HC Deb 29 February 1916 vol 80 cc1019-32

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. PETO

I desire very briefly to call attention to a matter which I wished to bring before the House at Question Time to-day, but I had not an opportunity—I make no complaint—of putting the question, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not be present. In view of that, however, I think it would be as well if I just read the question, and the answer I have since received, to which I wish to call attention. I asked the Secretary to the Treasury "whether his attention has been called to the fact that no representative of the National Federation of Employés' Approved Societies has been nominated to represent the societies on the Committee recently appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the finance of the National Insurance Act; whether he is aware that the members administering the affairs of these societies have a wide and long experience of industrial insurance and have administered the National Insurance Act to greater advantage than many of the approved societies; and, in view of their special interest in the result of the inquiry, whether he will take steps at once to appoint an additional member or members of the Committee to represent them?"

Before giving the answer I have received I would like to call attention to the facts of the case Towards the end of last month a Treasury Committee of Inquiry was appointed, and its terms of reference were extremely wide in their scope. They might cover a very great deal which would very materially affect the position and financial interests of those particular employés societies. I should like to read the terms of reference, or at any rate a short portion of them. They are: To consider and report upon any amendment in the financial scheme of the National Insurance Acts which experience and the administration of the sickness, disablement, and maternity benefits may suggest as desirable within the existing limits of contributions and benefits, apart, however, from exechequer grants before the completion of any valuation of approved societies. Broadly speaking, the position of these employés societies is totally different to that of any of the approved societies, or of any of the insurance companies who have taken up the business of national insurance. They were experts in industrial insurance for many years before the present Minister of Munitions took up the subject or made his celebrated visit to Germany. For many years they had been administering industrial insurance. Their officers were elected by the members who directly benefited by their contributions. As a matter of fact, at the time when the Insurance Act was being hotly debated here the position of those particular societies was regarded as a thing apart, and a strong claim was made for them inasmuch as they were an existing entity that they should be left outside the provisions of the Insurance Bill. That position, however, was abandoned. We were pressed to use our influence with them to come in and work the benefits of this Bill, and to give effect as far as they could to the national scheme of insurance and form a part of it. They have done that, and they have loyally co-operated and looked after the interests of their own members, and I ask the House to remember those facts. Those men administered the funds and considered the claims for sickness benefit of their fellow workmen in the same shop and industry, whether it happened to be a railway company, a gas undertaking, or whatever it might be. They know all their members individually, and it is not surprising to find that the adminstration in those particular societies has been infinitely more efficient and economical than in many approved societies who now find themselves in financial difficulties. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts) in his place, because I understand that he is going to reply and explain the position of this Committee. I believe it is his Committee, and that he is responsible for its composition. The answer which the hon. Member gave to my question to-day divides itself into two parts. It is as follows: I have received representations on behalf of the body named in the question, and I am glad to have an opportunity of again expressing the hope that they will be willing to place the results of their special knowledge and experience at the disposal of the Committee in the form of evidence. They are to be called to the bar, so to speak, and yet they are not to be given any seat upon the Committee. They will have no voice whatever in the considerations of its financial arrangements that are to be made, which may prejudice their position and the position of the employers who have guaranteed the funds of these societies. The answer proceeds: Having regard to the large size of the Committee and to the progress which I understand that they have already made with their labours, it will be, impracticable to add to their numbers. This is the hon. Member's Committee, and I understand that he is responsible for it. If it is too large and not representative enough he is responsible. As to my being late in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, let me say that on the very day after the announcement in the public Press was made that this Committee was to be set up, requests were made direct asking for representation upon this Committee to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but they have been refused, and consistently refused, until now the matter is raised and now we are told that they have held three or four sittings and that it is too late. It ought not to have been necessary to call attention to the fact that these employés societies with experience for many years of industrial insurance were essential to a proper consideration of any question affecting the financial position of these somewhat financially distressed societies, and particularly women's societies, some of which have large deficits to meet. Obviously it was only fair and English if you are going to setup a Committee at all that you should give fair representation to those societies which best administer this business. I wish to call attention to this apparently inspired paragraph which appeared in the "Daily News" on the 26th of February. After explaining the construction of the Committee and the great influence the hon. Member for Ponte-fract (Mr. Booth) had in setting it up, the paragraph says: Some of the insurance societies are in very low water and others have a big surplus, and some kind of equalisation is necessary. No wonder these employés societies who, thanks to their excellent management and the guarantee of their funds towards which employers have paid willingly for many years before the national insurance scheme came into operation, are a little nervous when they hear that the hon. Member opposite has set up a Committee on which they have no representation, and which contemplates equalising things by taking their surpluses to assist the badly managed societies. I await with interest the explanation of the hon. Member as to why this particular branch of societies has been entirely left out and why, while he admits that they have special knowledge and experience in the working of industrial insurance which would be valuable if given in evidence before the representatives of less successful societies, they have been given no place whatever upon this special Committee which has been set up to consider the finance of the Insurance Act.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE

I wish to join in the representations which have been made by the hon. Member opposite. I have had strong representations made to me on behalf of the men associated with the Great Western Railway employés' societies. They are very anxious about these matters, and they urge that another representative should be appointed who shall fairly represent their associations on this Committee. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Lincoln may in some way be able to respond to our request.

Mr. CURRIE

I wish to say a few words in regard to two societies, both of which were formed after the Act was brought into force. It is not so much good management as the fact that they obviously rely upon lives above the average, and they have a substantial surplus. One of them is anxious to start a pensions fund. These societies, and there are many others in the same position, feel that they have an absolute title to retain their surpluses. They are very much afraid that in Scotland, judging by what Sir James Leishman said, that a movement is on foot to take away from them their surpluses. I can only say that I think they are well warranted in their feelings in this respect.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household)

Will the hon. Member tell me what Sir James Leishman is alleged to have said?

Mr. CURRIE

I know that various interpretations have been placed upon the speech, and in many quarters a feeling of anxiety has been aroused by what Sir James Leishman said. If it can be explained away, or a proper construction can be put upon it to another effect, I shall be only too glad. I was one of those who urged the hon. Gentleman to start this inquiry, and I was inclined to think that it might lead to much good. I do not want to prejudge the matter, but if societies so placed are prejudiced by want of proper representation, then they re- serve to themselves the right to regard the moral authority of the Committee as greatly impaired. I hope that a satisfactory explanation will be given to remove this doubt, but I must confess that I think it will be very difficult to find it.

Mr. YEO

I rise to support the appeal which has been made to the hon. Gentleman. I would ask him if he does not think it worth while taking into consideration upwards of half a million of employés of firms who are most generous in their contributions and in helping in every way. These societies are beyond dispute unbreakable from the standpoint of finance, and surely it is not unreasonable to ask, if they are worthy to be considered and to be called to the Bar to answer questions for the benefit of other societies, that they should be allowed to have at least one member representing them on the Committee. I hope that it is not too late for the hon. Gentleman to consider their case. They are as much entitled to have a seat upon the Committee as the Treasury have a right to appoint a Committee.

Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR

I want to add my voice to the voice of others who have spoken against what would be a policy of spoliation if the funds of those who have been economical and hard working—in some cases the officials have worked for nothing for the benefit of their fellow-members, and if the equivalent of their work in the shape of money were to be taken away from the society they have served for the love of it—if that took place, then a very great wrong would be done. I can hardly believe that the Government would sanction such a thing, but it would be very poor encouragement to employers to contribute, as they do in many cases, to these funds, and to help the societies in every way they can, simply out of a desire to encourage that thrift and that self-respect which are such a valuable asset among the working people of this country. These are times when we are supposed to be practising economy. It is not economy to discourage thrift. The object of all our legislation, it seems to me, and particularly at such times as this, should be, more than anything else, to discourage waste and carelessness and to encourage thrift by all the means in our power. This would be downright robbery of one set of people by another, and I cannot believe that it will be either encouraged or perpetrated by the Govern- ment. If there are some societies who are weak from some cause beyond their own fault, then the proper way is to help them from the funds of the Government, and not to rob Peter in order to pay Paul.

