§ (1) Regulations made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the principal Act may incorporate the joint committee constituted under that section.
§ (2) All documents issued before the commencement of this Act by the joint committee, either alone or jointly with any of the bodies of Insurance Commissioners appointed for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act shall be deemed to have been validly issued if issued under a seal purporting to be the seal of the joint committee, or under the hands of any four or more of the members of the committee countersigned by the secretary or clerk to the joint committee.
§ (3) The Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, as amended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1882, shall apply to each of the said several bodies of Insurance Commissioners, and to the said joint committee, as if each of those bodies and the joint committee were included in the first column of the Schedule to the first mentioned Act, and the chairman or any other member or the secretary or clerk, or any person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary or clerk, of the body or committee, were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule, and as if the 3039 regulations referred to in those Acts included any document issued by any of those bodies or that committee.
§ Mr. THOMASI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1) and to insert instead thereof, the following Sub-section:—
(1) So much of Sections eighty, eighty-one, and eighty-two of the principal Act as provides for the constitution of Commissioners for the purposes of that Act for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, shall cease to have effect, and among the persons appointed to be Insurance Commissioners under Section fifty-seven of the principal Act there shall be included at least three persons specially qualified by knowledge of the local circumstances of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively, and there shall be established branch offices of the Insurance Commissioners in Edinburgh, Dublin, and Cardiff." The object of this Amendment is, shortly, to abolish the four sets of Commissioners. That may appear a tall order.
§ Mr. BOOTHI do not want to prevent this question coming on, but I would like it to come on in the most convenient way. The hon. Member admits that it is a very far-reaching Amendment. I should have thought it would have been better for it to be considered by itself rather than as an interpolation here. I do not want to raise it as a point of order, but I do not know whether the hon. Member would prefer to raise the matter now, or in some more definite way, so that it could be considered on its merits.
§ The CHAIRMANI have considered that point, especially with regard to the hon. Member's Amendment. If I ruled this Amendment out of order, I do not think I could rule the next one out of order [proposing the transfer to the Joint Committee constituted under Section 83 of the Principal Act, the powers and duties of the several bodies of Insurance Commissioners]. I think it would be convenient to take the discussion here, on the proposal to leave out Subsection (1).
§ Mr. FORSTERI understood you to say that the Amendment properly in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester.
§ The CHAIRMANI said, as proof that this Amendment was not out of order, that if the hon. Member would look at the next Amendment he would admit that that was in order; therefore, I considered that that fact qualified the two.
§ Mr. THOMASThe object of this Amendment is to abolish the four separate sets of Commissioners. I well remember that in the discussions during the passage of the principal Act it was the clear impression of everyone, and especially of the Government, that these separate sets of Commissioners would enable special attention to be paid to particular national needs. That, I think it will be generally agreed, was the only object of setting up the separate Commissions. I do not think there is anyone with any experience whatever of administering the Act who has not already come to the conclusion that the present arrangement simply leads to endless confusion. There is hardly an approved society, whether a Trade Union or a friendly society, that was not long ago up in arms against the present system. It means that you have to keep eight books, eight different accounts, four for women, and four for men. That, from the standpoint of the approved societies, means a tremendous amount of work. When it comes to the question of transfer from one country to another we have the same difficulty. But the most serious flaw is that a great proportion of the international societies—that is, societies covering England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—are not treated as one unit for the purposes of valuation.
Take my own society in England. We have probably 70,000 members. In Scotland we have 9,000 or 10,000. In Wales, again, we have 10,000 or 12,000. In Ireland we have about 2,500. Although we have those large numbers in England, Scotland, and Wales, when it comes to a question of valuation we have to link up with some other society in Ireland, because we do not happen to have the 5,000 members. I think anyone with experience of this Act will recognise the endless difficulty that must cause. They will recognise how absurd it is. For that purpose alone, therefore, it is important that at this stage of the Amending Bill we should have some alteration. We believe the only alteration that can be brought about is the abolition of these separate sets of Commissioners.
