HL Deb 28 March 1922 vol 49 cc925-8
LORD SYDENHAM

My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government—(1) When the Bill dealing with industrial assurance, which has passed its Second Reading, will be proceeded with; and (2) whether the lapses of industrial assurance policies, by the Prudential Assurance Company alone, exceeded 1,200,000 in 1921. The Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee on Industrial Insurance was published two years ago. That Report was an exceedingly important document, because it proved up to the hilt that some striking abuses had grown up in our whole system of industrial assurance. It also showed that great loss and hardship was inflicted upon a large number of people with very small means. That Report proposed practical and definite remedies as a basis for legislation, and it went on to say— The need is urgent, and legislation should be undertaken without delay. I then tried to bring the whole question before your Lordships' House, and to show that there were some abuses which even went beyond the Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee.

On July 8, 1920, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who then represented the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House, admitted the evils which the Report pointed out, and also said that some action was "inevitable," But no action of any kind followed. After I had again pleaded strongly the urgency of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, presented the Government's Bill and it was read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House on August 10 last. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon, gave his complete blessing to the Bill and said this:— It is absolutely essential that a Measure of this kind should be passed into law, in the interests of policy holders and also of insurance companies. The Government Bill embodied all the remedies proposed by Lord Parmoor's Committee and is, in my opinion, a very good Bill, though it may want a little strengthening in one or two directions.

But nearly eight months have now elapsed since the Bill was read a second time. During that period very strong opposition has been mobilised against the Bill, and I even understand that an alternative Bill is being or has been drafted. On the other hand, there has been none of that insistent public demand which one might have expected for the redress of one of the greatest of the grievances from which the most thrifty sections of our working classes suffer, though I am informed that the Labour Party is at length beginning to take some interest in this very important question. The reasons for this apparent apathy are somewhat obscure, but the immense power of the great corporations which spend hundreds of thousands a year in advertisements must be taken into full account. One paper which used formerly to champion the interests of the policy holders has, with rather suspicious suddenness, abandoned their cause entirely. I earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to go on with this Bill without arty further delay, so as to leave on the Statute Book a measure affecting the welfare of the most thrifty section of our workers, before it falls upon them to retire from their place.

My second Question is intended only to bring out the fact that the terrible extent of unemployment at the present time may result in increasing the number of lapses, and the effect of lapses is that immense numbers of very poor people lose the whole of their past contributions to the companies.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that there is no apathy on the part of His Majesty's Government to this Question, and I hope that what I shall be able to tell him will reassure him on that point. I remember that last year, when I introduced this Bill, I said that it had been brought forward for a Second Reading so that it might be considered by all those concerned and subjected to any criticisms or objections which might be put forward. Since that time several deputations have been received at the Home Office by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, and the whole question has been most carefully discussed. Some of the parties who have been to the Home Office favoured the Bill and others did not. Some of those who did not favour it have, as the noble Lord mentioned, suggested an alternative Bill. They have actually produced that Bill and handed it to the Home Office.

My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, informed their representatives on a deputation at which I was present that this alternative Bill did not provide satisfactory safeguards and would not be acceptable to the Government. Considerable discussion took place on the point, and it was agreed that the Secretary of State should forward to those companies who objected and were presenting the alternative Bill, his criticisms and objections to their Bill. That has been done and the companies have been asked to assist in setting up a small committee of their members to confer with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the Government actuary, and any other experts who may be appointed, in order that this Committee may meet together to see whether it is possible to reach some measure of agreement, if not perhaps on every point of detail, at any rate on the main provisions of the Bill. I may say, in addition to this, that my right honourable friend is anxious that these negotiations shall be pushed forward as quickly as possible, but of course they may take some time, and I am not able to say with certainty when they will be concluded, or when it will be possible to reintroduce the measure. I should like to state, however, that my right honourable friend is convinced that a Bill providing adequate safeguards for policy holders is very necessary and should be carried out without delay.

Then I turn to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, and all I can say is that we have no official information available to enable us to give a reply; but the Home Office has communicated with the Prudential Insurance Company and has received a letter in reply. I have given a copy of the letter to the noble Lord. It is very long, and I do not think it is necessary for me to read it to your Lordships, but the figure which is stated in that letter as to the lapsed policies is 638,811.

LORD SYDENHAM

I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I hope the negotiations will not take very long. I am very glad to know that the Government is in earnest about this matter, and feels that these very grave abuses ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible.