§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 42:
§ Local advisory committees.
§ 42. Regulations may provide for the reference to local committees representing employers or insured persons or both, for consideration and advice, of questions bearing upon the administration of this Act, and for the payment by the Minister to the members of any such committee, and to persons attending its meetings at the request of the committee, of such expenses and travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time) as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury may determine.
§
LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end, to insert:
(2) The persons selected as members of the said committees may include persons put forward by organizations concerned with the interests of employers or insured persons, including friendly societies or organizations representative of friendly societies.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage we had some discussion in regard to the friendly societies, in an attempt to determine what part in future those societies should play in national
406
insurance. There was a strong feeling on this side of the House that they should be used to the fullest possible extent, and we voiced that feeling. There is nothing that we should wish to do which would in any way delay, or even be thought to have delayed, the coming into operation of this Bill. As I said, and as others also said, this was a Bill which arose during the time of the Coalition Government; all Parties assented to its main provisions, and it was the work of men of all the Parties in the country. I have not, therefore, again put down the Amendment that was discussed in general with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, on the last occasion, but I have put down this Amendment which I am now moving.
§
Clause 42 of the Bill provides for local advisory committees to help the officials running the scheme under this Bill when it becomes an Act, with advice on various questions. It says:
Regulations may provide for the reference to local committees representing employers or insured persons or both, for consideration and advice, of questions bearing upon the administration of this Act, and for the payment by the Minister …
I seek now to add a paragraph at the end saying:
The persons selected as members of the said committees may include persons put forward by organizations concerned with the interests of employers or insured persons, including friendly societies or organizations representative of friendly societies.
§ I hope and believe there may be a feeling on all sides of the House that it is right and proper to associate the societies (which have done so much in the field of national health insurance) as far as possible with the running of this scheme, and in particular to see that they are represented on these local advisory committees. I am certain that the advice their representatives will give will be sound advice, based on knowledge acquired in the past. It will also help the friendly societies, I hope, to say what information they would like to be given by the Ministry so that there may not be overlapping when they are administering the extended insurance benefits which we hope many people will still take out from these old friendly societies. If we get this collaboration between the representatives of the friendly societies and the officials of the Ministry I think that that co-ordination may be better than it would otherwise 407 have been, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Admendment moved—
Page 36, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, before my noble friend replies I am sorry to say that once again I must find fault with the wording of an Amendment drafted presumably by the noble Lord. It reads, "may include persons put forward by organizations." You do not put forward persons, you put forward names. You could say, "persons proposed by organizations," or you could say, "persons whose names have been put forward by organizations." You certainly cannot say in an Act of Parliament that you put forward persons. I suggest, if this Amendment is accepted, that perhaps at another stage it might be put into good English.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)My Lords, I think I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is not really to blame for this wording, because he and I had a discussion about this Amendment and after telling me what he wanted I endeavoured to find words to meet him and the main responsibility for the wording must be mine. I confess, moreover, that having heard the noble Lord who has just spoken it strikes me that there is very considerable force in his argument, and I will ask the draftsman to look at it again so that if necessary we can have some other words put in. But in principle I am very ready to accept this Amendment. Although I have never been willing to have officials of the friendly societies either as responsible or as paid agents, yet I am very anxious that we should carry the friendly societies with us in the administration of this scheme, and that we should avail ourselves to the fullest extent of the great work they have done, and the knowledge and experience they have acquired during very many years of honourable association and distinguished service to the national insurance scheme. The more we are together the better it will be for both of us. That being so, I have much pleasure on behalf of the Government in accepting the Amendment.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I do not know whether I have a right to say another word, but I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor for pointing out how this arose. If the words were, "whose name has been put forward" I think it would be an improvement.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 67:
§ Compensation for displaced employees.
§ 67.—(1) Regulations shall provide, subject to any prescribed exceptions or conditions, for compensating out of the National Insurance Fund, for loss of employment or for loss or diminution of emoluments or of superannuation or similar rights where the loss or diminution is shown to be directly attributable to the passing of this Act or the making or any regulations, persons of the following classes, namely—
- (a) persons who were employed full-time, during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—
- (i)by an approved society; or
- (ii)by some other body (including a body of which the society is a branch or section) administering the affairs of an approved society;
- (b) persons who during such periods and on such date as aforesaid were employed full-time in connection with any special scheme under section seventy-three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 5933, by the body charged with the administration of the scheme;
- (c) persons who, having before such date as aforesaid been employed in the manner mentioned in either of the foregoing paragraphs, would have been within that paragraph but for any war service in which they have been engaged.
§ 2.47 p.m.
