§ Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Insurance Commissioners may make regulations providing for any matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this Act, and in particular for—
- (a) payment of contributions by means of adhesive or other stamps affixed to or impressed upon books or cards, and regulating the manner, times, and conditions in, at, and under which such stamps are to be affixed or impressed;
- (b) the entry in or upon books or cards of particulars of contributions paid and benefits distributed in the case of the insured persons to whom such books or cards belong;
- (c) the issue sale custody or delivery up of books or cards and the replacement of books or cards which have been lost, destroyed, or defaced.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["the Insurance Commissioners may make regulations"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in conjunction with the Advisory Committee shall."
Under the provisions of this Bill the Insurance Commissioners would be etitled to make highly technical regulations as regards the collections and payment of contributions, and I wish by my Amendment to make it compulsory that they shall act with the advice of the Advisory Committee. 287 At present we do not know who the Insurance Commissioners are, and we had not so long ago a person appointed as a Development Commissioner without any very expert knowledge, and it may happen that Insurance Commissioners, not having the necessary knowledge of friendly societies, may make it very irksome to the contributors through their lack of knowledge of the working of friendly societies. It seems very necessary in this highly technical work that the Commissioners should have the concurrence of the expert Advisory Committee on such occasions. If ever an Advisory Committee was required it is required in carrying out this Clause, and for this reason I ask the Government to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI would like to know if this Amendment is carried does it make any alteration in the Bill at all. Surely the Advisory Committee is appointed for the express purpose of advising the Commissioners in regard to the regulations?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI understand that this Amendment is being moved to draw an explanation from the Government.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLMy Amendment will make the Clause read that the Commissioners "shall make regulations" instead of "may make regulations."
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI beg the hon. Member's pardon. I omitted to notice the word "shall."
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLThe Bill provides for an advisory committee, but the Insurance Commissioners are not bound to act on their advice; but if this Amendment is accepted they will be bound to act and accept the advice of the committee in making those highly technical regulations relating to the payment and collection of contributions.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI quite agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member that the Insurance Commissioners should act under the advice of the Advisory Committee, but really that is what the Bill does already. It is true the hon. Member proposes the substitution of the word "shall" for "may." The Bill says that the Insurance Commissioners are to make the regulations, and that they may make them acting with the advice and assistance of the Advisory Committee, as provided in Clause 42. The only effect of accepting 288 that Amendment would be that Insurance Commissioners would not only be bound to make the regulations, but they would be bound to make them in conjunction with the Advisory Committee. If this Amendment is carried, the Insurance Commissioners would be bound not only to take the advice, but also to act on the advice of the Advisory Committee, whereas as the matter is left by the Bill the Insurance Commissioners have to consult the Advisory Committee, and, of course, it is for them to decide after hearing the views of the Committee whether they will act in accordance with them or not. The hon. Member has put his point with perfect lucidity, but I submit that really there is nothing to be gained by asking us to accept this Amendment which places the Insurance Commissioners in the position of being outvoted by the Advisory Committee. That cannot be what the hon. Member intends. If he does mean that, then he is substituting for the Commissioners the Advisory Committee and putting a subordinate body at their head. I do not think any useful purpose will be served by pressing this Amendment.
§ Mr. POLLOCKWhat the Attorney-General has said is not the last word on behalf of this Amendment. Clause 42, it is important to observe, only requires that:—
"The Insurance Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after passing of this Act, appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in connection with the making and altering of regulations under this Part of this Act."
