets into a position and wishes to cease as a voluntary contributor, there is no means under this Bill, so far as I can see, by which he obtains the surrender value, so that the position of the voluntary contributor seems to me to be one of considerable hardship. Supposing he continues to pay his 7d. per week, will there be a scale of benefits proportionate to that payment?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member does not seem to me to be speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. NEVILLE

I am sorry if I have transgressed in any way. I was trying to show, as well as I could, that the position of an employed contributor when he becomes a voluntary contributor is one which we do not understand. I want to understand what is likely to happen when he is transferred from the ranks of the employed to the voluntary contributors. He is faced with increased subscriptions and does he get reduced benefits?

The CHAIRMAN

What words are there in this Sub-section which it is proposed to leave out which deal with the question of reduced benefits?

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I think the words will reduce the benefits. That is really the point.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think so; this seems to me to deal with the question of arrears. What depends on those arrears is treated elsewhere in the Bill, and can be dealt with where it is so treated.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

On the point of Order, if this Sub-section is passed, I do not think it is possible hereafter to deal with the question of arrears as it is under this Sub-section.

Mr. W. THORNE

For the last quarter of an hour we have been pressing the Government to give us some information in regard to the last five or six lines. What we want to know is, what is going to be cancelled? Surely the Government must have some idea of what is going to be cancelled. If they are not prepared to give us some real idea of what is meant then it appears to me to be better to postpone this Section until we get it cleared up.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am sorry I did not make myself clear, perhaps the hon. Member was not here.

Mr. W. THORNE

I was all the time.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

What really happens is this, if a man comes in as a voluntary contributor within six months of the passing of the Bill and is under forty-five he is treated as if he were sixteen. That creates a great deficiency; that deficiency is wiped out at the expense of the fund. Supposing he only comes in as an employed person over forty-five in order to be able to claim the benefit of that deficiency, and goes into employment for a few weeks merely in order to be able to claim part of that reserve; then, in order to check that, we say that if within five years he passes from the employed class to the contributor class, he shall not get the benefit of that great reserve of the State. That is the whole of the question.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

If the reading of some of us of this Sub-section is right, then it affects very seriously some of the employed contributors. Suppose a workman is an employed contributor for two years and pays his 4d. and the employer pays 3d., and suppose at the end of the two years he leaves his employment and becomes, say, a small shopkeeper, and then elects to become a voluntary contributor, then he pays 7d. What is troubling me is that I am under the impression that he is deemed to be in arrears for the difference between what he ought to have paid as a voluntary contributor from the day when he became an employed con- tributor. That would amount in two years to a sum of 26s., and it would be a serious matter for the man to be called upon to pay that difference. I hold that it would be unfair to ask him to pay the 26s., for the simple reason that his employer has already paid that 26s.

Mr. McKENNA

It has nothing to do with that.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I hold the man will have to pay the difference between what he ought to have paid if he had been a voluntary contributor from the beginning.

Mr. McKENNA

No.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

The Sub-section reads:—

"Where an employed contributor within five years from his entry into insurance ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act and becomes a voluntary contributor, he shall be deemed to be in arrear, as from the date when he became a voluntary contributor to the amount of the difference between the aggregate contribution paid in respect of him as an employed contributor and the aggregate of the contributions which would have been payable by him had he originally become a voluntary contributor …"

I make that out to be 3d. per week.

Mr. McKENNA

My hon. Friend is under the impression that that means the employer's contribution. It does not; it means the difference between what the man would pay as a voluntary contributor at sixteen and what the man would have paid as a voluntary contributor at the age at which he comes in. The State makes good the difference for him between the age of sixteen and the age which he may be. The Bill says that that difference has got to be made good, and not the amount of the employers' contribution.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I am quite certain that this Sub-section is giving the impression which I have tried to indicate to the Committee. If I am wrong, I think it ought to be made much more clear than it is. I hold that a man who ceases to be an employed contributor, and through going into a small business or something of that kind becomes a voluntary contributor, that such a man should not be deemed to be in arrears and thereby be reduced in his benefits under the Schedule. I think that point ought to be cleared up. If the impression of the Committee about it is not correct, I think it ought to be so explained.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. NEVILLE