Mr. J. W. WILSON

I have been asked by more than one society to support this representation to-night, and it seems to me, if the Government wish to secure general confidence in a Committee like this, it should take care that successful societies are represented on it, especially societies such as those which have been mentioned. They have just as much claim—indeed, I think more claim, to representation as societies which have got themselves into difficulties, especially if there is any impression getting abroad of pooling interests. In that case it is more important than ever that those societies which would be the greatest sufferers should, at any rate, have confidence that they are being heard, and that their representations are having weight in this consideration and in this review that is taking place. Therefore, even if it is to allay a false restlessness, a restlessness for which there is no ground, I conceive that it would be to the interests of the Department to see that one representative or more should find a place on this Committee. It does not seem to me the case to say that the Committee already numbers twenty, and that as it is already a large Committee others cannot be added to it. If it is a large Committee there is all the more reason why it should be a representative Committee. I therefore wish to support the appeal which has been made to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BALDWIN

It is with great reluctance that I ask a question of a Minister on that bench, who apparently has not a single friend in the House to-night, but there is one question which I feel I must ask him. If he cannot see his way to accede to our request, will he give the House an undertaking that under no conditions will he allow these societies to be pillaged under any recommendation of any Committee for the benefit of those who have been less successful? We feel that, at any rate, they ought to have the benefit of securing to themselves the funds which they have done so much to put upon the sound basis on which they rest at the present moment. If the hon. Gentleman is unable either to give a satisfactory answer to my question, or to accede to the request, I am afraid that it will be the duty of a great many Members to criticise very closely and severely the recommendations of this Committee when they come before the House, and, if necessary, to oppose so far as we are able and to the end any proposals that strike us as unfair.

Mr. ROBERTS

I ought, I think, to begin by apologising on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his absence at Question Time this afternoon. I am sure the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) realises that he was engaged on serious business connected with his office, and that it was no discourtesy to him that my right hon. Friend was absent. He has asked me to reply to-night to the case which has been made by a number of hon. Members who no doubt are interested in a particular kind of society to be found in their constituencies. I am very much interested in the case which they have made on behalf of this particular kind of society. All the hon. Members who have spoken have really spoken, if I may be allowed to say so, from a wrong standpoint. The insured persons under the Act number some thirteen or fourteen millions. They have every conceivable kind of experience. They have their own particular methods, and there is considerable variation in organisation. If it is to be alleged that every group of societies, and every type of society which may conceive it has a vested interest under the Act is to be represented on these Committees of Inquiry, and if the House of Commons is going to accept that view, then I say it will become quite impossible to get Committees of this kind.

Mr. PETO

In reference to the figure of 13,000,000 of insured persons quoted by the hon. Gentleman, may I say that the societies I have mentioned represent well over half a million, and the hon. Gentleman has already twenty members on the Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS

I will deal with that point later. The point I wish to make is this. It is not a question of getting on to the Committee members who have vested interests. If we concede that point I am afraid that others who have equally approached the Treasury, and who are much interested in their type of society, will think they have a special claim by reason of their individual experience and special knowledge, which I recognise. Other societies and other types of organisation will also have individual claims. I really do not know in that case what the size of the Committee is to be. There must be some limit. It is quite possible when you fix that limit—indeed it is almost certain—that some particular group which is left out will come forward and point out how much they would be able to enrich and strengthen by their experience the Committee if a twenty-first, thirty-first, forty-first, or fifty-first lady or gentleman whom they are anxious to see on the Committee were added to it. But that is not the way in which Committees should be constituted. We have done our best to get persons on that Committee who are acquainted with the main types of the societies, who have knowledge of the practical work of administration, and who are acquainted with the work of sickness benefit and so on. I imagine that they form a strong Committee. None of them claim that they have an exhaustive or exclusive knowledge. They would not say there are not others who have some special experience. But they can supplement there own experience by calling in the assistance of others, and it is not fair to suggest that a witness before an inquiry of this kind is summoned to the bar as if he were a prisoner. You are merely asking his assistance and you are inviting him to put his experience into the common stock and to contribute his share to a common fund. That seems to me to be the right way of appointing a Committee. We may, indeed, have gone too far already. We have a large Committee. Surely the House knows the disadvantage of an excessive size. I think it is well to have a Committee of a reasonable size, but I am afraid it would be opening the door far too wide if I were to act on the suggestions made to-night and if I were to put no limit. That is my reply on general lines. Let me now take the particular case, that of the National Federation of Employées' Approved Societies. That is a federation which is made up of societies of two different classes. First, there are the Employers' Provident Societies approved under Section 25 of the Act. These constitute, I fully admit, a special group with a special experience of their own. They are not very numerous. The federation also consists of small friendly societies without branches, shops clubs, and works societies and so on.

