§ This Act may be cited as the National Insurance Act, 1911, and shall, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, come into operation on the first day of May, 1912.
§ Mr. PETOI beg to move, after the word "and" ["and shall"], to insert the words "the provisions contained in Part I. of this Act."
The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the date at which the Bill will come into operation as an Act of Parliament. There is a consequential Amendment at the end to the effect that "the provisions contained in Part II. of this Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen." My object in putting down these Amendments is to delay the operation of the Act as far as the unemployed section is concerned by one year, in order to obviate committing what, I think, would be undoubtedly a very great injustice in the case of all contracts for works—building contracts and engineering contracts—entered into, the tenders for which were made without any provision or allowance whatever for the payment of the unemployment contribution on the part of the employer. At first sight the Committee may think that 466 this is a comparatively small matter. But the trades included are eminently trades in which great contracts are entered into, some of them extending over one or two years, or more. On these an enormous number of men are employed, and it is perfectly obvious that, if no provision whatever is made for the extra 2½d. per week on the wage of every employé, it must make a material difference to the financial result of the contract. This is not a question of imposing any burden on industry. It is simply a plain question whether it is just and right on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill into this House and to pass it through with the rapidity with which this Bill is being got through, so that it shall come into operation at a date when it will vitally affect contracts which have already been entered into between one subject and another in this country. It seems to me that if there is any hardship in postponing the operation of the unemployment Clauses it must be infinitely less than the injustice which would be done if the Bill were allowed to come into operation, as far as this particular part is concerned, on 1st May, 1912. I think, at any rate, the postponement is the lesser evil of the two, if it is an evil at all. I may point this out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Undoubtedly a Bill of this magnitude, 467 consisting of three parts and of all these Schedules, will take an enormous amount of study on the part of the millions of people who will come under its operation. I do not think it would be any disadvantage, from the point of view of the employed persons themselves, if they had a year given to them to digest Part I. before they were compelled to swallow Part II. I think it would tend to the smooth working of the Act, and it would be easier to arrange for the choosing of the best men to fill the new posts under this Bill than if you had only the brief period of five or six months in which to select a large number of new State officials. I believe it would be for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of good government to divide the measure, so far as the date of its coming into operation is concerned, into two parts. Let the country get accustomed to it, and let the uninsured persons get thoroughly accustomed to what they have to do in regard to sickness insurance, before they have to go into the questions raised by the Unemployment Clauses.
§ Mr. FORSTERI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to accept an Amendment postponing the date of the commencement of the whole Act to such a period as will meet the objection of my hon. Friend with regard to Part II. There are a number of Amendments proposing that the operation of the Act shall begin on 1st January, 1913. That is the date my hon. Friend suggests for the commencement of Part II. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in an earlier Debate that he would have to postpone the commencement of the Act from 1st May next until some later date, which he was not able to specify at the moment. If he were able now to say that he would postpone the commencement of the Act until 1st January, 1913, it would meet some of the objections my hon. Friend takes to the Clause. It would give the country as a whole more time to understand the Bill, and it would give the societies and the Insurance Commissioners more time in which to frame their schemes, and, on the whole, I think it would make for the smooth working of the Act.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI could not accept this Amendment postponing Part II. until 1st January, 1913, for a reason which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will 468 recognise to be a very forcible one. It is very important that provision for unemployment should be built up during the time that trade is comparatively good. One never knows how long trade will remain in its present prosperous condition. There are cycles in trade, and ups and downs in business in the history of every country, and it is almost impossible to predict when the up grade will come to an end and when the down grade will begin. At any rate, it is far better that we should begin at once to build up the fund for unemployment as against the day when the fund will be required, and when it will probably have to stand a much heavier strain than it would in the time of comparative prosperity. I agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster), that it may be well to consider a further postponement from May of the whole Bill, but I hope he will not press me to postpone it so far as January, 1913. It is a question entirely of the time that will be needed to make arrangements. I am advised it will be possible to do it by July of next year, but I am taking a little further time to consider the matter, and by the time we reach the Report stage I hope to put down an Amendment on the subject.