I understand now from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this particular Sub-section is entirely directed against those people who attempt to de fraud and claim benefit that they ought not to be entitled to. That, however, does not meet the point, and the point is that of a person who, with no desire to get any benefits to which he is not entitled, but perfectly bonâ fide, says "I wish to be transferred from the employed contributor to the ranks of the voluntary contributor." That is the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with. We want to know what is the attitude of the Government on that point. Do they wish to have people transferred from one rank to the other, or would they rather not have them? For instance, are they going to make any loss over the transfer? If they are not, what is the real position of the voluntary contributor when he is transferred from one rank to the other? As I understand, either he will have to pay an increased amount, which, according to the First Lord of the Admiralty, cannot exceed 2d. a week, or he will have to receive reduced benefits. I am not sure that I am right, and I should like to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view on the point.

Mr. BAIRD

The real difficulty is that it is not defined when an employed contributor who is no longer in employment ceases to be an employed contributor. We want to know when an employed contributor is not an employed contributor. It seems to me that in endeavouring to meet a possible case of fraud the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inflict a certain amount of hardship. We. do not want to consider the man who, when he is in a position to be a voluntary contributor, endeavours fraudulently to get the benefit of the employed contributor, but we want to safeguard the man who, from no fault of his own, becomes unemployed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have already stated that we will deal with that when we come to Clause 10, Sub-section (5), and that it may be necessary to insert some additional words; but the question does not arise at this point.

Mr. BAIRD

Then what is the use of this Sub-section? As it stands, it does not define when a man is an employed con- tributor and when a voluntary contributor; but it does provide for the man who becomes a voluntary contributor being put on a different footing and having to give up something which he would not have to give up if he remained an employed contributor. Whatever is done on Clause 10 this Sub-section is obscure, and all the explanations which have been given have failed to remove the obscurity. If we pass the Sub-section in its present form we shall be in the impossible position of not being able to tell our constituents what the Bill really does in this respect. Under the normal working of the Act will the rates at any given age for an employed contributor and for a voluntary contributor be identical? If so, there would be nothing to cancel. If not, we ought to know more about what the difference is.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not see what that has to do with this Sub-section.

Mr. BAIRD

It has to do with the last few lines. We want to know what is being cancelled. If the rates are identical there is nothing to cancel. If the rates are not identical, what is being cancelled?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not press these words at present. I think he has admitted that the Sub-section will not do as it stands.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I did not say that. I said that I would consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I have promised to consider the case raised by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, which undoubtedly comes on Clause 10. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman comes here, and I would like to have an opportunity of considering it. I did not say that it would be necessary to deal with it.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I thought I had carried conviction a little further, but I am not dissatisfied with the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to my particular point. Under the impression that he had made up his mind that the words must be altered I was going to suggest that, instead of passing the words now and amending them on Report, it would be worth while that he should cut out the Sub-section at this stage and bring it up in a clearer form subsequently. On both sides there is some difficulty in understanding exactly what will happen under this Sub-section. After listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, I believe that only a very limited and temporary class will be affected by what he means to do. The difference between the employed and the voluntary contributors lies not in the amount which they have contributed, or in the rates appropriate to their ages in the future, but in the fact that from every employed contributor between the ages of sixteen and forty-five at the commencement the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take a contribution as if the contributor were sixteen years of age and bring the resources of the State to bear to make good the loss on the insurance so created, and he does not wish to do that for the voluntary contributor. It is that which the man loses by being transferred from the employed to the voluntary class. If that is so, I think what the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires might be put much more clearly, and I do not think that these words carry it out. I think therefore it would facilitate business if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the Sub-section to be negatived and bring up a new form of words on Report.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is purely a question of drafting. If I omitted the Sub-section now it would raise a much larger question altogether, and one that I could not deal with on Report. It is to a certain extent a relief. The relief may be small, but the amount has nothing to do with the rules of the House. All these points could be made clear on Report, because they are merely questions of drafting. When a promise is given that the Government will consider a question and do its best to make a Clause clearer from the point of view of drafting, it is usual to accept that undertaking, unless there is some great principle involved. I have listened very carefully to the Debate, and there is no question of principle involved between the Opposition and the Government. I still say that the suggestion we have made is perfectly reasonable. Nothing fresh has been advanced in the last half hour. I have explained over and over again all the points that have been raised. There is no point of difference between us except one of drafting, and I have promised to consider that. I would have considered it before if there had been any Amendment on the point on the Paper. I therefore suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn on the distinct undertaking by the Government to consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to introduce any Amendment that may be necessary to make quite clear that which in substance is agreed upon.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the very difficult question of when an employed contributor ceases to be an employed contributor. It is a conundrum: "When is an employed contributor not an employed contributor?" The right hon. Gentleman referred me to Clause 10 on that point. I referred carefully to Clause 10, and I do not find anything in that Clause that relates to that subject at all, or any place where it would be appropriate to put it in. I just wish the matter to be made quite clear. Are we to understand that somewhere in an appropriate place in the Bill it will be made clear that a man who has ceased to be in employment because he cannot find work, or for some other reason, and still continues to pay both his old contributions and the contribution his employer would have paid for him does not thereby become a voluntary contributor? If that can be made clear, as the right hon. Gentleman says, so as to save the unfortunate man who is out of employment from losing his benefit, from being subject to the cancellation involved in this Clause, and all the other disabilities involved in it, well, of course, we accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman at once.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that in Clause 10, Sub-section (5)—

