Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the interest taken by Members in the questions and answers relative to the National Insurance Bill and other matters now before the House and of the facilities for reference thereto afforded by a weekly index to questions such as was issued last Session, he will take steps to have a similar index again published?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe weekly index to questions and answers issued last Session was discontinued at the request of the Select Committee on Publications owing to the costliness of its production and the small use made of it by Members. The average cost of the Index was £7 15s. 0d. per week, and the number supplied to Members requiring it averaged eleven copies per issue. I will, however, consult the Committee on the subject of an index for Insurance Questions. I cannot, however, hold out much hope of giving it.
§ Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the important questions daily addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the National Insurance Bill, he will give instructions that on certain clays the questions shall be so placed on the Order Paper as to ensure the certainty of their being reached?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I will consider if anything can be done.
§ Mr. BOOTHIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that both on Wednesday and Thursday questions finished at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was approaching very interesting questions?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt does not rest with me, but with the officers of the House.
§ Mr. CAMPIONasked whether, under the National Insurance Bill, an employer would be obliged to contribute on behalf of an employé paid partly by regular 1621 salary and partly by commission where the salary was less than £160 per annum, but the combined income from salary and commission considerably in excess of that amount?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)The intention is to exclude the employer from liability in such cases.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the probability that an effect of the passing of the National Insurance Bill may be to deprive of their employment and livelihood many thousands of agents of the smaller collecting societies and industrial assurance companies; and what provision he proposes to make to protect these persons from undeserved hardship and loss?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Aston Manor last Wednesday. There is not the slightest interference in this Bill with the work of the collecting societies or their agents.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in addition to submitting the draft schemes, then in two parts, for the National Insurance Bill to the leaders of the Labour party, he also gave the leaders of other parties in this House an opportunity of seeing them; and whether it was the result of representations on the part of the Labour party that the schemes were consolidated into one Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe draft schemes were submitted to the Leader of the Liberal party in his capacity of Prime Minister, and not to the Leader of any other party in the House. The Government decided that the most satisfactory method of dealing-with the question was to combine the whole National Insurance Scheme in one Bill.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEDid any representative of any other parties see the draft scheme, and will the right hon. Gentleman say what it was that decided the Government to incorporate the unemployment scheme with the insurance scheme, and make it one scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWith regard to the first part of the question I have already answered it. No representative of 1622 any party ever saw the draft scheme, except, of course, the Leader of the Liberal party. With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot enter into a matter which is a subject of Debate.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether federations of employers and representatives of insurance companies and other interests had an opportunity of seeing the draft schemes of the National Insurance Bill, as well as the representatives of the Labour party and certain friendly societies, before the Bill was submitted to this House?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe draft Bill was not shown to representatives of any of the bodies named, though particular proposals in the Bill were from time to time confidentially communicated to persons with special experience whom it was thought desirable to consult.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEMay we take it that those people who say they saw the draft scheme are not declaring the facts of the case?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes.
§ Mr. BARNESasked if the correct interpretation of Clause 62 of the Insurance Bill is that an unemployed person shall be deprived of the benefits if he should refuse to accept work at wages which were not above those which he had been earning or if lie should refuse to accept work at current rates of wages; whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that in some trades young men up to twenty-three or twenty-four years of age are paid at a progressive rate of wages, and that current rates of wages are at some places below trade union rates of wages; and, seeing that, therefore, the interpretation in question would deprive in some cases trade union members of the benefits unless such members broke through the standard conditions of their trades, will lie state what steps he proposes to take to prevent this result?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton, for Mr. Lloyd George)My hon. Friend's interpretation of the effect of Clause 62 requires one important qualification. The Clause in question does not allow the benefit of a workman to be stopped on account of his refusing to accept work in the district in which he resides at a rate of wages lower than the rate which he has been habitually 1623 earning. This qualification will, I think, meet my hon. Friend's difficulty as regards members of trade unions earning the standard trade-union rates. As regards youths paid at a progressive rate, the point raised has not escaped my notice, but, as at present advised, I am disposed to doubt if it is necessary to make any special provision in the matter. I shall, however, always be glad to receive and consider any representations which my hon. Friend may care to make on the subject.
§ Mr. BARNESasked if it is intended, under the Insurance Bill, that the sick person over sixty years of age who has contributed for 104 weeks, and who is to be paid 5s. per week as per schedule for twenty-six weeks, will still be paid another 5s. per week thereafter as disablement benefit as long as he remains ill up to the age of seventy?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, Sir. Clause 9 (3) of the Bill only has the effect of reducing sickness benefit and does not modify the right of persons in the circumstances described to disablement benefit.