§ Mr. PETOWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept an Amendment on Part II. excepting existing contracts?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWe have to consider two important matters. One is that, assuming that a scheme like this is to receive the sanction of Parliament, everybody would like it to come into operation as soon as it conveniently can, because, if we have a good thing, the sooner it comes into operation the better. What is to be said against that is that this Bill, divided as it is in two parts, one dealing with the compulsory national insurance and the other with unemployment, will undoubtedly cause a very considerable dislocation of existing arrangements. There are vast interests in the country who require to alter to a very large extent the arrangements that they have now got, so as to meet the provisions of the Bill. Personally, I think it might have been possible to have got the insurance portion of these arrangements—I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that respect—completed by the 1st July. But I believe that would be all that could possibly be done. I am in touch with a variety of people who are interested in 469 the putting into operation of the insurance part of this Bill. These people tell me that they will have a great many alterations to make and a great deal of new machinery to put into operation, but I should have thought that it would be possible to get it done by 1st July. Amongst other things it must be remembered that there is a large number of societies which are carrying on business of this class who have been making an effort to do two things: first of all altering a large portion of their existing arrangements in order to comply with the general scope of the Bill, and, secondly, large numbers of them would be endeavouring to raise their members to whatever may be the prescribed limit; and it is essential in order to prevent dislocation of business that this should be done in a proper way, and that these large interested parties should have an opportunity of doing it properly. I believe it is possible that it may be done by the 1st July. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is much better able to form an opinion on that subject than I am, and I think we might very comfortably leave it in his hands to make inquiries and satisfy himself that these things can be done and the machinery perfected by the date at which he proposes, on Report, that the insurance portion of the Bill should come into operation.
But there is another point. With regard to the Unemployment Clauses, if a legislative remedy is really arrived at, every one will join at once and say, let us endeavour to bring that into operation as soon as possible. What is the position? We have been told by the Mover of the Amendment, and it is perfectly true, that there are vast contracts and sub-contracts at present in course of being carried out for the supply of material for great works running into enormous figures. Immediately this Bill comes into operation it will make a distinct difference in the terms and conditions upon which that business can be done, and it is obvious that if by Statute you impose conditions which alter the circumstances under which people have taken contracts and sub-contracts, you are apt to do a great injustice to the parties concerned. This principle has always been safeguarded by Parliament where duties are imposed on articles which have not been previously taxed, or where the rates of duties have been increased or altered, because in all these cases, such as the alteration of the Sugar Duties, it is provided that the amount of the duty should 470 be added on to the price of existing contracts. We cannot do anything of that sort with regard to the Unemployment Clauses of this Bill. We cannot impose on the person for whom the work is being done, or the person who is doing the work, any statutory modifications of the conditions under which the contract has been taken, and therefore it is clear that if we are not to do an injustice to considerable bodies of people we ought not to put these Unemployment Clauses into operation until such a date as it would be reasonable to suppose that, at all events, the bulk of existing contracts had run off. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would listen sympathetically to the suggestion that the unemployment Clauses should come into operation about three months later than the insurance Clauses, that is to say about the 1st October or the end of the year, which would give an opportunity for all these existing contracts to have been substantially complied with, we should have the satisfaction of knowing that in introducing a great measure of this kind we were, at all events in these two directions, not causing an incidental injustice. I shall be pleased if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to make it 1st July with regard to insurance, and the end of the year or some intermediate date with regard to unemployment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, to leave out the word "May" ["on the first day of May"], and to insert instead thereof the word "January."