Mr. CURRIE

Which are all solvent.

Mr. ROBERTS

I will accept that statement. It is not disputed at the present time. But first let me deal, with the Employers' Provident Societies, which are a small group, numbering, I think, not more than 100,000 members. If you are going to give them a vested right to a seat on this Committee—if you are going to give to every group of 100,000 members such a right—I am bound to say I see no possibility of getting these committees appointed at all. The other kinds included in the Federation are already represented on the Committee; there are two or three gentlemen on the Committee who have been specifically appointed because they know the work of small societies, and it was recognised there might be a difference of interest or a difference of experience between large societies and small isolated societies. Both, therefore, are represented and to that extent, so far as the National Federation of Employés Approved Society is concerned, it already has representatives on the Committee who thoroughly know the case of the small societies. With regard to the Employers' Provident Societies, I think that is a group so small that if we were to attempt to give them a vested interest we should be opening the door far too wide. I think what the House is more concerned with is a statement as to what are said to be the aims of this Committee, and one of these aims is said to be to make the valuation of the societies general in order that the surplus of one may go to make good the deficiency of another. If I can satisfy hon. Members on that point, I trust they will not think us unreasonable in the decision we have come to.

Mr. CURRIE

Is it not the aim of the Government as well as of the Committee?

Mr. ROBERTS

So far as the aim of the Government can be stated by myself, I think the hon. Member should have clone me the justice to remember an answer I gave to a question he put only two months ago.

Mr. CURRIE

I do remember it.

Mr. ROBERTS

That question raised this very point, and the answer I gave was that it had not been suggested to me that the expedient suggested in the question was one which need be seriously considered. That was the statement I made when that question was put to me. This is an independent Committee. I cannot undertake to make statements in advance as to the recommendations which they may make to the Government. I can only say that, so far as my own mind goes, it is not predisposed to that solution, as I explained in the answer to which I have referred.

Mr. CURRIE

Then you repudiate the idea altogether?

Mr. ROBERTS

I suppose I am bound to consider with an open mind any recommendation which may be made, but I really do not think that the experience we have had to-night need cause any great alarm in the minds of hon. Members in this House. Hon Members can form their own opinion, but one thing is obvious: that any proposal of that kind would be objected to on both sides of the House, and under these circumstances, from a practical Parliamentary point of view, I fail to see how any proposal of that kind could be brought forward in such a way as to lead to any practical result in this House. After all, hon. Members need not be so alarmed by statements which appear in the Press. Some of them are inspired and some of them are badly inspired. I cannot say what may be the interpretation of the statement attributed to the Chairman of the Scottish Commission. I do not know what that statement is, and I cannot provide the interpretation of a statement which I have not seen.

Finally, may I say that I think it is very unfair to suggest that this type of society or any of the other types of society who have not got a representative on the Committee are shut out from the inquiry. The Committee, which is, of course, independent in its methods, has already issued an appeal to the Press asking for all the experience and all the assistance which can be given to it from those who are not actually represented on the body. I hope a response will be made to that appeal. I hope when it comes to the question of reducing the cost of the Act—and may I assure the hon. Member that that is an enterprise which is being considered and is being pressed on at the present time—when it comes to the question of the simplification or reducing the cost of the Act, if these societies have any memoranda which they can suggest, if they come forward and offer their witness I am sure the Committee will be only too glad. I hope they will do so. I make that appeal not only to this particular type of society but to all the types of societies. I am looking forward to the result of this inquiry with great interest. No doubt the inquiry is being conducted under the conditions in which we live, and it will be of greater use the greater the unanimity with which it reaches its conclusions. I think it has been recognised by all those who take an interest in the work of the Insurance Act that it is a strong and representative Committee. It is almost impossible to satisfy every claim or to meet every representation, and I hope that hon. Members will not press us too hard if some gentlemen or some societies think they did not get quite the recognition which ought to attach to their special experience. I hope also that hon. Members will not make up their minds in advance with regard to the result of this inquiry, because some of the societies in their own Constituency did not, unfortunately, get all the recognition which they think themselves amply entitled to get. The inquiry may be productive of great good. I hope it will be. I hope its deliberations will be unprejudiced by the fact that, though I believe almost all claims have been substantially met, there may be a few special cases where we have not been able to give individual satisfaction.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

