§ Mr. CASSELasked whether approved societies will be able to reject women as members; and, if so, whether it is contemplated that there should be separate 1988 societies for women only, or that women should become Post Office contributors?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is not proposed in any way in the Bill to interfere with the free right of association now enjoyed by men and women.
§ Mr. CASSELasked whether approved societies will be precluded from giving death or burial benefits or from applying any surplus arising from insurance under the Act in giving or increasing death or burial benefits?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEApproved societies will not be precluded from giving death or burial benefits outside the State scheme, but they will not be able to apply a surplus arising from insurance under the Bill in that manner, since such a surplus can only be applied to the additional benefits prescribed.
§ Mr. CASSELIs it the case that under the Bill it would be possible to apply any surplus arising from insurance under the Act in the way indicated in the question?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, I do not think so. Certainly that is not contemplated, and if the hon. Member is able to point out that that is the interpretation which would be put on the words of the Bill by a court of law, I will accept an Amendment to make the intention of the Government perfectly clear.
§ Mr. BOOTHWill the right hon. Gentleman include a specific proviso in the Bill so as to put the matter beyond all doubt?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly, I will. The Government are distinctly pledged not to do anything to subsidise the death benefits. If that is not clear on the face of the Bill we will certainly accept an Amendment which will make it clear.
§ Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he hopes to include in the list of approved societies such dividing friendly societies as can conform to the other conditions of approval but by their constitution are required to repay annually to their members the sums saved?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, Sir; provided sums saved out of the funds received for the insurance under the Bill are dealt with in the manner prescribed by the Bill.
§ Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a considerable number of friendly societies 1989 with substantial memberships exist for the benefit mainly of such industrial classes as are not reached by the large accumulating societies; and whether he proposes to make use of their services in the administration of the National Insurance scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for the Wilton division last Wednesday.
§ Mr. BOOTHasked whether the words "its funds" in line 2 of Section 18, Subsection (2) (ii.), of the National Insurance Bill refer solely to the funds contributed under and for the purposes of that Bill and which stand to the credit of the approved society with the Insurance Commissioners?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe words do not refer solely to funds contributed for the purposes of the Bill. The sub-clause is intended to exclude from approval profit-making societies or companies, unless they form a subsidiary society for the purpose of the Bill, the funds of which will be available exclusively for the benefit of its members and for expenses of management.
§ Mr. BOOTHMay I ask whether the scheme is to apply to existing societies entirely or whether it will also apply to societies which may be formed?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhat is really important is that the funds should be kept separate. The funds must be kept separate, and must not. be used for the purpose of increasing the profits of any outside concern. Apart from that, I do not see any objection to it.
§ Mr. BOOTHasked whether it is sufficient to secure approval that a society in Ireland should have only 5,000 members; and, if so, whether he can accord the same privileges to societies in Great Britain of the same size?
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that numbers of workmen are members of friendly societies having less than 10,000 members, but otherwise actuarily sound; and whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the membership basis as a test for admission as approved societies, prividing that in all other respects such societies comply with the conditions governing admission as approved societies?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will answer these two questions together. I will, of course, consider any suggestion put forward in reference to numbers.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether friendly societies working on the Holloway system, which do not divide their surplus funds among their Members every year but apportion them to the credit of their individual members according to their shares, will under the National Insurance Bill come within the category of dividing societies?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think these societies will find no difficulty in adapting their constitution by establishing a branch which conforms to the conditions required by the Bill, while maintaining, if they choose, a separate branch on the deposit system.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs the right, hon. Gentleman aware that under their constitution members at the age of sixty-five can withdraw their portion of the invested fund?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt would be quite inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill that a fund personally raised should be withdrawn at any period. The money must be there for the purpose of paying the benefits under the Bill, otherwise actuarily the whole thing would break down.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the apportioning of the surplus funds is the very essence of societies working under the Holloway system?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere is nothing to prevent them conducting their ordinary business, while at the same time conducting the business which the State is anxious to organise under the Bill.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in the case of the large registered friendly societies possessing a considerable amount of accumulated capital, to which past members have unselfishly and loyally contributed, the new members brought in under the National Insurance Bill will share in any additional benefits to which it is proposed to apply such capital, or whether the enjoyment thereof will be confined to the existing members by whose voluntary thrift it has been accumulated and in whose interest it has been invested?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAny scheme under Clause 55 would naturally apply the accumulated funds for the benefit of existing members.
