§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, when the Insurance Bill is presented to this House, they will have a copy of the Bill printed to show—
- 1. The variations which have been made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons; and
- 2. Those clauses which by operation of the various forms of closure now in use in that House have been passed without any discussion;
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting these Questions I suppose it is hardly necessary for me to disclaim any idea of raising upon them any controversial debate on this matter. In fact, I do not desire to raise any debate of any kind. I am purely desirous of information, and I can say for myself that when this Bill was introduced I did my best to understand it and for a time to follow the discussions which took place upon it. But however much time one gave to it and however much one desired to take a really intelligent course in following the discussions which went on, one found it absolutely impossible to understand the changes that were being made. Whatever view one may hold, the subject is one of enormous magnitude and very great complexity.
434§ I am not, of course, in the secrets of noble Lords on the other side, but it seems not improbable that this House will be asked to deal with the Bill within an extremely limited time. It has been decided that it is not a Finance Bill, and therefore I suppose some responsibility is expected to lie upon this House to see, as far as the House is given an opportunity of seeing, that the Bill is passed in an intelligible and consistent form. It is quite obvious that if the first two Questions which stand in my name can be answered by such a print as I suggest, the task, the almost impossible task, which is being laid on your Lordships will be made, at any rate to some extent, simpler than it would otherwise be. That is the sole reason which actuated me in putting down these Questions.
§ With regard to the last of the Questions, whether it is possible now to state the estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill and the number of new officials who will have to be appointed, it seems to me that we are entitled to have this information before we make ourselves responsible for the scheme. No doubt we are not responsible for finance. But I assume that the Government know, after all the changes that have been made, what the cost is likely to be that the public funds will have to bear and the responsibility which the State is taking upon itself in inaugurating this scheme; because it is quite obvious that if the scheme is once passed, if the bill is, so to speak, once drawn, to use commercial language, the country will have to pay the cost whatever it is. It would be interesting if we could ascertain whether the Government have any really consistent view of what the cost is likely to be. If they have—I do not put the alternative if they have not, because I can hardly conceive it possible—if they have, I can see no reason why your Lordships and the public should not be given the information.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY)My Lords, the Questions put by the noble Lord are, in our opinion, perfectly justifiable. All the cardinal and leading points in the Insurance Bill raise questions which, as the noble Lord said, are of great magnitude and complexity; and this House, although the time, unfortunately, appears likely to be short in which the House will have to 435 exercise its function of supervision, ought not to be placed at any disadvantage, but ought to have before it all the material which would conduce to a sound judgment.
In his first Question the noble Lord asks whether the Government will have a copy of the Bill printed to show the variations which have been made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons. The answer is that, though it will be a very elaborate process, both in preparation and in the mechanical business of printing, His Majesty's Government propose to have a copy printed showing the variations that have been made in the Bill during its passage through its various stages in the House of Commons. I can assure the noble Lord that we have given this matter most careful consideration, in spite of the mechanical difficulties and others that were interposed, and we hope we shall be able to comply with the noble Lord's request.
The second Question is a little less simple. The noble Lord wants to have placed on the Table of the House a Paper containing those clauses which, by the operation of the various forms of closure now in use in the House of Commons, have been passed without any discussion. I would point out, and I am sure the noble Lord will see this point, that to distinguish those clauses which were put under the Closure Resolution would be, or would run the risk, at all events, of being rather misleading, for this reason. The great majority of those clauses deal with points that had already been discussed before the clauses were passed into the Bill, and they merely represent, in their final shape, decisions arrived at as the result of previous discussion. Therefore, though the closure might have struck off further discussion, that does not at all mean that there had not been adequate and ample discussion at other stages. I will give the noble Lord an instance. Take the first of the new clauses which went under the guillotine —and this is, I think, a very fair case to take—the clause with reference to the peculiar arrangements in the case of small societies. That clause was guillotined, but the principle of it was discussed first on Clause 5 of the original Bill, and secondly on Clause 18, when a whole day was given to a discussion of it. To print that clause —and I merely take it as an instance—in a distinctive way in order to show that 436 it had not been discussed in Committee would be to give an impression which, in the opinion of the Government, would be completely opposed to the real facts of the case. I will not trouble your Lordships with other instances, though they could easily be multiplied—I mean where the discussion, though obstructed or not taking place in the Committee stage, still had taken place in other parts of the deliberations on the Bill. The Committee stage—I would really commend this to the noble Lord if he has in his mind, as I am pretty clear he has, that the discussion was somewhat truncated ill another place—the Committee stage of this Bill, exclusive of Part II, which, as your Lordships know, was considered with great expedition and with satisfaction, I think, to everybody in Grand Committee—occupied thirty days of Parliamentary time, and there was hardly any point, so I am informed by those who followed it through all its stages in the House of Commons, that did not at one time or another receive ample and adequate consideration.
Then the noble Lord asks a very important Question—whether it is possible now to state the estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill. I am not at this moment. in a position to state the exact estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill, but I can assure the noble Lord that the actuaries are at this moment, and have been for some time, engaged in preparing a fully and carefully revised estimate of the cost, and I understand that the information desired by the noble Lord will be ready almost immediately. I assume that the noble Lord, when he talks of cost means the cost to the Government—in other words, that he does not mean the gross cost.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIt would obviously be impossible to obtain the gross amount either of the workers' contributions or of the employers' contributions, as you cannot possibly know the numbers.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYI felt sure that the noble Lord did not mean the cost including the employers' and the workers' contributions. But I can say this to him, that a comprehensive estimate of the whole charges—it can only be an estimate, but it will be a full and comprehensive estimate—is now being prepared and will very shortly be laid before Parliament.