The Advisory Committee is to be appointed for that purpose, but it is clear that the Insurance Commissioners can, if they like, use the Advisory Committee as little as they please. There is no guarantee that this Advisory Committee will have full opportunity of giving their advice, nor is there any guarantee that their advice will be accepted. I understand that the Attorney-General agrees that the Insurance Commissioners ought to make these regulations in conjunction with the Advisory Committee. All my hon. Friend wants is a guarantee in the terms of the Bill itself, that in fact the Insurance Commissioners shall do what the learned Attorney-General says they ought to do, namely, frame their rules on the advice, and only on the advice, of this important 289 Advisory Committee. The Committee will be drawn from a number of persons who are very anxious as to how this Bill shall affect them, such as the representatives of associations of employers and approved societies, and of such other persons as the Commissioners may appoint. I feel confident that the large friendly societies will be discomfited by knowing that their representatives' advice may prove useless and that their advice need not be taken by the Insurance Commissioners. The intention of the Act is that the Insurance Commissioners shall only make regulations after this advice has been taken, and for the purpose of embodying that advice. If that is so, then let us have it made clear in the bill as it will be if this Amendment is inserted, for it will add the safeguard of "shall" instead of "may." That will give a clear indication that these regulations should be drawn up by the Commissioners upon the advice of the Advisory Committee. That Committee will represent people who are deeply stirred by this Bill and who represent important interests. I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider the matter with a view of giving it a more effective consideration than he has done up to the present.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHIt seems to me that this is quite a revolutionary Amendment, because it changes the Advisory Committee into the controlling body. That is the real meaning of the Amendment. An Advisory Committee is a committee to advise, and we can hardly assume that the Commissioners will not take the advice of the Advisory Committee for what it is worth. The responsibility, however, must lie upon the Insurance Commissioners themselves, and we should not allow that responsibility to be diminished by accepting the Amendment.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThis Amendment has been moved simply with the object of providing that the Insurance Commissioners should consult the Advisory Committee on these points. The Bill provides that an Advisory Committee should be appointed. What we desire to secure is that those men in the country acquainted with friendly societies should give advice on these matters. We are not certain there will be representatives of the friendly societies among the Insurance Commissioners, but we do hope that on the Advisory Committee the friendly societies will be represented. All my hon. Friend desires is that it should be made absolutely 290 certain the Advisory Committee on which the friendly societies are represented will be consulted before these technical points are determined by the Insurance Commissioners. I hope, unless we get a more satisfactory answer from the Attorney-General, my hon. Friend will divide upon this Amendment.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLThe Attorney-General said the Insurance Commissioners could be outvoted by the Advisory Committee. I do not quite see why. We do not know the number of Insurance Commissioners going to be made. You may make twenty Insurance Commissioners, and there may be only ten on the Advisory Committee.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSYou might have twenty on the Advisory Committee and only ten Insurance Commissioners.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLYes, but you might have it the other way. I wish to provide that in making these highly technical arrangements which will affect the friendly societies very much, the Insurance Commissioners should be bound to take their advice.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUSI am in sympathy with the object of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I must own it seems to me scarcely necessary to move the Amendment or to divide upon it. I think it very necessary the Insurance Commissioners should take the advice of this Committee, and it is very desirable the Advisory Committee should contain a number of persons drawn from different classes capable of advising the Commissioners, but when I read Clause 42 I must own it is almost impossible for the Insurance Commissioners to act without the advice of the Committee, because that Clause says the Insurance Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice upon this very subject. It therefore seems to me that it will be almost a dereliction of duty upon the part of the Insurance Commissioners if they frame the regulations without taking the advice of this particular Committee. We cannot for a moment suppose the Advisory Committee will be the supreme authority. The supreme authority will be the Insurance Commissioners. The Advisory Committee can only give advice, and under this case I think there can be no doubt whatever the Insurance Commissioners would act, 291 and act only on the advice of the Committee. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI beg to move at the end of the Clause to add, "(d) the production of his card by the member of an approved society, bearing the name of such society, at meetings thereof, at least monthly, for endorsement."
Clause 7 provides for the making of regulations under the Act by the Insurance Commissioners for dealing with certain matters which are incidental to the payment and collection of contributions, and in particular, it provides for the payment of contributions by means of adhesive stamps. These regulations cover a very considerable number of what may be called small domestic items. I have moved this Amendment in the interests of the friendly societies, and I hope it is one which the Attorney-General will see his way to accept. It in no sense militates against the spirit of the Bill. The friendly societies are largely dependent upon that personal element by which the Members are bound together, and that depends to a large extent on their having the opportunity of frequently meeting. Their meetings are not always regularly attended, but still there are the weekly meetings at which members can get to know one another, and it is by this personal touch they get to know the best men to appoint to hold office in the societies. All this may be changed. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to preserve the vitality of the friendly societies, but a very serious blow will be struck at their vitality if they do not have the opportunity of meeting as hitherto. Men do not meet one another if there is no business to be performed, and the friendly societies feel, if the stamp system of collecting is introduced, some provision ought to be made whereby they would have an opportunity of seeing these cards and requiring the attendance of members at their meetings in order that the same personal element may continue in the future as in the past. If some Amendment of this sort is not introduced, it may happen in a great many cases that the societies will not see their members for a very long period of time. If a member adopts this method of payment by adhesive stamps, instead of paying at 292 the meetings of the society there will really be no opportunity to meet him. The purpose of the meetings will be gone and the vitality of the societies will be sapped. So far as I can judge, no important alteration will be made in the scheme of the Act by the Amendment. All I ask is that in the matter of regulations one of the matters to which the Insurance Commissioners should pay attention should be the making of some rule and provision for the production of a card by a member of an approved society at least once a month for endorsement. This is not a final Sub-section, because it is a matter which will have to be dealt with by the Insurance Commissioners. It will have to be carried into effect more by the regulations of the Commissioners than by the terms of the Subsection itself. My Amendment will preserve the friendly societies in a manner which is at present in jeopardy, and I ask the Attorney-General to favourably consider it.
Mr. CHANCELLOROn a point of Order. I want to ask whether this Amendment will preclude the discussion of an Amendment I have put down on Clause 21 with regard to the holding of meetings on licensed premises?
§ Mr. BOOTHBut is it not the case that many societies do, at the present time, meet on licensed premises, and if we decided to insist on compulsory attendance once a month would that not affect the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a matter of merit rather than of order, and we cannot argue it at this point.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI must say at once I can see no reason for accepting this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member that the whole scheme is, as far as possible to be worked in conjunction with friendly societies. But we do not desire to fetter the freedom and liberty of those societies in any direction which is not absolutely necessary. We do not want to give the Commissioners power to make regulations affecting friendly societies unless it is shown to be really necessary. There is no necessity in this case. The cards will be issued in the ordinary course; the workman will take the card to the employer, and, when the period of issue comes to an end the card will be taken to the society. In the interval there must 293 necessarily be entries made in the lodge books of contributions and surely there are ample opportunities for the societies themselves to make regulations affecting their members without calling upon the Insurance Commissioners to make them. It will be for the societies themselves to decide this matter. We want to leave it to them. It will be possible for them to make a rule requiring the attendance of the member for the purpose of having his card endorsed. But I do not think it is desirable to insert a provision of that nature in this Bill.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. FORSTERWith the general object of my hon. Friend I am in entire sympathy, but I do not think the form of words embodied in his Amendment will really carry out the object which we both want to secure. After all we have to remember that many of the societies, which will become approved societies under this Bill, will not be friendly societies in the same sense in which my hon. Friend deals with them. There will no doubt be trades unions and collecting societies and other societies of a like nature. I think we should hesitate to impose any such regulations by the action of the Commissioners upon societies which do not under their own rules hold meetings at monthly dates. I do not think, therefore, the form of words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is one we should insist upon. But there is a real anxiety in the minds of existing friendly societies that unless they are able to secure the attendance of members a their periodical meetings they will suffer under the provisions of the Bill. Speaking for myself, I believe that that fear is not altogether ill-grounded. I also agree that the fear present in their minds that unless they are able to insist upon the attendance of their members the spirit of brotherhood which friendly societies have built up will be diminished and damaged. The Committee will view with great reluctance any proposal that would tend to diminish that spirit of fraternity, and it is with the object of preventing such diminution that my hon. and learned Friend has moved this Amendment.
§ Mr. BARNESI have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment did it in the interests of friendly societies. I have been told that the Amendment is put forward with the goodwill and concurrence of the friendly societies. I am rather surprised to hear 294 that. I should not have been surprised to hear that it had been put forward with the goodwill and concurrence of publicans. I shall vote against the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division, because I think it is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of friendly societies and trades unions, who prefer to manage their own business in their own way. We have been told it is the custom for friendly societies to meet once a week for fraternal purposes. Well, we want to promote these fraternal meetings, but I do not think it is to be done by adopting an Amendment of this character. I see no need for putting this pressure upon friendly societies and trade unions. Some friendly societies and trade unions have meetings, but I belong to a friendly society, a centralised society, which has no local meetings, and where all the business is done through the Post Office. If the terms of this Amendment were applied to that society it would be compelled to alter its rules and to alter them so as to be out of harmony with the general principles and administration of the society. The committees of the trade unions, who may have, or may not have, a meeting once a month, would be compelled to meet once a month.
These societies, within the limits of their power over their own members, now make provision for their meeting together and you may safely conclude that they apply that very much to the limit of such power. If they think they cannot do that with safety, it is a matter for themselves and for their own discretion, as to how they can work this Bill in the interests, as they think best, of their own members and of their good administration. Therefore I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether it is necessary to take up the time of the House in pressing this Amendment to a Division. I can assure them that it will go against the grain of the organised workman of this country to put a provision of that sort in their rules and to compel members to meet once a month.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI wish to support the Amendment, but I do not agree with the last two words which provide that the meetings should take place at least once a month. There is an Amendment lower down in my name which gives discretion to the societies and to the Commissioners to decide how often these meetings shall take place, and I suggest to the hon. and 295 learned Gentleman that he should withdraw his Amendment and perhaps support the. Amendment lower down. The hon. Member who has just spoken says this was an Amendment which was not supported by the friendly societies. It is one of the Amendments suggested by the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows. He said it was suggested not by the friendly societies, but by the publicans.
§ Mr. BARNESI said exactly the opposite. I accepted the statement that had been made that the Amendment was brought forward by, or supported by, the friendly societies.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI understood the hon. Member to say that it really was in the interests of the publicans, and not in the interests of the friendly societies, and I wish to point out that it was suggested by the Manchester Unity at their Conference held in the month of June to consider Amendments to this particular Bill. As they are one of the most influential and largest of friendly societies, we may fairly say that this Amendment has got the support of the benefit societies of the country. It has been suggested that there would be great difficulty in getting members of the approved societies to attend meetings regularly. One of the things provided by this Bill is that the centralised societies may establish local branches in all parts of the country, and I think there will be no difficulty in making arrangements that members of approved societies should attend meetings of their particular societies. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Hearts of Oak?"] It is provided that centralised societies like the Hearts of Oak should provide local committees which would do the work in the particular districts, and, therefore, I think there would be no difficulty in working the Amendment. We put it forward with the object of giving friendly societies under the Bill the control which they have at present, and we wish to maintain that spirit of unity which has always existed among the members of friendly societies. You cannot do that if officers of friendly societies never get a chance of seeing their members. I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to consider the Amendment, and, if possible, meet the views of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am afraid the Amendment is a little more serious than the hon. Member who has just sat down quite understands. Even he did not like one of 296 the important Clauses in it. Surely in this Bill the intention is that trade unions shall act as approved societies for the whole of their approved members. A portion of this proposal provides that if a member of a trade union presents his card at a monthly meeting that card will bear the name of a society, but the employer of that man, if his card bore the name of his society, would see it when he came to put on the stamp. That strikes at one of the fundamental principles of this Bill, that a man need not disclose to his employer what society he is a member of or whether he is a member of a society or not. All the employer has to do is to put the seven stamps on—four for the man and three for himself—and he is not necessarily to know how that man is insured or from what union he cornea. I am perfectly sure there is no trade unionist in the country who would not rebel against this Amendment. As it is drawn it apparently meets the views of some friendly society men in this country.
The Manchester Unity has been mentioned, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has seen in the public Press an important letter by the great Past-Master of that society, Mr. Hawkins, in which he strongly advocates that the new members; who come in compulsorily should not have votes, because if they had votes in the same way as the old members they might swamp them and turn the Order in a new direction. The hon. Member must see the effect if he considers his Amendment in connection with these views of Mr. Hawkins. The majority of the members of these societies, in some cases, will be new members compelled to come to the monthly meetings, but they will not have the power to vote, and they will have no control. I ask him whether that would improve fraternity among the workmen. I am quite sure it would not in the least improve the administration or the fraternity of any society. I do not know whether the hon. Member quite knows why the-Amendment has been framed in this way. I think I know, and that many people outside this House and some inside it also know. It is not framed to help any friendly society. It is framed with the object of making it difficult for approved societies to be formed under the Act. I am sure that is not the hon. Member's intention. The only effect it could have would make it very difficult for these approved societies to be formed if it is stipulated that they must have monthly meetings and all the members must attend.
297 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Bill invites people of all walks of life, in all parts of the country and of all kinds of parties to form themselves into approved societies. He includes the agricultural districts with the other parts of the country, but if you compel these societies to have monthly meetings you will be putting a great hindrance in the way, particularly in the country districts, of forming approved societies. That is why we object to it. We think these people should be induced to form these societies, and we would naturally like to leave them as free as possible. The rules can be enacted by the societies of any kind to suit their own purpose, and surely one ought not to begin by destroying the very foundation principle of friendly societies, namely, telling them when they must hold their meetings, how often members must attend, and what they must do when they get there. If we once begin that I am afraid we deal a deadly blow at the foundation principle of all these societies.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBefore the discussion goes any further, I must confess I have been a little neglectful of my duties. I notice that the whole of this Clause is subject to the words "matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions," and therefore the argument with regard to maternity and so on hardly arises. I hope subsequent speakers will confine themselves to the Amendment as concerned with the collection of contributions.