With regard to the regulations, I think Members of the House are supplied in the same way as the approved societies with the different regulations that are issued from time to time. If Members have taken the trouble to look through these regulations, they will see how confusing it must be to the ordinary working-men who administer this Act. We invariably find this: that there will be four regulations issued, which 3041 in appearance and language are the same. Sometimes they are put to one side as being the same regulations, and as being only applicable to Scotland or Wales, as the case may be. We are reminded soon after that there is some special Clause in a particular regulation that is only applicable to and peculiar to Scotland or England, as the case may be. All these confusions have led to endless difficulty. I quite recognise the object of separate Commissions. It was a well-intentioned object. It was unquestionably, as I have said previously, to give effect to peculiar and special national needs, but in the administration and working of the Act I do say that everyone with knowledge of it is convinced that it has not achieved its object; that there is no necessity for it. In the interests of the approved societies as a w hole I have no hesitation moving this Amendment, for I am certain that it meets with general approval.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI submit it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take a general debate on the Amendment dealing with the question of the four Commissions now, in order that we may save time in future. I realise the importance of the Amendment that my hon. Friend is proposing. As he has already learnt from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment. It is not only impossible, but I think it is exceedingly undesirable. I have soma reasons to give, if the Committee permit me, to show that we can largely meet the special points that my hon. Friend has made, and which I agree are real points, and which are at present torturing the administration of some of the International societies and trade unions. Apart from that, and on the general point, I have no doubt at all that there is no precedent for any attempt to run anything of this sort affecting the lives of the people in the British Isles from Whitehall. Consider, for instance, the Local Government Board. Intimate relationship has to be maintained in Scotland and in Ireland on many Clauses of this Bill with the Local Government Boards of Scotland and Ireland, and it would be grotesque to suggest that that could be maintained either by subordinate officials in Edinburgh or Dublin, or by a bureaucracy operating from Buckingham Gate. Take another case. Hon. Members have, I hope, studied the Reports of the four Commissions which have been issued this year. I think they will agree 3042 from every point of view, if they note the work of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Commissions, and see how the Act itself has been adapted to the special conditions of these countries, that very considerable difficulty, if not a complete standstill, would have taken place in the carrying out of the Act but for the four Commissions. How could you have dealt with the conditions of Connemara or Caithness by correspondence from the English Commission at Whitehall? The Scottish Commission, for example, have themselves visited the greater part of the Highlands of Scotland, and as a result of that a Bill is now being passed through Parliament dealing with the special conditions of the Highlands and Islands. We should never have heard of them apart from that Commission, nor would a single Commissioner have appeared in any of these parts of Scotland but for the fact that there was a special Scottish Commission dealing with Scottish interests.
§ Mr. THOMASWhat about officials?
§ Mr. MASTERMANSubordinate officials would not do at all. You can take that from the experience of the Local Government Board, the Education Department, or any of the great administrative Departments. I must, therefore, very earnestly ask the Committee to support the scheme laid down in the Act. Then I agree that various questions arise. There is the first question raised by my hon. Friend as to the difficulty of interpreting the regulations issued by the four Commissions to International Approved Societies. I agree with his statement of the difficulty. But I think that is a difficulty which has been very prominent during the great work of launching the Act and bringing it into operation, because regulations have had to be issued to a very considerable number. So far, however, as administration is concerned, I think we can promise that the Joint Committee will make an effort to see that the regulations which are issued, if they are issued dealing with the separate conditions in the different countries, shall be very plain, so that, as the hon. Member says, working men representatives of the different branches shall not be confused by regulations which appear to come from all quarters of the United Kingdom. As he, however, will agree, a far more important question than administration is the question of accounts. There, I may say, I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed 3043 our determination on the Second reading of the Bill to see if we could not make some arrangements with regard to accounting to meet the very difficult circumstances connected with the existence of the four Commissioners. Indeed, before he made that statement the English Commission were in consultation with many representatives of what I may call the International Societies to see what could be done in the matter. If it is with the general approval of the Committee that some such change should be made, while, at the same time the administrative rights of the four Commissions are retained, the Government are prepared to put on the Paper an Amendment dealing with those conditions.
§ Mr. THOMASA new Clause?
§ Mr. MASTERMANA new Clause. By permission of the Committee, I would very briefly outline the lines of that Amendment. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not now"]. The hon. Member would rather not have it now. I will tell the hon. Member for Colchester why I should deal with the matter: Members may be influenced in their vote as to whether there should be four Commissions, or as to how far the grievances of the approved societies may be met by these arrangements. I will only give them in outline, and hon. Members can reserve any detailed criticism until afterwards. We propose, generally, two new conditions as to accounting. The first deals with societies which are registered, and mainly carry out their operations in one of the four countries, what I may call local societies, in England, Scotland. Ireland, or Wales. These local societies have no difficulty such as that raised by my hon. Friend in connection with large numbers of international members, but they have very considerable difficulty in dealing with what I may call "strays." A few of the members of these societies may be found in England or in Scotland or in Wales, and under the Act these few members must be grouped together as a separate society, and everyone will realise that that is an impossible condition. We propose in the case of local societies only desiring to carry on their operations in one of the four countries that all the "strays" who happen to be in any other of the four countries shall be reckoned as members of the society in the country which has its headquarters in England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, and for all purposes such as sickness benefit and for other benefits, these members shall be counted as members of the Irish, English or 3044 Scotch society. That meets the question of unfortunate groups of four or five or twenty people who stray from, say a local Hampshire society into Wales, and have to be made a separate society by themselves in Wales or the other way round. I wish to say in connection with this that I think in these circumstances a society only registered in one country should only assume to maintain its operations in one country, and should not recruit more of those strays in the other countries. If it is a Hampshire society it should not recruit any more members in Caithness or Connemara.