§ LORD SANDERSONI venture to remind the noble Viscount that there is already an actuarial estimate of the probable amount of the contributions by employers and employed. I suppose if that is altered in any way the alteration will be indicated in the new estimate.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, the variations which have been made in this Bill, when we come to see them, will be almost innumerable, and I am afraid that a return simply of the variations would be a very long and complex document and would not convey very much information. I do not know whether it is in order, but might I ask whether the Government would not only produce a statement showing the variations which have been made, but would also give us an explanatory memorandum with regard to the Bill and divide that memorandum under certain heads. For instance, take the doctors, the friendly societies, and other heads of that sort. There have been several changes both with regard to the doctors and the friendly societies. At one time the friendly societies were apparently placated, upon which the doctors again rose in rebellion, and so on; and there have been several settlements or supposed settlements which have turned out not to be in any way final or satisfactory to the persons concerned. It would be of value to know how the succession of changes that have been made with regard to the various classes of persons who are interested in the scheme came to be made.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I was glad to notice that the noble Viscount admitted readily that my noble friend was amply justified in asking for this information, and that he recognised that his Questions were not prompted by mere idle curiosity. With regard to the answers given by the noble Viscount, we are grateful to him for undertaking to supply us with full information as to the variations which have been made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons. My noble friend who has just spoken would like to supplement that by a kind of historical or explanatory memorandum which would have the effect of placing before us in consecutive shape the origin and history of some of those somewhat protean changes. We should be delighted to have such a document, but I am bound to say that I think its preparation during the course of the next few 438 days would severely tax the powers of research and the ingenuity of the official entrusted with the compilation of the Paper.
Then the noble Viscount gave us a reason for which a return in accordance with the second of my noble friend's suggestions might be somewhat misleading. He told us that many of the clauses which had been passed without discussion represented the outcome of prolonged debates, and that it would be misleading to represent them as having never been considered by the House of Commons at all. That, I think, is a perfectly just observation; but I still do not see why it should not be possible, in the special print of the Bill which will be prepared, to indicate, by a red line or otherwise, those clauses which, in fact, have not been discussed at all. If any of us suggested that a particular clause had not been adequately considered, it would be easy for the noble Viscount to point to the history of the clause and show that it was to some extent an agreed clause; but a, number of these undiscussed clauses are by no means agreed clauses, but represent proposals which have been sprung on Parliament and have never been directly or indirectly discussed at all.
The noble Viscount has, I think, met my noble friend very fairly in regard to the proposal that we should be supplied with an estimate of the cost of the proposals contained in the Bill. I am afraid that for myself I do not attach very much importance to these official estimates. We have had some experience of them, and the conclusion to which I am inclined to come is that no amount of actuarial research will give you a result which can be accepted as beyond all proof establishing that the expenditure to be incurred will remain within certain limits. The only other observation I wish to make is that the noble Viscount omitted altogether to notice the last suggestion made by my noble friend, that we should have a statement of the number of new officials to be appointed. That is an item to which personally I attach a great deal of importance. There is no doubt that the creation of new official appointments has lately been proceeding at a fast and furious rate, and I hope that as the noble Viscount has met my noble friend on the other points he will be able to satisfy him upon this point also.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYI am not able to satisfy the noble Lord on that point, which I ought to have mentioned. The Commissioners who will have the administration of this Act will find out from experience what number of officials will be required, and it is impossible for us at present to give even an estimate, or anything more than a very loose or useless estimate. The demand made by the noble Earl opposite is, I think, a perfectly reasonable one in itself if it could be complied with. It would be an enormous facilitation to the discussion, limited as it will be inevitably in this House, if there were a statement of that kind—a statement, for example, which is, I understand, what the noble Earl desires, of what the doctors say, what the housemaids say, what the friendly societies say, and so on. But, as the noble Marquess sees, it would take a great deal of time and a great deal of pressure of mind to state that in a short, simple, and explicit way. But I will consult my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do the best I can to persuade him that it would be desirable to give this information if it is reasonably possible.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe noble Viscount spoke of a statement showing what the doctors say, what the housemaids say, what the friendly societies say, and so on. It is not that that I want. What I want is a statement as to what proposals were originally made with regard to doctors and also with regard to housemaids and so on, and how many times and when and how those proposals have been altered.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYI submit to the noble Earl that all that would be rather old history and purely academic.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYI should have thought, with all deference and respect, that the object of the House of Lords would be to supervise a measure sent up to it from the House of Commons. For purposes of debate it is, of course, lawful to demonstrate inconsistencies. So be it. But to print all the first form of the Bill and contrast that in printed form with the shape that the Bill has ultimately assumed is, I think, too historic and too academic. 440 But, as I say, I will do the best I can to get the view of the noble Earl met.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I should be wanting in courtesy if I did not express my acknowledgments to the noble Viscount for the way he has met my request for information. But because a clause has been tabled by the promoters of the Bill and is intended—genuinely intended—to meet criticisms which have been already passed on the original clause, it must not be assumed that it has met the objections to the original clause.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYI never for one moment meant to say that the clauses that now appear in the Bill are agreed clauses. I never meant that.