CLAUSE 3.—(Exemptions.) (Hansard, 2 July 1920)

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to 906 move, at end of Sub-section (1, c), to add a new paragraph "(d) has been an insured person under this Act for five years without having received unemployment benefit. The object of this Amendment is to add one more paragraph to the Clause which deals with the exemption of certain persons from paying contributions. I propose to add this paragraph (d) to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). There is nothing in the Bill giving exemption from payment of contributions to people who have paid for a large number of years and have not received and are not likely to receive any benefit—with one exception, to which I shall allude in a moment. In the Health Insurance Bill there are many alternative benefits. Under this Bill there is not a single alternative benefit, except one in the case of unemployment. I do feel that a man who has contributed various sums over a long period of years ought to receive some kind of benefit for those sums. After all, the Health Insurance Act on the whole is a very popular Act on account of its alternative benefit. This Bill, I am afraid, will become gradually very unpopular unless some alternative benefits are given for the contributions that are paid. The Act compels contributions although the people are never likely to be unemployed. There is one exception, and that occurs in Clause 25, where there is a refund authorised to the relatives of a man who dies after the age of sixty, and who has regularly paid his contributions Such a contingency, however, is far too remote, for such a man may, starting at the age of sixteen, pay for forty-four years the full contributions, and never get a penny benefit.
Under the Health Insurance Act you get sick benefit, disablement benefit, maternity benefit, and two days hence you will get sanatorium benefit, and you can get a variety of other benefits. In the case of perfectly healthy people under the National Insurance Act they can get benefits. Take such a class as bank clerks. In all probability they will pay their contribution and never get any unemployment benefit, and the same applies to many artisans. I feel that a capable workman will very much resent having to pay for a lazy workman, whom his employer would be only too glad to get rid of. I think the care of these people ought to be met, and the way to do it is to give to these persons who have not 907 received anything over a long period of time a certificate of exemption under which they need not pay any further contributions until a claim is made, and directly a claim is made the contributions would resume. I think a provision of this kind would tend to make the Act far more popular.

§ Mr. SUGDEN
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am sorry not to be able to agree with my hon. Friend. Under his Amendment anyone who had not received unemployment benefit for five years would be entitled to a certificate of exemption, and he would be exempt from contributions. My hon. Friend has a further Amendment down which is intended to enable the Ministry to make special rules. This Amendment conflicts with the principle of the Bill, which is that the contribution shall be paid by all persons in the trades covered by the Bill. Certain exemptions of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member are allowed under the Bill, but to allow exemptions on the ground that the probability is that the employment is permanent, and still further on the ground that it has been permanent for five years, would be an evasion of the principle of insurance, and would undermine the financial basis of this scheme. This Clause deals with a different point entirely from the purposes which my hon. Friend has in mind. It deals with persons whose insurable employment is not their main employment, and they may depend on something else or earn their livelihood in an occupation which is not insured. This proposal is really going much beyond the scope of the Bill, and I cannot accept an Amendment of this character which is really a negation of the principle of insurance.

§ Mr. CLYNES
I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken the correct view of the effect of this Amendment, and perhaps after what he has said, it will not be pressed further on the attention of the House. The Amendment is to provide an individual exception in the case of a man who has been under this Act for five years, without having received unemployment benefit. Such a man if unemployed in the sixth or seventh year would be disabled under the terms of this Amendment from enjoy- 908 ing the benefit to which he would have been otherwise entitled by virtue of his previous five years' contributions. The only other point is that we look at this whole question of insurance from the standpoint of a general pooling of reserves and all interests, and to make this individual exemption would create in a workshop and in occupations generally a good deal of conflict and perhaps disputes. In view of the very strong reasons against this Amendment, I hope it will not be forced upon the attention of the House.