Then I come to deal with the International Society, and we think we can make arrangements as to the International Societies so that they can really count for all practical purposes as one society for the purposes of the Act, and pool their surplus or deficiency, so that a society with less than 5,000 members in England can pool with some society with less than 5,000 members in Wales, instead of being broken up into separate values, and, so far as transfers are concerned, at least between the three Great Britain countries, no transfer will have to be effected any more than a transfer between one country and another to any society. To that I only make one exception—that is, I think that members who at present exist as separate for accounting purposes, as created in another country, should be allowed to have some choice in the matter as to whether they wish to continue that arrangement or whether they wish to go into the national society. For instance, suppose there is an approved society divided between members in England and members in Scotland, under the new arrangement the society could count as an international society and have all the advantages and accounting arrangements with its members as if it was one sectional society. But if the Scottish members of that society say "No, we came in under the idea that we were to be grouped with Scotland and not with England and we wish to continue in the Scottish pool instead of the English," I think they ought to have the option, extending over a period of not more than three months, to express their wish to have that arrangement continued. I think we must give that concession to national sentiment, but apart from that, as far, for example, as the great trade unions are concerned, we propose that they shall have their accounting arrangements made as one body. They shall no longer have to keep eight separate books, I think it is. Transfers will be as easy as transfers from Hampshire to Kent, and by that 3045 arrangement we shall enable them not to be separately valued and grouped in separate groups, but we shall also be able to make an enormous difference to the accounting arrangements of the society. I have explained that perhaps rather more fully than I ought to have done at this point, but if the Committee will reserve judgment on that scheme until the Clauses are put down, I think they will realise that the Government have done everything to meet the wishes expressed. It is quite impossible for the administration of the Act to be abolished by doing away with the four national Commissioners. Otherwise I guarantee to try and meet the wishes expressed by the Committee in every possible way.
§ Mr. FORSTERThe right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government has an Amendment or a series of Amendments dealing with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I should have thought they would have put them on the Paper. I thought no one could have been under a misapprehension as to this Amendment coming on in some form or another. As far as I know nearly every approved society is in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There has been a very strong expression of opinion throughout the country that this Amendment is desirable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and I should have thought that the Government would have been ready with their proposals to meet the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and the point suggested by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said you cannot abolish these four sets of Commissioners because if you did you would have nobody to deal properly and expeditiously with the Local Government Boards in Scotland and Ireland, and he said it is unthinkable that you should create a great bureaucracy in London which should have centralised administration for the whole of the nation. In some respects the joint Committee is the very bureaucracy which he says it is unthinkable to create. The Joint Committee occupies the position which we want the Insurance Commissioners to occupy, and as regards matters in which the Joint Committee predominate at the present moment, the National Commissioners really fill the position of the branch Commissioners which would be created under this proposal. But what we really want to secure in support of this Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is a far simpler system of administration than obtains at the present time. There is too much complication and too much red-tape. 3046 We want greater simplicity in order to avoid the delay inseparable from very complicated machinery. The Government say that they will do something to meet the objection which the hon. Member has brought forward. I do not think they go far enough, and all I say is that if the hon. Member presses his Amendment to a Division, I will support him.
§ Mr. BOOTHIt is rather a remarkable thing at this Committee that we hear talk continually about certain views being held universally, and every time I hear that as far as my information goes, and I have been at some considerable trouble to find it out, it shows that these statements are invariably the opposite of the facts. I have raised this point about the four Commissioners in all kinds of meetings, in each of the three principalities of Great Britain, and I venture to challenge anybody on the opposite side to say that any one of them ever raised this question in England, Scotland or 'Wales. I dare say they may have a certain amount of experience of this Act. I do not want to arrogate to myself that I know more about it than anyone else, but I venture to say that anybody who has gone about to the extent I have could not remain silent and hear these representations made. What are the facts? Hon. Members opposite press this point in London. They dare not press it in Scotland.
§ Sir H. CRAIKOh yes, I do.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe hon. Gentleman represents a university, and, of course, that is a thing apart. It is a select constituency. It has not been done at a by-election in Scotland.
§ Slr H. CRAIKI have done it.