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I cannot find anything in that Clause.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It does deal with the question of unemployment

arrears, but that is not sufficient. What I say is that we are prepared, when we come to that Sub-section, to consider the point made by the hon. Member, and that other hon. Members have made, and see whether it is not necessary to strengthen the Subsection. I am not inclined to agree that it is necessary to strengthen it, but we ought to make it clear, and we ought to introduce words into the Sub-section in order to define clearly the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Sir A. MARKHAM

There is one question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened very carefully to this discussion. May I take the case of a workman at the age of twenty-five who is an employed contributor? At the age of twenty-nine he falls out of work for six months. At the end of that six months he goes back to work. I would like a very simple answer to this question: Will he at the end of that six months have lost any of the sum credited to him in the fund? It says in lines 20, 21, and 22, any sum "which would have been credited to that society in respect of him had he originally become a voluntary contributor shall be cancelled."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That case is governed by Clause 10, Sub-section (5). He will be allowed to pay up the arrears and will not lose a penny.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I am not satisfied with the explanation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us, and I am afraid I shall have to go to a Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 63.

Division No. 268.] AYES. [8.20 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Bowerman, C. W. Crooks, William
Adamson, William Brace, William Crumley, Patrick
Addison, Dr. Christopher Brady, Patrick Joseph Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Brocklehurst, William B. Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Agnew, Sir George William Brunner, John F. L. Dawes, J. A.
Alden, Percy Bryce, J. Annan Delany, William
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Denman, Hon. R. D.
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Devlin, Joseph
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Dewar, Sir J. A.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Fintbury, E.) Byles, Sir William Pollard Doris, William
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Cameron, Robert Duffy, William J.
Barnes, George N. Carr-Gomm, H. W. Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barton, W. Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Ellbank, Rt. Hon, Master of
Beale, William Phipson Chancellor, Henry George Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Clynes, John R. Essex, Richard Walter
Bethell, Sir John Henry Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Esslemont, George Birnie
Black, Arthur W. Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Boland, John Pius Cotton, William Francis Ferens, Thomas Robinson
Booth, Frederick Handel Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Ffrench, Peter
Field, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Macpherson, James Ian Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Gelder, Sir W. A. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roche, Augustine (Louth)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd M'Callum, John M. Rowlands, James
Gibson, Sir James Puckering M'Curdy, Charles Albert Rowntree, Arnold
Gill, A. H. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Goldstone, Frank Manfield, Harry Scanlan, Thomas
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Griffith, Ellis J. Marks, Sir George Croydon Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Hackett, John Mason, David M. (Coventry) Sheehy, David
Hancock, J. G. Meagher, Michael Sherwell, Arthur James
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Shortt, Edward
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Menzies, Sir Walter Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Millar, James Duncan Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Money, L. G. Chiozza Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Morgan, George Hay Sutherland, John E.
Haworth, Sir Arthur A. Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Sutton, John E.
Hayward, Evan Neilson, Francis Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Helme, Norval Watson Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nolan, Joseph Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Higham, John Sharp Norman, Sir Henry Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Hinds, John Norton, Captain Cecil W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hodge, John Nuttall, Harry Thorne, William (West Ham)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Toulmin, Sir George
Hudson, Walter O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hughes, Spencer Leigh O'Doherty, Philip Wadsworth, John
Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) O'Dowd, John Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Ogden, Fred Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) O'Grady, James Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Johnson, W. O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Wardle, George J.
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Waring, Walter
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Webb, H.