§ Mr. BARNESasked whether in such cases as that of a person who is a member of more than one friendly society, or of a friendly society and a trade union, each of which is qualified for a registration as an approved society for the purposes of the sick insurance under the Insurance Bill, such person will have the option of choosing through which of the societies or union, as the case may be, he may receive the sick benefit?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. BARNESMay I inquire whether the answer would still be in the affirmative if I included the sick fund or the superannuation fund?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer is in that the hon. Member should put down a question of that sort, because questions of interpretation are really very important, and I should consider them before replying.
§ Mr. BARNESasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that persons over sixty-five years of age are excluded from the benefits of the Insurance Bill, will favourably consider such an alteration as would enable them to pay while working or able to pay and to charge the fund with the payment of 5s. per week till reaching the age of seventy of such of them who may be medically certified as permanently disabled, and who comply otherwise with the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have considered proposals for giving benefits to persons over sixty-five at the commencement of the Act, but I find that the cost would be so great as to throw an undue burden on the other contributors.
§ Mr. BARNESWill the right hon. Gentleman ascertain to what extent and for how many years the liability would fall on the fund? My impression is that it would be only two or three years.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the experience of the friendly societies, that sickness between sixty and sixty-five extends over a considerable period, so that 1992 the inclusion of persons over sixty-five would be prohibitive when we are taking this up for the first time. If you begin by including persons over sixty-five, that would simply break down the fund.
§ Mr. REMNANTHas the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the number affected between sixty-five and seventy, and of the cost which their inclusion would involve?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have not an estimate of the cost. So far as I remember, the number affected would be hundreds of thousands. This is not really a small matter. We were really sorry to cut them out, and we did it very reluctantly. On the actuarial advice we got, it was believed that it would be almost prohibitive.
§ Mr. BARNESasked if, in the event of a trade union receiving approval and becoming an approved society under the National Insurance Bill, such trade union would, by the provisions of Section 18, Sub-section (2), paragraph (ii), be precluded from making grants of money to other unions or persons as hitherto, or if benefits under this Act or not means only provident benefits?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not intended to put a restricted meaning upon the word "benefits."
§ Mr. BARNESAre trade union benefits to be included in this prohibition?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo part of the funds raised or paid under the Act can be used for any other purposes save the purposes of the Act. Money so raised or contributed could not be used, for instance, to organise trade unions.
§ Mr. BARNESThe right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. What I mean is will a society be prevented from becoming an approved society if it gives certain of its moneys to workers other than its own workers, because trade unions do that now? Would that preclude trade unions from becoming approved societies?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly that is not the intention, and I do not think that would be the proper interpretation of the words of the Act.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASIt would be sufficient for any trade union to keep the funds separate to meet the requirements for approved societies?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat would be absolutely essential. It is very essential that the money compulsorily collected and the money which the State contributes should be used for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, and certainly I would not accept any proposition that would enable that fund to be used for any other purpose. Therefore, from the point of view of book-keeping they must be kept separate.
§ Mr. A. HENDERSONWill the union be left with power to do what it chooses with the remainder of its funds?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes. That is the principle on which we go. We do not propose to interfere with either friendly societies or trade unions in so far as regards the funds which they have collected voluntarily in the past or which they may collect voluntarily in the future.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. We do not propose to interfere at all with any funds they have got which they have collected for the purposes of their own business. We are only taking these great powers in reference to the funds which they compulsorily collect under the Act or the funds which under the Act we are granting out of the Treasury.
§ Mr. BARNESasked if the committees contemplated in Section 2 and following sections of Clause 21 of the National Insurance Bill are to be committees special to the administration of the benefits under the Bill, or if the existing committees, if otherwise fulfilling the conditions to be imposed, may add the new duties to those already performed by them?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEExisting committees will be able to add the new duties to those already performed by them.