§ Mr. BOOTHAnd if it had been done by any candidate at a by-election the people would soon ask him to retire. The same thing is true of Wales. There was a contest in Wales very close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs. There was no advocacy from the Conservative party of the abolition of the Welsh Commissioners there. They would have been in a hopeless plight upon such a proposal, and the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs knows that well. I have been at some by-elections in Scotland where hon. Members opposite were making the Insurance Act the main issue. It figured very largely in these contests, but no claim was put forward in the name of any great group of people and not on electioneering platforms inviting the 3047 abolition of these Commissioners. Therefore, for any Member to say in this Committee Room that the whole of the people are in favour of this abolition is to make a statement which is entirely without foundation. As regards by-elections in Wales I ask, Has anyone raised this question of abolishing the separate Commissions?
§ Mr. THOMASMay I say so that my hon. Friend may be under no misapprehension, we are not talking of what happened at political meetings; we are talking about the experience of our societies.
§ Mr. THOMASI thought you asked a question.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am giving the case as to political meetings, and after that I will come far closer home than I think the friends of this Amendment would wish. First, I am asking, is there any feeling in Wales in favour of this Amendment? I went down to by-elections in Wales, and I spoke entirely upon the Insurance Act. I interviewed people on this very point as to whether these Insurance Commissioners were wanted. I spoke to the men at the railway stations, to the members of the friendly societies, to insurance companies, and to employers of labour, as well as to the general politicians who crowd the street. I spoke of it on public platforms, and I challenge any man supporting this Amendment to advocate it upon a public platform, either in Scotland or in Wales. So far as I could ascertain the general sentiments of the people, of the insured persons and of the officials working the Act throughout Scotland and Wales, they have no desire to abolish the separate Commissions. Undoubtedly that cannot possibly be challenged. With regard to the position of the approved societies, and the people working the Act, I challenge the statement that approved societies generally or universally are committed to this proposal. As many hon. Members know, I have had considerable opportunity of having access to the various members of approved societies. I happen to be, not as a partisan or representing any sectional point of view, chairman of the Council of the Faculty of Insurance, which embraces every kind of work under this Act. I am not pledging that body to what I say, I only mention that to show that for several years I have had exceptional opportunity of finding out what are the views of the 3048 people, and the only reason I can find as to why this Amendment is brought forward, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, is that it may put the Government in a difficulty. In regard to the approved societies, the difficulty is purely one of bookkeeping. I think the members of the Labour party will admit that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) spoke for the society which has a few thousands in each country. There are many larger societies than that. I am speaking of societies ten, twenty, or fifty times the size, and I can get the exact figures. There can be no case made out, and no case has been made out on behalf of insured persons. So far as the hon. Member speaks for friendly societies, or anybody else, they speak for the officials, they speak only for the head office, they do not speak for the mass of the members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members who say "No" know that I am giving them the facts. I say that no one would attempt on that side to say that he represents the insured persons on this question.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTCertainly, we all do.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) speaks for the agricultural labourers of the West of England. Will he really tell us that the labourers of the West of England are concerned in this Amendment. I see the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), in his place. If there is one Member more than another who is admittedly a great authority on this question he is; he has had exceptional experience both as a trade unionist and as a friendly society official. I went down to the city of Norwich, where there was a meeting composed of friendly society people, and I put this very question to them. I asked this meeting of representative friendly society officials whether any of then would declare that a single person in Norfolk or East Anglia would be benefited by taking away these Commissioners. There was not one friendly society official in that big meeting who would claim that any insured person in Norwich or in Norfolk would benefit by the taking away of these Commissioners. It is purely a question of the inconvenience to the officials. It is the inconvenience of a society having to make four sets of returns to four sets of Commissioners instead of only one. Let us see what it is. I think we are entitled to ask, as we do now, that the general interests of the insured persons should be taken into 3049 account, and the friendly society officials should make some little sacrifice. So far as the large insurance societies are concerned, they are prepared to make sacrifices, and it is only the question of a little inconvenience. There is nothing else left when it is analysed, after the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the way in which the problem will be met. There is nothing left but some inconvenience in bookkeeping. Does anybody realise why these Commissioners were appointed, and why they are to be maintained? It was in response to a national demand. I was the only Member in the House at that time who criticised it. The hon. Members who have come in such large numbers this afternoon did not criticise it.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI did criticise it most severely.
§ The CHAIRMANIt would tend to the progress of the Committee if the hon. Member for Pontefract would keep off personal allusions. It is a question of the merits of the Amendment which we are now discussing, and not anything that has happened in the past.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am very much obliged for the interruption. It is entirely in the hands of the hon. Gentleman as to what way I make my statements. What I am pointing out is that I rose in the House to criticise this proposal with regard to separate national Commissioners, and I got no support whatever from Members who have crowded in for the first time.