I do not move this in any captious spirit and it will not in the least endanger the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) used some extremely strong arguments in favour of the postponement of Part II., but his arguments apply a little more strongly to the postponement of Part I. After all, every approved society will have to go in for a certain amount of reorganisation and a great many will have practically to reconstruct themselves from top to bottom. I should think the right hon. Gentleman might take into his serious consideration whether it would not be as well to give six or eight months extra time to this very elaborate and complicated work which will have to be done by every single society which becomes an approved society under the Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI hope the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons I have already indicated, will not press the Amendment at this stage. I should certainly have to 471 resist it. I am in consultation with the authorities as to the difficulties they have to encounter and the time which they must take in order to adjust the conditions of their societies to the new conditions under the Bill. That is the reason why I withdrew my Amendment. I am not in a position to suggest an alternative date at present. I have withdrawn my own, and I could not accept the hon. Gentleman's for the same reason. I hope he will not press the Committee to come to a decision at this stage.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI desire to join with the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp-son) in making a very strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should indicate to us some later date than he has hitherto mentioned for the commencement of the Act. In addition to the societies which have been referred to there are the Holloway societies, which will have to recast their constitution entirely. In addition to that there are a large number of slate clubs throughout the South of England, all of which will not be admitted under this Bill as approved societies, and their members will have to consider what line they will take in order to bring themselves under the provisions of the Bill. This includes a very large number of agricultural labourers. The agricultural classes do not move very fast in these matters. They are a somewhat sporadic population, and they will require an enormous amount of organisation before they will be put in a position to derive full benefit from such an Act of Parliament as this. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is prepared to postpone the commencement from May to July. As regards the class in which I am mainly interested, that will afford no relief whatever to them in the matter of organising their societies, whether themselves joining approved societies or, what is even more important in the country districts, grouping their own village societies within the county group. Between these two months these men are mainly employed in harvesting operations. They have no time whatever to consider such matters as these, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give them some of the autumn and winter months for consideration I am sure very serious injustice will be done to the agricultural population. I most sincerely and, without in any way being captious, make a very strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in justice to 472 the agricultural population, to postpone this for at least a year from the end of this year in order to give full time to enable them to put themselves in the best possible position to derive benefits under the Bill.
§ Mr. BARNESI am sure the Amendment is not put forward in any captions spirit. At the same time I hope it will be withdrawn so that the Chancellor may consider the whole matter without the Amendment being negatived. It would be very damaging to the unemployed part to defer it for any considerable time. Probably before very long we shall have our streets filled with unemployed once more, and shall be in the throes of an unemployed agitation, and it is necessary to get the unemployed part well under way before we are overtaken by that period. Therefore, I should like the unemployed part to come in as speedily as possible consistent with the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford). In regard to Part I., I think there is good ground for a little delay. I should not object to some months' delay. Most of us have to dovetail the machinery of our organisation to fit in with Part I. a much more difficult job than to dovetail Part II. Part II. is comparatively simple, but Part I. will involve a considerable amount of adjustment in our societies. We cannot very well alter our rules in a hurry. As a matter of fact all the societies that I have in my mind will probably convene delegate meetings for next Whitsun. It is almost impossible for them to-do so before then, much as they might desire to do it. The different societies have to call meetings, take votes, see their members, put forward projects for the alteration of their rules, and so on, and I believe they cannot hold their delegate meetings before Whitsun. That will be well into May. As the Bill now stands 1st May, 1912, is the date, and if that were passed, this measure would probably have become an Act, and would be in operation before we could adjust our societies in the way of bringing about the changed conditions which must be brought about. For my own part I am quite content with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has all these things in his mind. He will no doubt be conferring with the people who are concerned in these matters before the Bill finally becomes an Act, and I am quite sure that he will endeavour to fit in the date to suit the convenience of those who are coming under the Act. Therefore I 473 think it would be far better that the Amendment should be withdrawn, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hand free.