§ Mr. BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that some societies which may become approved societies under the National Insurance Bill either equalise their funds annually to their branches on a basis of membership or make themselves liable to remit to their branches when the funds in such branches are insufficient to meet the claims arising; and if, in such cases, this practice be continued it will be unnecessary to provide for separate valuation of branch assets and liabilities as provided for in Clause 29; 1994 and if he will state from what source the cost of the separate valuation of the many thousand branches of approved societies is to be met, i.e., from the insurance fund or from the Treasury apart from such fund?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the accounts of a society are centralised it will only be necessary to make a valuation of the central fund. The Government will bear the cost of valuations.
§ Mr. BARNESWill the right hon. Gentleman interpret a centralised fund as a fund which is spread over the branches but for which the central office is responsible to the branches, that is to say, a fund which is centralised once a year?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think that I could now go into a question which has not yet been dealt with as a matter of interpretation. I might mention that there are two very distinct classes of societies—societies like the Hearts of Oak—which is purely a centralised one, with all the funds going to a centre and with responsibility attaching to the central authority, and societies like the Foresters and Oddfellows, whose liability is local, and whose branches have separate accounts. The hon. Gentleman has asked me about some arrangement between, and I would rather not express an opinion.
§ Mr. BARNESThere is this third class of societies in which the fund is spread over the branches, but in which the central office is responsible for the liabilities of the branches?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the funds are separately kept and separately administered, I should say that there should be separate valuation.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASThere are socities with which the funds are centralised, but the branches are allowed a certain proportion?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI would rather not express an opinion.
§ Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked what payments will be required of the employer under the Invalidity Insurance Bill in respect of half-timers and home-workers whose remuneration may vary from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per week?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn half-timers (as being under twenty-one) the employer would pay 3d. On home-workers, if within 1995 the scheduled trades and if over twenty-one, the employer would pay 6d. for a man, 5d. for a woman, if they were earning the weekly wages mentioned.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will delay the publication of the actuarial calculations forecasting the number of persons who will come within the scope of the National Insurance Bill until the returns of the new Census, giving the numbers of persons who are employers, employed, or working on their own account; and when such Census returns will be available for the purposes of making such calculations?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe returns to which the hon. Member refers will probably not be available for twelve months, and it would, of course, be out of the question to await them.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe had to get the best assistance we could on the question of estimates, but it is purely an estimate. We could not rely on the figures.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. When the actuarial tables are produced, as I hope they will be on Monday or Tuesday next, my hon. Friend will find that all these estimates are included.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the local health committees proposed to be established in the National Insurance Bill will be so constituted that they will be able, if Parliament thinks fit, to take over the other duties dealing with public health in addition to those imposed on them in the National Insurance Bill, so that the whole of the public health service may be unified?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot say what conditions Parliament may think necessary for such a measure of unification. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the insured persons will be directly represented by a majority of the local health committee.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether under the National Insurance Bill, in the absence of the provision by an 1996 employer of board, the occupation of a cottage rent free or at an uneconomic rent will be taken into account in reckoning the weekly contribution of an agricultural labourer to the health insurance fund; and, if so, on what basis will the annual value of such premises be arrived at; and whether any payments in kind or periodical allowances will be taken into account?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It would not be possible to lay down general rules as to the calculation of the daily value of a cottage or of payments in kind in such a case.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Bill the words "board and lodging" are used, and not "board or lodging," and if so, will there not have to be an Amendment?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think that is rather a different proposition. Where there is board and lodging then the scale does not apply at all, but where a cottage is part of a man's wages it might apply. It depends entirely upon the value you attach to the cottage. "Board and lodging" is totally different.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTIn nine cases out of ten in agricultural districts the wage does not represent the remuneration which a man receives for his work?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes. In Wales, for instance, they get board and lodging, but in some cases there is a cottage. That will be taken into account, and it may very well put the farmer outside the reach of the scale.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the Chancellor whether the friendly societies from which ho received information paid sick benefit from the first day of sickness?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe practice of friendly societies in this respect varies.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether workmen who are members of two approved societies, membership of one of which is compulsory as a condition of employment, will be allowed to choose which of the two societies shall receive the State grant under the insurance scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, Sir.