§ Mr. BOOTHI did not mention the hon. Member—I am stating the facts. I was somewhat loath to grant separate Commissions to the various nationalities, but now that it is done—now that they are established, now that they are meeting the needs of these various localities in a special way, it is a tremendous responsibility to destroy the organisation which you have set up. All the friendly societies in Scotland are dead against the hon. Member. The trades unions in Scotland are against it, and there is no real demand for it in England. In Wales the feeling on the matter is very strong indeed, as I have myself ascertained, and I think before this Debate is over you will have the views of Wales expressed very strongly indeed. The reason that the separate Commissions were given was because of the variation of these localities. I criticised 3050 that. I did not think there was such divergence from the general feeling of the country, but I afterwards withdrew the criticisms I had offered. Now that they are established a different set of circumstances has arisen, and I am now of opinion that this idea should be rather fostered and not limited. As a social reformer, I am not entirely in agreement with the Financial Sectetary to the Treasury. He is doing his best to meet the difficulties, but I see a great danger in that. I had hoped that the different experience of the different countries might be put into the common stock of knowledge. But if the four Commissions are to be put on exactly the same lines of administration, then we shall not learn anything from Scottish ideas or from the ideas of Wales or Ireland.
I hoped that we might have got from the various experiences of the different Commissions, information and ideas from each nationality, and that there would be something to gain from the accumulated experience of the whole, but if the four sets of Commissioners are tied down in the same groove, I say, as a social reformer, that we are not getting the proper contribution to these problems that we ought to have. There ought to be sonic elasticity in bringing these schemes into operation. Scotland led the way. It is to some extent the home of insurance, and it is quite likely that in Scotland they will ultimately develop ideas on insurance that would not occur to Englishmen. In fact, they have already done so. There is a Bill before the House dealing with the medical service in the Highlands and Islands. Hon. Members opposite have not opposed that, and I think their action on this Amendment is quite inconsistent The Scottish Commissioners have found that in the Highlands and Islands they have a special problem, and the House of Commons has given a Second Reading to their Bill unanimously, and not a single Member of the House, whether Trade Union or Conservative, felt justified in opposing that Bill, yet here they support this Amendment. It is not merely on the ground of tactics that I oppose it. I believe in this institution of four sets of Commissioners in the interests of the insured persons, and I think with a little sacrifice at the head offices it car be worked. I hope they will make that sacrifice.
§ Mr. THOMASThe object we had in moving the Amendment is accomplished, because it was largely administrative difficulties which had to be met. I want to 3051 make this observation: The hon. Member who has just sat down, yesterday quoted with great authority the document issued by the Joint Committee of the Approved Societies. When he asks me now, "What is the authority for this Amendment?" I reply that it is the same authority which he quoted yesterday. It says, "The Amendment by Mr. Thomas for four Commissioners must be strongly supported." Our object having been achieved, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the following Subsection,
(1) On the expiration of a period of six months after the passing of this Act the joint committee constituted under section eighty-three of the principal Act shall exercise all the powers and duties of the several bodies of Insurance Commissioners appointed under Part I. of the principal Act, and all the powers and duties of those bodies of Commissioners shall cease and determine except as respects any powers and duties which the joint committee by special order (which it is hereby declared the joint committee shall have power to make) may from time to time delegate to any one or more of the several bodies of the Insurance Commissioners. (2) Upon the coming into operation of the foregoing provision—Unlike the hon. Member who has just withdrawn his Amendment, I shall propose to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, which has also for its object the grouping of the powers of the four Commissioners and Joint Committee and the reconstitution of the four Commissions with delegated powers from the Joint Committee. This scheme of mine is more properly a devolution scheme, the real control being with the one Commission. I do not propose to go over again the ground which the hon. Gentleman opposite traversed in support of the Amendment. Exactly the same grounds apply to this Amendment and the same authority can be quoted from the trades unions and approved societies. The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of the opinion of the individual insured persons. He has suggested that the insured person in Norwich is not wildly enthusiastic in favour of this Amendment. That is an absurdity. The insured person in Norwich probably does not know that there are four Commissions.
