§ "(1) If a person not having been previously insured becomes an employed contributor before the 13th day of October, 1913, the rate of sickness benefit to which he is entitled shall not be reduced by reason only that he did not become an employed contributor within one year after the commencement of the principal Act, notwithstanding that at the time of becoming an employed contributor he is of the age of seventeen or upwards, and accordingly Sub-section (4) of Section 9, and Sub-section (5) of Section 55 of the principal Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if sixty-five weeks' were therein substituted for one year.
§ (2) The period within which a person may enter into insurance as a voluntary contributor at the rate referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the principal Act shall be extended to the 12th day of October, 1913, and accordingly proviso (a) to Subsection (1) of Section 5 and Sub-section (3) of Section 55 of the principal Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if 'sixty-five weeks' were therein substituted for 'six-months.'"
§ Clause brought up, and read a first time.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Mr. LARDNERThis Clause is merely to extend the time for coming into insurance, and it has been moved by me in the interests of Irish workers, although of course it is of universal application. I think, having regard to the very few persons who will be affected by it that the Committee may very well accept the Clause.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSAre we not to have a statement from the Government as to what this is going to cost? The Secretary to the Treasury is, of course, in a double capacity as representing the Insurance interest and also as representing the interests of the Exchequer. Can he not tell us what this is to cost this year or next year, or what it means? I do not know if it was moved as the same as Sub-section (2), because that extends the time for voluntary contributors, and makes a very great difference to those contributors. I am not opposing. I am very glad that these contributors should have a further time; but I do think some statement ought to be made as to what it is going to cost. There are something like 2,000,000 people who are entitled to become voluntary contributors, and about 1 per cent. of these have at this moment become voluntary contributors. This might mean that a very large extra number would join during the next few months, and that might mean a very large increase in the annual cost of National Insurance. I think the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the previous failure of the estimates as to the number of voluntary contributors, ought to give the Committee some estimate of the numbers who are likely to join under this and of the annual cost to the State.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf hon. Gentlemen opposite consider this controversial I shall not press it upon the Committee. There can be no cost additional to the State beyond that originally estimated for. The original estimate was that a certain number of voluntary contributors who are not in the Act owing to various reasons during the first six months shall be allowed to come in. Very few of them came in. I think this is specially pressed from Ireland, where there is an opportunity for farmers, and so on, to become voluntary contributors. But in England also there are a great many voluntary contributors who say, "We did not understand what the Act was, and what great benefits it conferred. If we had understood we should have come in during the first six months. Now you have closed the door to us so far as giving reserve values up to the age of forty-five is con- 3416 cerned." They say, now that they understand the Bill, and realise its increasing popularity in all parts of the country, "Give us now the chance we would have taken a year ago." I cannot give the actual number, because I cannot tell how many would avail themselves of this opportunity. All I can say is that the amount of money provided by Parliament cannot be greater than was originally estimated when the Act was passed.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONWould it not be well to get from the Irish Commissioners themselves the estimate of the number likely to come in in Ireland? I do not object to giving more money to Ireland. We are always prepared to do it when Ireland shows a good case, but I think this Clause ought to be looked upon in its broader aspect. I think the Secretary to the Treasury ought to be prepared with some estimate at least from the Irish Commission as to the extent to which this will be availed of.
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe are not conferring anything on Ireland which we are not conferring on the rest of the United Kingdom, and which we did not contemplate conferring upon Ireland when the Act was passed. This is only giving an opportunity for them to do now what it was assumed they would do in the first six months.
Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)I was rather surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the great benefits which the Insurance Act held forth had apparently not been appreciated by those people heretofore. He did not take into consideration the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), which I think he might have tried to refute. I cannot help thinking that the two statements do not agree in any way. If his anticipations had been realised as regards the popularity of the Act and of the Insurance scheme I think he must be in blissful ignorance of all the facts which point the other way.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.