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASasked which friendly societies do not pay sick benefit 1997 to members receiving weekly or lump sum compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and which societies take into consideration, in deciding the amount of sick benefit to be paid to any member whose bonâ fide claim to benefit from such society is beyond question, any amounts he may be receiving as sick benefit from any other friendly society?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere are variations in the practice not only of societies but of lodges of the same society. Since the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act there has been a considerable movement towards restricting the grant of sickness benefit in cases where a member is receiving compensation.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether railway companies' friendly and superannuation societies, membership of which is compulsory as a condition of employment by the companies, and also other railway companies' societies membership of which is not compulsory, whose solvency depends upon subsidies by the companies by agreement and with no statutory obligation, will be eligible for admission as approved societies under the terms of the. National Insurance Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI must refer the hon. Member to Clause 19 of the Bill. It does not appear that the eligibility of a society for approval would be affected by circumstances such as those referred to in the question. I may add that a member leaving such a society and joining any other approved society would be entitled to carry with him from the first society to the second the sum representing the accumulations actuarially ascertained as appropriate to his age.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is purely a book-keeping transaction. If a person leaves one society and joins another, then there will be placed to his credit in the new society the amount that can be actuarially ascertained.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the advisability of paying through the Treasury the workmen's contributions of all persons employed in any occupation by either an employer or charitable society who are blind?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEUnder the Bill blind persons in employment are liable to contribute in the ordinary way. I am afraid I do not see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consulted any representatives of the medical profession with regard to the provisions of the National Insurance Bill affecting doctors; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence or information given by the medical profession with reference to the medical part of the scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI consulted several representatives of the profession, and received a deputation from the British Medical Association. I do not propose to lay any correspondence before the House.
§ Mr. LYNCHMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take into consideration that a loss of something like 30 per cent. will fall upon many hard working practitioners under the present scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot see how a loss of 30 per cent. can fall upon these practitioners, seeing that I am providing an increase of at least 50 per cent. in their pay.
§ Mr. LYNCHWill the right hon. Gentleman care to look over some figures which I shall have the honour to submit to him from representatives of the practitioners?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. I shall be very happy to consider any figures bearing on the subject.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not know that they have applied, but if they are anxious to meet me I shall be very happy to talk the matter over with them.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether, in the actuarial calculations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to lay upon the Table dealing with the National Insurance Bill, he will furnish an estimate showing the comparative expenditure per head of insured persons of the principal friendly societies, and his proposed scheme upon fees for medical attendance and medicine?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAs to the former point, the materials for an exact estimate are not available. The actuarial calculations will show the amount made available 1999 for medical attendance, and for the provision of drugs under the Government scheme.
§ Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether the German employers who have satisfied him that the effect of the new scheme for providing against sickness and unemployment will be to reduce cost of production have produced to him any and, if any, what figures of prime cost or figures of average output per man in justification of their assertions?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt would, I fear, be quite impossible to make a statistical comparison of the character suggested, but I do not think the opinions of the German employers carry any the less weight on that account.
§ Mr. G. TERRELLWill the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small expert committee to go into this question, which is of very great importance to employers?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOf course I agree that it is of very great importance, but, after all, there have been twenty years of experience, and the information is easily accessible to anyone. I believe that a committee has been appointed by the other side to make inquiries, and I have made similar inquiries, the result of which I propose to put before the House.
§ Mr. G. TERRELLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a tax of 5½d. Is of benefit and good for the employer, a tax of half-a-crown per head would not he much better still?
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYHas not insurance for sickness been in operation in Germany for a generation, and during that period has not the cost of production fallen considerably?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is so. All the German employers I communicated with, I think without exception, have answered that the increased efficiency of work is largely attributable to insurance for sickness; but, of course, it is not entirely due to sick insurance.
§ Mr. GILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 67 of the National Insurance Bill, he can give any examples of trades which will be deemed ancillary only to the building trades, and which will be 2000 excluded from joining the scheme and drawing unemployed benefit?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)Without anticipating the precise decisions at which the Board of Trade may arrive after considering the whole circumstances of each trade, I may perhaps instance such occupations as carmen, watchmen, and messengers as ancillary only to the building trades within the meaning of Clause 67 (1) (a) i.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWould a trade such as the sawmills trade or similar occupations come under the head of building?