§ Mr. POLLOCKHaving heard what I have heard, I should like to move my Amendment in the form in which it appears in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmith). I hope in that sense it will be shown that the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) is effective in his criticisms as to one-fourth part, and I am sure that he will appreciate that I am endeavouring to meet some of his objections. May I now reply to some of the criticisms which have teen directed against this Amendment? One is astonished when one listens to speeches like that of the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) how the Amendment is misunderstood, because the hon. Member says this was an Amendment which would be in the interests of the publican. Does he appreciate that in saying that he is making a very grevious attack upon the Insurance Commissioners? This Amendment is only to give power to the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 7 to deal by the 298 regulations that the Insurance Commissioners are going to issue with certain matters. Does he suppose that the Insurance Commissioners will by the regulations they propose always provide that these rules shall be viséd at a public house? It means that the hon. Member has not appreciated the Amendment. It is merely to add certain items that can be dealt with by means of regulations to be issued by the Insurance Commissioners, and one has confidence enough in. the Insurance Commissioners to know that they will take the proper steps in issuing their regulations to deal with the matters in Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), if my Amendment is accepted, and no others, and we may rely upon them to take all proper steps to see that the points which I think the hon. Member overlooked should be safeguarded. Therefore that danger does not arise.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI understood the hon. Member wished to withdraw his Amendment. Had he better not do that before he gets further with his speech?
§ Mr. POLLOCKI was afraid if I withdrew mine, you might rule that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend was out of order.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member was quite right there. I could not allow another Amendment so similar as the next on the Paper after a long discussion upon this.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINProvided the Amendment now under discussion is not negatived but withdrawn, is it not possible to move the other Amendment? I think we ought to have been permitted to withdraw one Amendment, even after discussion, in order to move another —sometimes it has been done at the suggestion of a Government—not open to the same objections and which better meets the sense of the House.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSBefore you come to a decision as to that, may I ask you to consider Clause 7 and the Amendment which is proposed, which succeeds this one. There is a view I should want to put before you in reference to the proposed substituted Amendment on which I shall ask your ruling—a point which does not arise on the Amendment as it is at present framed.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUSWould it not be in. order to move to omit the words in the present Amendment—"bearing the name of such society?"
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANEither would be in order. I did not mean to say-in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) that the second Amendment should not be substituted by leave of the House, but I should not feel it my duty to allow a long Debate on the first Amendment and then another Debate on a similar Amendment. We had better get the revised Amendment before the Committee as early as possible.
§ Mr. NEWTONI do not want to interfere with what has been arranged, but there is one point I should like to have cleared up. The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) referred to the objection of the trade unions to having the fact disclosed to the employer that the employed was a member of their union. I sympathise to a great extent with that objection. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether any other part of this Bill would enable an employer to know that an employed person was a member of a trade union. My own recollection of the Bill is that that would be disclosed under certain circumstances.
§ Amendments made in the proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "bearing the name of such society." Leave out the words "at least monthly for endorsement."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSOn a point of Order. If you look at the Amendment as now proposed, together with the governing words of Clause 7, I would ask you what relevance is there in the Amendment to "regulations provided for in matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this Act"? The point to which I desire to call your attention is that it is only such regulations which can be made. I submit that those words which it is proposed to insert have no reference whatever to the payment or collection of contributions, but deal with an entirely different subject.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI referred to that subject a few minutes ago. All I can say is that it is quite true those words are governed by the earlier words in the Clause. I do not rule this Amendment out 300 of Order on that ground. I leave it to the ingenuity of hon. Members, if they can, to-show that there is a connection, but I will not allow argument on other reasons than such as show that this is necessary as a matter incidental to the payment and collection of contributions.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThe point raised by the Attorney-General does not really appear to be a relevant one. The Commissioners are to make regulations and in particular they are to make regulations for the payment and entry of contributions. We all know as a matter of fact that at the present time payment is made at meetings of the friendly societies and this proposal only carries out the present system. The rules should include the matters dealt with at the present time at meetings of friendly societies. I would point out that a rule when made at present has to be laid before the Registrar of Friendly Societies for approval, and that it is not an easy thing to alter a rule or to have a new rule made. I think it is better that these matters should be dealt with by regulations, and preferably by regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners. I was asked whether this Amendment was moved on behalf of the friendly societies. I desire-to draw attention to the fact that the Amendment is one of those drafted by the Amendments Committee of the Manchester Unity. It received the approval of all the delegates who attended the large meeting held at Brighton, and it is in the name of the Manchester Unity and others that I move it.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHI hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock) spoke as though the members of friendly societies were the only people to be considered in this matter. If the Amendment were passed, what would become of the members of the great trade unions of the country? They have large memberships and I ask how are they to go on on trade union basis if this proposal were accepted. I do not suppose that any societies in the world are better looked after in this respect than the trade unions, and I think they can be relied upon to see that their members are safeguarded. The proposed Amendment would be practically impossible to work.
§ Amendment negatived.