§ Mr. FORSTERI think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us an assurance that he only desires to meet the wishes of the friendly societies and other people who will have to perform the difficult work of bringing the Act into operation. He told us that he withdrew his Amendment which postponed the date from 1st May to 1st July because he was persuaded that that period was not long enough for the postponement. I want to make a very strong appeal to him. We want to put the date off until the end of the year, while the right hon. Gentleman does not want to put it off beyond the beginning of July. Can we compromise and make it October? That will give three months more. It will give people longer time to alter their rules, and to make their schemes and arrangements. There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said. It will be Whitsuntide before the societies can arrange to meet. Many of the societies will not be able to meet before Whitsuntide, and they will not have an opportunity before then of really considering the full bearing of the changes which the Act involves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to meet us to the extent I have suggested.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGESpeaking as the Chancellor of the Exchequer I would say that, of course, the longer it is postponed the better I ought to be pleased. I will consider October as one of the alternative dates which might be adopted. If you make it January your benefits would begin in July. Well, the summer months is not the time to do that. If you make it October, you will begin the benefits at a time when they are not heavy. When I decided for July I had in view that the benefits would begin to flow in at the beginning of winter. I think the friendly societies have to bear in mind not merely the convenience of the officials of these organisations, though that, of course, must be taken into account; they must also bear in mind the individual members of the societies, and whether they can come into the enjoyment of the arrangements made for them at the beginning of winter. I am not pressing at this moment that July should be the date, but I would rather not make up my mind until I have heard a great deal more from the societies upon 474 the subject. I am only making this appeal that they should rather go to some inconvenience in order to let the benefits come in at the beginning of winter. Once it gets on to the summer months, there is not the same call for a fund of this kind. I know the difficulties are great, but there must be on the part of those concerned a desire not to have unnecessary delay. When a Bill of this kind comes into operation exceptional circumstances arise, and in this case the societies have to adapt themselves to them. It is in the interests of the unions to begin business at once as soon as the Act is through. I do ask them to bear in mind the interests of the millions who are coming into the fund, hundreds of thousands of whom will stand in need of this fund. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, as well as those who represent the trade unions, to remember that we will endeavour to find a solution which will work satisfactorily to those concerned. The date suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Forster) is one of the alternatives I have myself considered.
§ Mr. GRETTONI think there is a great deal in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. It seems to me, however, that if his argument was carried to its logical conclusion he would bring the Act into operation either in March next year or in March, 1913. I think, on the whole, it would be advisable not to carry the Amendment to a Division, but I should like to say that, though the right hon. Gentleman is consulting with the great organised societies in this country, he has not been able to consult the smaller societies scattered throughout the country—societies which are not organised, but which, nevertheless, represent a very large number of persons indeed. If their convenience is not seriously considered in this matter they will not be satisfied. It is desirable that they should be able to organise themselves under the scheme of the Bill into county associations, and it is, I understand, intended that they should have an opportunity of availing themselves of such an arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman can only get these matters explained to him by those Members who are in close touch with the question and whose duty it is to urge it upon his attention. In the case of many of the small societies in the country the aspects of the Bill have changed so constantly that the persons who have to undertake the management of these societies are absolutely bewildered. They do not know how 475 they stand at the present moment, and they will not know until the Bill passes its Report stage, and they will then have to begin to get actuarial advice. I think on the whole we shall be well advised to leave this matter an open question, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give time upon the Report stage, so that it may come before the consideration of the House.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe smaller the proportion of the Post Office contributors and the larger the number of the general people who join the approved societies the better. If you force this through at an early date you will do so before large numbers of people who would leave the class of Post Office depositors and become incorporated with the approved societies would have an opportunity of doing so. The right hon. Gentleman should give sufficient time not only to the approved societies to reorganise, but also to make a supreme effort up and down the country to have as few Post Office depositors as possible. If the period is too short, it may have the effect of leaving a much larger proportion of the people as Post Office depositors than would be desirable.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONAs the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consult the friendly societies, and if possible to postpone this Clause for three months in view of that promise, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.