54. Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the case of the employés of the Leadenhall Press, Limited, who, under the National Insurance Act, 1911, have received between 18th June, 1912, and 31st March, 1913, benefits of a total value of £9 10s. 4d. in return for contributions made by and on their behalf of £147 8s. 9d., or a proportion of about ½d. to 9d.; and whether, in this and similar cases, the employed contributors affected will be noted with a view to their receiving additional benefits to correspond more adequately with the payments made by them?
§ The FINANCIAL to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)I have no information as to the payments made to employés of particular companies. As the National Insurance Act did not come into operation till 15th July, 1912, and payments only commenced on 13th January, the period mentioned is obviously incorrect, and it is not stated how the "total value" of the benefits has been estimated. In any case payments to, and in respect of, less than 200 persons (the majority probably of such an age that the full demands of sickness and sick pay have not yet appeared) over a period of about 1212 nine months, which includes the non-recurring six months waiting periods for benefits, obviously offer no general inferences of importance; and certainly do not require to be seriously considered as against the actuarial estimates, and the actual experience, for the whole country. With regard to the latter part of the question I would point out that the Act already provides that societies whose members draw less than the estimated sums in benefit shall devote the saving to giving additional benefits to their members or reducing their contributions.
Mr. F. HALLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the actual premiums which have been paid are very much more than the payments received in benefits?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf you take persons through the whole of their lives, the premiums charged from sixteen to seventy years of age might in many cases be greater than the amount received in benefits, and, of course, you might find a person who had had no sickness at all.
Mr. F. HALLIs there anything in the amending Bill for doing away with what to all intents and purposes is an anomaly, seeing that some people have to pay more in premiums than they receive in benefits?
§ Mr. MASTERMANPeople should be happy if they have been lucky enough to be well.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot argue this matter out by question and answer.