NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 24 June 1913)

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I beg to move, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
In the Bill which I ask leave to introduce there is no proposal which will touch the main structure of the National Insurance Act. We have only had six months' experience of it, and it is too early to come to any conclusions with regard to the main outlines. All I can say is that up to the present time, from all the reports we have seen from different parts of the country, and also as regards the vast majority of the cases concerned, it is working well and smoothly. The Bill we are introducing has been drafted after consultation with representatives of friendly societies, the trade unions, and other approved societies. Some of the Amendments which are being introduced are at their urgent request. I shall only just summarise briefly the main provisions of the Bill. The first is to redeem a pledge given by the Prime Minister to take statutory authority for the additional amount given at the beginning of this year for medical benefit. There are technical and administrative details which have been asked for by the approved societies, the insurance committees, and the Commissioners, which are included in the Bill, but which I do not propose to dwell upon now. They are entirely of a non-controversial character. It has come to our knowledge that in different parts of the country certain employers are making deductions in excess of the 981 statutory proportion from workmen's wages. We propose to introduce a Clause penalising this practice. There will be another Clause to redeem a pledge given to the medical profession early in the present year or late last year about voluntary contributors continuing insurance after their income exceeds £160 a year. They were very desirous that these people should be excluded from the arrangements with regard to medical benefit. We have also introduced a Clause to deal with casual labour. There has been a good deal of complaint in some districts where the arrangements were not effective. In Liverpool and some other parts of the country the arrangements made were satisfactory to all parties, but there are other parts where arrangements have not been entered into, and there has been a good deal of complaint in respect of workers who are engaged for a single day that this is bearing heavily on casual labourers. It is proposed to introduce a provision dealing with that situation, so that the burden upon the worker shall be more in proportion to the period of his, engagement. Then we have provisions dealing with workers over fifty years of age. In the original Act, as the House knows very well, they received reduced benefits. Those who are over sixty years of age receive still further reduced benefits, and for those over sixty-five insurance was only possible under a provision of the Act to the extent of the subscriptions paid by Those persons themselves.

§ Mr. BOOTH
And on their behalf.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, and on their behalf by their employers. It is now proposed to sweep away all these distinctions and to pay for these employed contributors who enter into insurance within one year of the Act, and so enable them to get all the benefit, whatever the age of insurance. Then medical benefit was also practically impossible for persons over sixty-five years of age. It is now proposed that to all insured persons, whatever their age, full medical benefit should be assured until the end of life. There was another difficulty arose with regard to uninsured members of friendly societies—those who are uninsured either because they are over sixty-five years of age, or because they were disabled at the time the Insurance Act came into operation. They were therefore not insured. They were members of friendly societies who should receive medical benefit. The medical 982 benefit was on the basis of 4s. per head. The doctors now regard that as inadequate. They are receiving considerably more under the Insurance Act. The friendly societies are experiencing some difficulty in obtaining medical benefit for the old members of the societies not under the Act, and we propose in future that the half-crown per head which was given in respect of insured persons shall be extended to all members of friendly societies who were entitled to medical benefit before the Act came into operation.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
Will that apply to trade unions?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, to all entitled previously to medical benefit. I use the words "friendly societies," because before the Act they were practically alone in giving medical benefit. There is another part of the Act we propose to amend. The House will recollect that certain persons who are employed are still exempted from insurance for one reason or another. There are so many reasons for exemption that I could not detail them now. But scores of thousands of persons actually employed were exempted from insurance. I think there were about 80,000. In spite of their exemption from insurance the House provided that the employer's insurance contribution should still be paid, otherwise there would be a premium on exempted persons. We did not wish that the employer should get an advantage by being exempted from payment. He is paying his 3d. It was proposed that there should be some sort of scheme later on when the amount was ascertained in order to provide some benefit for persons who were exempted, and on whose behalf the contribution of 3d. was paid. It is now proposed that medical and sanatorium benefit should be provided for the exempted persons in respect of the 3d. which is paid. Another Amendment will be in respect of arrears through want of employment. The House will remember that before the Act, even during sickness, the vast majority of friendly societies' members had to pay. The payment was deducted out of the benefit. If the member was unemployed he had to pay on his return the whole of the arrears. Under the Act he was allowed up to four weeks towards his own arrears during sickness, but there was a provision subject to which he would have to make up not only his own but the employer's contribution in respect of arrears. My hon. 983 Friends made a very strong protest at the time, and we propose that henceforth he shall only be responsible for his own contribution and not that of the employer. I think that covers pretty well the whole of the Amendments which we propose.

§ Mr. BARNES
Will it be made retrospective?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
My hon. Friend knows the Act, and must have overlooked the fact that there are no arrears at the present moment. There are no arrears in the first year, and therefore it is not necessary to make it retrospective.

§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL
Is there any power in the Bill with regard to six months' cards?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is another point which it is not necessary to put into the Bill. It is a question which can be dealt with by regulation. I understand that negotiations are proceeding on that point now. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will give us their support in putting through these very advantageous Amendments.

§ Mr. CLYNES
Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly say a little more on the question of what he means as to casual labourers.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must not invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exceed his ten minutes.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On the Second Reading there will be a full discussion, and I am trying to compress my observations within the ten minutes. I only want to say one word now on the question of cost. We propose, first of all, to extend the sinking fund from eighteen and a half to twenty years, which I do not think is an unreasonable period for the sinking fund. In addition, we propose that there should be a contribution from the State. During the present year that contribution will amount to £65,000. In a full year it will come to £207,000. Through that £207,000 and the extension of the sinking fund we shall be able to give those enlarged benefits in all those cases which I have mentioned. In conclusion, I think that hon. Members in all sections of the House will consider that all these Amendments which I have moved are perfectly non-controversial. The only other observation I wish to make is, by way of anticipa- 984 tion of anything that may be said, that all these Amendments are in that part of the Bill which was discussed before the Bill was applied. They were all questions which were very filly debated in the House, and it shows how difficult it is to anticipate an Amendment of this character.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, got an actuarial estimate of the effect of the changes on the fund? Will he be able to publish that, and let us have it before the Bill is discussed?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I hope that we shall be able to publish it with the Bill. At any rate, I think I can promise that it will be published before there is a Second Reading discussion. I recognise that that is a very fair question, and I now ask leave to introduce the Bill.