- (a) The Joint Committee shall take over the Central office of the Insurance Commissioners established under Section fifty-seven of the principal Act and the provisions of Sub-sections (3), (4), and (5) of that Section (which relate to the appointment of officers, the authentication of documents and the conferring of power on inspectors in relation to approved societies) shall apply to the joint committee instead of to the Insurance Commissioners:
- (b) The provisions of Sections eighty, eighty-one, and eighty-two in so far as they relate to the powers of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Insurance Commissioners shall be read and take effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section;
- (c) The Joint Committee shall be called the National Insurance Commissioners and may sue and be sued, and may for all purposes be described by that
3052 name, and shall have an official seal which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and such seal shall be authenticated by any National Insurance Commissioner or the secretary for the National Insurance Commissioners, or some person authorised by the National Insurance Commissioners to act on behalf of the secretary."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat may be so, but even at a meeting of insured persons it is a matter of certainty that if you can get better administration, which is my object, it is for the benefit of every insured person. The Secretary to the Treasury has made some promises which I must admit seemed to me very indefinite, perhaps because I did not understand him clearly. I do not see how we can be expected to understand a statement of that kind without having in front of us some draft or suggestions as to the means of carrying out the proposals he outlined. These Commissioners were set up apparently according to the right hon. Gentleman himself in order to meet a national need, but at once it was pointed out that there was no nationality about insurance. What was wanted, as Mr. Appleton said, was solidarity. The Secretary to the Treasury made a very valuable admission. He said that these four Commissions in their procedure were torturing administration. That is a phrase of his own, 3053 and it is not a bit too severe It is actually true, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. This little attempt to get Home Rule in a hurry has been shown in practice to be that which tortures administration. It is not enough to say, when you have created a system which is obviously bad in practice, "We will try to meet some things in which we admit it is bad. Surely the better plan is to do away with the bad system altogether and not attempt to patch it where it is most obviously wrong! For example, the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to local societies that their trouble was with the "strays," the lost sheep who wandered away into other parts, it might be into Wales when they ought to be in Scotland or into England out of Ireland, and he said these "strays" were to be allowed to be treated as if they were domiciled at the head office of the society. Let us see how that will work. Suppose there was an Irish society with "strays" in England and in Scotland. In Ireland the contributions are different, and there is no medical benefit. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that these Irish strays who have been domiciled in England or Scotland will continue to pay the Irish rate of contributions, and are not to have medical benefit? What is to happen?
§ Mr. MASTERMANPerhaps the hon. Member will wait for the details.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSHe askes me to wait for the details and therefore mmediately emphasises my objection, because it is obvious he cannot answer the first question that occurred to me when I heard him adumbrate his scheme. Then with regard to the international societies. It is obvious that it would quite easily break down, because the right hon. Gentleman says you must give some power to the branches in the other nations which remain out. That may have the effect of breaking up the international societies into four parts, and continuing the mischief which this proposal is intended to meet. No, Sir, the real truth is the Government have, without thinking, jumped into a Home Rule Insurance, and as soon as it is put into operation they find it will not work, and what they ought to do is to say frankly that it will not work, and abolish the four Commissioners, retaining the use that can be obtained from the separate branches, or from separate delegated Commissions in the various countries, and retaining the full power at headquarters, so that uniformity shall govern insurance. I beg to move the Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis is, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, merely the same Debate over again, and I think the Committee are prepared to come to a conclusion on the subject. The only thing I would add for the consideration of Members is that I am not quite sure whether I have done right in putting my Amendment on the Paper before the question of the four Commissioners arose, because the Government Amendment largely depends on what the Committee decide in connection with the four Commissions. I will have the Amendment placed on the Paper immediately, and I will circulate a full explanation of it, showing exactly its implications. Of course, although it is a Government Amendment, and, therefore, would naturally come tomorrow, if the Committtee desire to have a longer consideration we can postpone it until some day next week. I have, I think, met all legitimate criticisms, and I think we may now come to a Division.
§ Mr. J. FALCONERI do not like to give a silent vote on this important question. With regard to Scotland, I am certain the suggestion to abolish the separate Commissions would meet with universal disapproval there. Universal is perhaps too wide a term, but my authority for expressing that opinion is this: I have had some experience in connection with a friendly society under this Act. When the Act passed I, with some other friends, formed an approved friendly society for the rural workers of Scotland. Its formation was perhaps as difficult a task as anyone could set himself to, because it extended over the whole of a wide area with a scattered population. We succeeded in forming a society which now has some 70,000 members. We were also asked by the farmers of Northumberland whether we would take them into our society, and we agreed to do so. Therefore I have had experience of the working of a society with about 3,000 members, I think, from Northumberland a society which, to that extent, is an international one. I have discussed the matter with all the other members of the board of management, who take a very close interest in the society, and the conclusion we have unanimously arrived at is this, that it would have been practically impossible for us to do the difficult work we have had to do in the formation of that society if we had had to deal with a body situated in London. As a matter of organisation, I venture to say no business man with any experience of organisation would for a moment suggest that the 3055 management of the approved societies in Scotland should be vested in a body whose chief offices were in London. The Joint Committee as a means of communication between the different Commissions and the different societies is an excellent device, but it necessarily occupies a great deal more time in dealing with affairs brought before it than is occupied by the separate Commission, just for the reason that it has to consult the Commissions in the different countries before it can come to a decision upon any question. The reason a separate organisation is necessary are not merely those of time and distance. The conditions are much different, I think, than many people on this side of the border realise. Our whole rural life is on an entirely different structure from that which you have in England. The conditions of employment, the conditions of housing, and the whole life in our rural districts are entirely different from those which you find on this side of the border. We have a large body of fishermen whose conditions of work and of life are quite different from those which prevail in the English fishing towns. Then we have the Highland—an entirely different problem. If you take my own Constituency of Forfarshire you will find varying conditions. You have an argiculture life, you have a shepherd life, and you have the people scattered along the hill-sides in a very sparsely populated district, and anybody resident here who has not been brought up with a knowledge of Scottish conditions, could possibly deal satisfactorily with these different classes of people. I do not wish to say more about it except this, that I do not believe that any body fixed in London controlling this thing from headquarters could possibly administer the Insurance Act in Scotland in a way that would give satisfaction.