§ Mr. BUXTONWould the hon. Gentleman kindly give me notice, as I would rather not answer the question now.
§ Mr. GILLasked whether under Section 70 of the National Insurance Bill, an employer, in order to insure his workmen by paying in advance the contribution at a reduced rate, will be required to pay for the whole of his workmen, or whether he may pay the reduced rate for a portion of his workmen, and the weekly rate for the remainder; and if he will be required to give the names of such workmen for whom he pays, whether on one plan or the other?
§ Mr. BUXTONUnder the Bill an employer will be entitled to pay contributions at the reduced rate in respect either of all his workmen or of any portion of them, paying at the ordinary weekly rate for the remainder. As it is anticipated that affixing the composition stamp to the workman's book or card the question of giving the names of such workmen will not arise.
§ Mr. W. R. PEELIs the whole sum payable in advance?
§ Mr. BUXTONFor these compositions it is payable in advance for the whole year.
§ Mr. GILLasked if, under Section 63 of the National Insurance Bill, a workman who has been on strike or locked out owing to a trade dispute, and is not allowed to start work at the termination of the dispute, will be entitled to draw unemployed benefit?
§ Mr. BUXTONA workman who loses employment through a strike or lock-out to which he is a party will not be entitled to draw unemployment benefit while the 2001 strike or lock-out lasts. The disqualification will cease on the termination of the dispute, whether or not the workman is allowed to start work.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask what importance he attaches to the words, "dispute to which he is a party." Does he mean to convey that if the man is locked out in consequence of a dispute to which he is not a party that he will receive benefit?
§ Mr. BUXTONI would sooner have had notice, in order to put the answer in accurate language. The point is, where a workman is himself directly interested in a strike or lock-out—that is to say, one of the men who is either striking or locked out—so long as that lasts he will not receive unemployed benefit. If he belongs to a trade which has been affected by a strike or lock-out, and therefore is unemployed in consequence, although he may not himself be directly concerned, he will continue to receive unemployed benefit.
§ Mr. GILLasked upon what data the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that one-tenth of the receipts for unemployed insurance is the correct amount to cover management expenses, as provided for in Clause 65 of the National Insurance Bill?
§ Mr. BUXTONThis estimate, which is necessarily only approximate is based on the best information in the possession of my advisers, together with such experience as is available as to the cost of administration of various forms of insurance, including the experience of trade unions and friendly societies. If, however, the cost should prove to be less than 10 per cent. it will be to the advantage of the fund.
§ Mr. GILLasked if, under Clause 71 of the National Insurance Bill, a workman who is fully employed at the age of sixty Tears may receive the balance of the contributions which he has paid over and above what he may have drawn as unemployed benefit, together with interest, although he has no intention of giving up his employment; and, if so, whether he will still be required to contribute and again become eligible for drawing benefit when he conies out of work?
§ Mr. BUXTONUnder the Bill as drafted, if a workman at the age of sixty elects to draw out the balance of his con- 2002 tributions with interest, although he intends to continue working at the trade, he will be free to do so. In that case he will, of course, still be liable to contribute, and will be eligible to draw benefit within the limits of the scheme. I am considering whether in that event the number of weeks' contributions standing to his credit for the purpose of limiting his claim to benefit ought to be reduced, and, if so, in what proportion, and I should welcome any expression of views from my hon. Friend on this point.
§ Mr. GILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under Section 64 of the National Insurance Bill, the insurance officers would be officials of the Labour Exchanges; if he could state how many such officers were to be appointed; and what would be the qualifications for such office?
§ Mr. BUXTONInsurance officers will be officials of the Board of Trade, but I cannot at present say how many will be required. My hon. Friend will, I think, be able to form his own opinion as to the requisite qualifications from the nature of the duties to be performed. Among the most essential qualifications would be neutrality and impartial judgment.
§ Mr. BUXTONThe extension of Labour Exchanges will depend on the demand in various places. We are extending them from time to time now.