I must confess I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) has not given a more sympathetic reply. Whoever constituted this Committee has gone much too far in a direction in which I do not think it is desirable to go at all—I refer to the principle of constituting these Committees on what is called a representative basis. It may succeed or it may not, but it can only succeed if you have that principle comprehensively applied in the constitution of the Committee. What is the representative basis, and how can you apply it to the constitution of the Committee? It is the basis of choosing individuals personally, however honourably, concerned in interests that are likely to be affected by the Committee's findings. In acting on that basis you have to follow it to its extreme length. You have not done that in this case, and in consequence you have left out the type of societies which are not small, and which are founded upon a principle entirely different from all the others.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

As I failed to make my point clear, perhaps I may be allowed to say that we did not proceed on the basis of the representation of vested interests. What we wanted to get was men of standing, judgment, and discretion who were acquainted with the main types of organisation and administration.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

Yes, Sir, but it is not a question of vested interests at all. That phrase gives rise to all sorts of false analogies. It is a question of interests. Here you have a number of interests represented upon this Committee which are more or less antagonistic to ours. We represent to-night societies founded upon the principle of being independent of all outside influence, bringing together all those engaged in the same enterprise who are bound together by the good fellowship and comradeship of joint service and of independence in that bond of sympathy, and including many great undertakings. There is one great undertaking which has a membership of 30,000. I know one connected with the transport service in London with a membership of 14.000. With integral items like that you can make up more than 100,000 to which the hon. Member says the class is confined.

As to this principle of constituting committees on the representative basis, it may be said that the merit of the system is that it secures expert knowledge, but, on the other hand, it has the defect that it detracts most seriously from the judicial character of the Committee. We all know how it is said that if you are shut out of the sacred ring you can come before the Committee as witnesses against those whose interests are contrary to your own. The persons constituting the Committee may be excellent persons in their own estimation, but the result can only be that those excluded from the inner deliberations of this Committee must feel in the end that they have not had the chance of those who, to put it in a plain way, were on the right side of the table. If it be a misconception to which birth has been given by this ill-advised communiqué in the newspapers, all I can say is that, in the first place, I have very little doubt that the newspaper which started the idea that pooling was going to take place did not start it out of its own head. Does anybody suppose that it was not started by agencies outside, representing societies with deficiencies and minus quantities, who could see set before them dishes containing surpluses of societies more enterprising than themselves, and by that reason not disqualified from being consulted as experts and given a vote in the deliberations of the Committee? You have gone on the principle of excluding the most successful. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider, even at this late hour, this most unfortunate decision. He has applied this unfortunate principle very far, but not far enough. He has overcrowded his Committee by too many members, and yet has not got all the members he ought to have. The bad impression produced by this communiqué in the newspapers is certainly supported by the almost studied and nebulous language of the terms of reference, which speak of the Financial scheme of the Insurance Act. It looks as if those terms were so worded as to give rise to apprehensions of the most formidable kind, while at the same time, by way of punctuating this dangerous announcement, we are told that whatever changes are to be made, there are to be no further Exchequer Grants. If there is to be any subsidising of resources or making up of deficiencies, it is clear that the minus quantities are going to be made up by recourse to the plus quantities. Possibly they will not have that Parliamentary strength which will enable them to resist a raid of that kind. It is not enough that the hon. Gentleman says he is surrounded by enemies to-night. We all know one of the agencies which, if a Parliamentary rally were called, might bring a formidable force to bear against the societies for which we are speaking, and it is unfortunate and will tend very much to detract from the authority of the finding of this Committee that societies which are successful, societies which represent a definite and individual principle and an extremely beneficial one, one which tends to promote harmony between capital and labour, should be left out in this way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes after Ten o'clock.