Jowett, Frederick William Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Joyce, Michael Pollard, Sir George H. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Keating, Matthew Power, Patrick Joseph White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Kelly, Edward Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kemp, Sir George Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Pringle, William M. R Wilkie, Alexander
Lambert, George (Devon, Molton) Radford, George Heynes Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rainy, Adam Rolland Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lansbury, George Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Lewis, John Herbert Reddy, Michael Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Winfrey, Richard
Lundon, Thomas Rendall, Atheistan Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Lynch, Arthur Alfred Richards, Thomas Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
McGhee, Richard Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Fell, Arthur Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Magnus, Sir Phillip
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Mount, William Arthur
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gardner, Ernest Neville, Reginald J. N.
Barnston, H. Goldsmith, Frank Newton, Harry Kottingham
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Gretton, John Pollock. Ernest Murray
Bird, Alfred Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Pretyman, Ernest George
Boyton, James Hambro, Angus Valdemar Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hills, John Waller Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cassel, Felix Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cave, George Hope, Harry (Bute) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Clyde, James Avon Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Craik, Sir Henry Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis Stanier, Beville
Dalrymple, Viscount Hunt, Rowland Valentia, Viscount
Dixon, Charles Harvey Ingleby, Holcombe Worthington-Evans, L.
Duke, Henry Edward Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Kyffin-Taylor, G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldman and Mr. Baird.
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BRUNNER

moved, to add at the end of Sub-section (4) the following new Sub-section:—

(5) "Where an unemployed contributor ceases to be employed within the meaning of this part of this Act by reason of his income rising from under one hundred and sixty pounds per annum to over that amount, in the event of his not desiring to become a voluntary contributor he shall be entitled to receive back the amount of his contributions (but without interest) less one-third of the value of any benefits he may have received for the period during which he has contributed."

It seems to me that when an employed contributor ceases to come under the title of such he surely ought to be allowed to draw out his money. This Amendment will enable him to demand back his contribution loss one-third, or the value of the benefits which I think is a fair amount. If there is any man who does not want to remain in the scheme, I do not think the Government would suggest that he should be kept in it, especially as he may have an income over £160, and perhaps running up to £400 or £500.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The scheme of the Bill is that if he is employed for five years he can come in as a voluntary contributor under the earlier Clauses. If, of course, he pays less than five years he can only get benefits and continue under special terms. My hon. Friend suggests that in certain circumstances he should receive back the amount of his contribution less the whole of any weekly payments he may have received during the period he was a contributor. There is no reason why there should be any difference in his case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up"]— and that of any other contributor. I cannot quite appreciate why my hon. Friend suggests that there should be any difference.

Mr. BRUNNER

He may have a large income, and may not want to be in the scheme, and therefore in that case I think he ought to be allowed to come out on terms. If you do not give him back the whole of his contribution you might give him back part of it, reduced by one-third or by the amount of the benefits he may have received during the time that he was a contributor.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS

As the Bill has been altered in certain circumstances, would it not be quite possible for such an employed contributor to become a voluntary contributor.

Mr. FORSTER

What is to happen to a person who loses his qualification—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up, we cannot hear a word"]—as an employed contributor or who is disqualified by reason of the fact that he has £160 a year. It seems to me that such a man goes out of insurance altogether. What the hon. Member who moved this Amendment proposes is to create a surrender value for those contributors who, owing either to a loss of employment or to increased income, are disqualified from coming under the scheme. The Committee has already decided that any one who is possessed of an income of £160 a year shall become a voluntary contributor; in these circumstances I hardly think the hon. Member will press his Amendment.

Mr. BRUNNER

But he would lose the whole of the money he put in.

Question, "That these words be there added," put, and negatived.