Mr. HALLBefore this is put to the vote I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the different opinions that seem to prevail amongst hon. Members on the other side. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted plainly that there was no reason for discontent, and for the manner in which these affairs have been conducted. I think from the speech that we heard from the hon. Member on the Labour Benches it is made perfectly plain that there have been difficulties, and for the Member for Forfarshire to get up and tell us everything is all well—
§ Mr. FALCONERWill the hon. Member forgive me? I sat down in deference to what I understood was the wish of the Committee, I hope if this—
§ The CHAIRMANYou are not entitled to make a second speech. I would point out to the hon. Member for Dulwich that he should confine his remarks to the Amendment.
Mr. HALLI was endeavouring to do so, but I could not help thinking, considering the remarks that had emanated from the hon. Member, that you would allow me the same latitude that has been permitted to other Members. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this, "Why is it, at the eleventh hour, he has come to the conclusion that it is advisable to make some alteration in the Commissions for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales?" It was generally recognised, I think, when the matter was being debated in the House that there would be trouble over various things. I myself did not fully realise at the time as I have since realised the difficulties that have been encountered on this very important point. Now that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has stated that he intends to give a draft Report, I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that it is to be a Government Amendment, he will give us sufficient time in which to go through the whole of these matters, and not press them upon us to-morrow. If he will undertake to leave it in abeyance until Monday it would give us a chance of going fully into it.
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman has promised to bring it up as a new Clause. I must point out that it will not come on until next week in any case.
Mr. HALLI quite understand, but although it may come up as a new Clause you will realise that, being a Government Clause, it will have precedence over all other Clauses.
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe have had a very long debate, and everyone wishes to get this Division, if possible, before four. I promise definitely that we will not take this Clause to-morrow, and that I will circulate this explanation. Though it is a Government Clause, I will postpone it as a Government Clause.
Mr. HALLYes, but I take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has just 3057 said. On this side we have been particularly quiet. That has not been so on the other side. We have not endeavoured to stultify this Bill in any way. We have not gone into the various matters in the way some Members opposite have done, and I think a protest should not have been raised against us. Surely we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give us this concession! As he has done so I am satisfied to leave it in that way.
§ Mr. JOSEPH DEVLINI understand there are only a few minutes left to the Committee, and hon. Gentlemen behind me, whose case has been pretty well stated, are anxious to speak. I should be glad to remain silent and to accept the situation created by the withdrawal by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I desire to say that I am entirely against the abolition of the Irish Commission. As a matter of fact, we in Ireland accepted the Insurance Act on a clear understanding that we would have a separate Commission of our own. I listened the other night to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In dealing with this aspect of the question, he stated that at the time the proposal was made to him in favour of separate Commissions he was opposed to it, but that subsequent experience had lead him to believe it was the right thing to do. Coming from Ireland I am in a position to say that the success of the Insurance Act in Ireland is largely due to the fact that we have had a Commission of our own. That Commission has given universal satisfaction to all sections of the Trish people, and I venture to say that if the proposal were not withdrawn here to-day, that it would have the unanimous opposition of the Irish Members in Parliament of all sections and of all politics. The hon. Gentleman only represents Ireland in the Home Rule debates, not when it is a question of Insurance.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLI really do not know why the hon. Member should single me out for that observation. I made no remark whatever.
§ Mr. DEVLINAll I have to say is that I thought I was paying the hon. Gentleman a great compliment, because he is our most logical and most unanswerable opponent in his statements of the case from the Ulster point of view. I did not single him out. I saw a number of his hon. Friends single him out, and for once I was in hearty sympathy with the views not articulated by his own friends. This Act has been a great 3058 success in Ireland. Everyone who followed the discussions on the Insurance Bill when it was before Parliament will remember that every prophet prophesied that this Act would be a failure in Ireland. It was said there was no need for insurance in Ireland, that the universal sentiment of the people was against it. But I say now that there is no country in the United Kingdom where the Act has been more successful than in Ireland, and that is largely due to the administration by the Insurance Commissioners appointed there. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) states that there are many difficulties in having separate Commissioners for Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Of course, there are a great many difficulties, but the difficulties are not caused by the existence of separate Commissions.
This Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to deal with a crowd of difficulties which exist in every branch of Insurance administration. To make a change so fundamental as to abolish the Commissioners in Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales, against the will of the people in these places would be to strike at the very root of the whole scheme. I quite agree about the difficulties, but the difficulties must be overcome. There are difficulties in the way of the administration of medical benefits. I do not know whether you are going to abolish the doctors because you have trouble in administering medical benefits. I do not know whether that s the Tory doctrine that where there is a difficulty you must uproot and overturn the whole fabric. That seems to be the position of the Unionist Members. One other Gentleman who has spoken has stated that every approved society in England is opposed to separate Commissions. I can tell him that every approved society in Ireland would resent any attempt to rob them of a separate and distinct Commission. We have had a long and varied experience in Ireland of the administration of Irish affairs by this country, where the Irish representation has been practically swamped by the larger number and the greater ignorance which have generally gone hand in hand. If we have now a complaint to make against the administration of the Insurance Commissioners in Ireland, we make it against our own Commissioners. We hold them responsible if anything is wrong, and we can bring the matter before Parliament, but if the Commissioners were grouped in one body, then whenever a complaint was; made, the Irish Commissioners would be able to say, "The fault was not ours; we were 3059 voted down by Englishmen, Scotchmen and Welshmen." We have in Ireland a Commission which has done its work satisfactorily and which, with the co-operation of the people, has made the Act popular in Ireland, and everyone would strenuously and bitterly oppose any attempt to rob us of our own Commission.
§ Question put, "That the words 'made by the Treasury' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 23.
| Division No. 5.] | AYES. | |
| Addison, Dr. | Falconer, Mr. | Lynch, Mr. |
| Alden, Mr. | Gwynn, Mr. Stephen | Macnamara, Dr. |
| Beck, Mr. | Harcourt, Mr. Robert | Masterman, Mr. |
| Booth, Mr. | Harvey, Mr. Edmund | Millar, Mr. |
| Boyle, Mr. Dantel | Hazleton, Mr. | Money, Mr. Chiozza |
| Buxton, Mr. Noel | Hinds, Mr. | Rendall, Mr. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jones, Mr. Glyn- | Scott, Mr. MacCallum |
| Davies, Mr. Ellis | Jones, Mr. Haydn | Warner, Sir Courtenay |
| Devlin, Mr. | Keating, Mr. | Wing, Mr. |
| Esmonde, Dr. | Lardner, Mr. |
| NOES. | ||
| Astor, Mr. | Goulding, Mr. | Newman, Mr. |
| Bentick, Lord H. Cavendish- | Gwynne, Mr. Rupert | Nield, Mr. |
| Boyle, Mr. William | Hall, Mr. Frederick (Dulwich) | Ormsby-Gore, Mr. |
| Cassel, Mr. | Hamilton, Mr. | Remnant, Mr. |
| Clay, Captain Spender | Lawson, Mr. H. | Sandys, Mr. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey | Tryon, Captain |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Magnus, Sir Philip | Worthington-Evans, Mr. |
| Forster, Mr. | M'Neill, Mr. |
§ Mr. KEATINGI understand that some Members whose ignorance of the constitution of this Committee—
§ Mr. KEATINGWhey you called out my name, someone passed the remark, "Is Mr. Keating on the Committee?" I regard that as a grossly insolent remark.
§ The CHAIRMANI answered that he was, and I recorded the hon. Member's vote. I assume that the Amendments of the hon. Members for Wiltshire (Mr. Bathurst) and Worcester (Mr. Goulding) are superseded by what has taken place.
§ Mr. GOULDINGMy Amendment deals with International Societies.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI said that I would try to meet the hon. Member.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI think we should adjourn, and not rush this business. A great number of Members have not seemed
§ to be able to vote one way or the others, and we are in the dark as to the provisions which the Government will introduce.
§ The CHAIRMANI understood that the hon. Member's Amendment was covered by the previous one.
§ Mr. GOULDINGNo, it is not.
§ The Committee adjourned at 4 o'clock till 11 o'clock to-morrow (Friday).