§
LORD LLEWELLIN moved at the end of paragraph (c) to insert:
Provided that the amount of compensation payable to any of the said persons shall not be diminished on the ground that such person has refused an offer of employment by the Minister unless the Minister proves to an arbitration tribunal to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of the determination of such disputes that such refusal having regard to all the circumstances including such person's domestic and personal circumstances was unreasonable.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have again put down an Amendment which I put forward on the Committee stage. My main reason for doing so is that during the course of the discussion we had on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord
409
Pakenham, was kind enough to say that he would communicate with me about this. This is a point with which people other than myself are mainly concerned, and although the noble Lord has been good enough to send a communication to me personally I would like what he told me to be said publicly so that we have on the record an answer to the point I made. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 36, at end insert the new proviso.(—Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for giving me an opportunity to make a statement which I hope will reach the many people interested. The matter to which the noble Lord referred has received close examination by the Advisory Committee which as I mentioned on the Second Reading stage the Minister had appointed. That committee represents the approved societies and the organizations representing their staffs. The real problem of course is to attach a clear meaning to the "reasonable grounds" on which an employee of an approved society will in future be able to refuse work offered him and still be able to receive compensation. It is obviously rather difficult to determine how that word "reasonable" should be defined. The meaning to be attached to the word "reasonable" in this connexion is to receive the further attention of this Advisory Committee, but I should say now that I do not expect it will be possible or desirable to attempt to include a comprehensive definition of the term in the Regulation. The construction of "reasonable" must depend upon the particular circumstances at the particular time, and it can only be determined in the light of the actual facts of the individual case. I would say to the House and the noble Lord that machinery for appeal will certainly be set up and the appeal bodies will be independent of the Ministry. I need perhaps only add that in addition to those required for the Ministry's establishment at Newcastle, very large numbers of people to make up staffs will be required throughout the provinces, and it will be the Policy of the Ministry to find employment as close as possible to their homes for those members of approved society staffs who are absorbed. I feel sure that the last sentence, 410 in particular, will be helpful to Lord Llewellin.
§ 2.51 p.m.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. Two matters that give me considerable satisfaction are, first of all, to know that these claims will be judged by an independent tribunal—that was the main point of the Amendment I put down—and secondly, to learn what, I am certain, will appeal to a large number of people who have got settled homes in, say, southern England, namely that there will be a certain number of jobs for them in those parts, and that they will not, in order to find work in this scheme, have to go to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where, I suspect, the housing situation is not much better than elsewhere. As the noble Lord has been good enough to give me this explanation I will with the permission of the House withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 2.53 p.m.
§
LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) Regulations may provide in respect of any employee (as hereinafter defined) who has been or is proposed to be transferred to employment in the Ministry of National Insurance,
(2) For the purpose of this section "employee" means a person who was employed full-time, during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly different point, but it is also one which concerns the employees of the approved societies. There are many of them, no doubt, whom the Minister will wish to have transferred to the Ministry, and who will be willing to be transferred on the terms that they become permanent civil servants. But it may not be possible to make this arrangement because of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, unless there is some other power given to the Minister to do so. That is the object of subsection (1) (a) of the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. Before I leave that paragraph let me say that if the Minister has not got this power because of that section of the Superannuation Act (if he has got it I shall be very glad to be told of it) I think it would be the wish of everybody that he should have it, so that these people can become permanent civil servants.
411
not being a person who was so employed wholly or mainly on business other than health insurance business; and "former employer "means the Society or body in whose service the employee was prior to being transferred to the Ministry.")
§
The object of paragraph (b) is to give to employees who are taken over a similar right to that given by Clause 36 of the National Health Service Bill. It is given by that Bill to certain local officials. The only difference between these employees and such officials is that provisions of this nature already exist in regard to the latter. But, in each case, there are instances where the superannuation attaching to the former employment is better than any given to civil servants, so I am suggesting that the employee who is in that position may receive the same superannuation benefits as he enjoyed under his former employer, instead of the superannuation rights he would enjoy as an established civil servant. Paragraph (c) is on the usual lines, and follows precedent. Paragraph (d) is only fair to the Minister. It reads:
(d) for the payment to the Minister of the share in any pension or superannuation fund to which the employee may be entitled by virtue of his prior employment;
That is to say the employee will bring the capital credited to him in that fund and will get the higher rate that that fund entitled him to. Paragraph (e) is a machinery paragraph. If there is anything
412
else in relation to this in all these other Acts perhaps I shall be told of it—I have not read them all—but I hope this new clause is so drafted as to bring those Acts into line with our intentions.
§
Subsection (2) of the new clause is a definition of the people whom it is intended to cover by this. It sets out that "employee" means a person who was employed full time,
during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—
That is a provision to ensure that these people who have done good work in the past, and who are naturally feeling somewhat unsettled by reason of their not knowing quite where they will stand when this Bill becomes law, shall have clearly set down What their rights may be and what the Minister may be able to do for them in regard to making them permanent civil servants and seeing that they do not lose any of the superannuation benefit they would have got if they had remained with their approved society. My object is to make better provision for the treatment of these people, and that is why I move this new clause.
not being a person who Was so employed wholly or mainly on business other than health insurance business …
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 44, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin).
§ 2.58 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord has certainly performed a valuable service in setting out so clearly the proper objects that he has in mind. At the same time, I hope that neither he nor other noble Lords will think me unduly evasive if I do not now embark upon a discussion of the full merits of the proposals which he has put forward. The short point is simply this: I have already referred to the advisory committee representing the approved societies and their staffs which is about to report to the Minister on these and kindred questions. I think, I hope and I believe that the noble Lord will be inclined to agree that it would be a mistake to attempt to draw up what one might call a superannuation code this 413 afternoon for the members of the staffs of the approved societies who are going to be taken over by the State. I will just give him one piece of reassurance. As regards paragraph (a) of his proposed clause the noble Lord will be glad to know that no legislation is needed to treat the persons concerned as established civil servants on transfer to the Ministry's staff. The general powers of appointment to the Civil Service are sufficient.
Without, of course, guaranteeing that every person now employed by an approved society who is taken over by the State will become an established civil servant I can assure the noble Lord that we anticipate employing as established civil servants, considerable numbers of people now employed by the approved societies. We recognize the great contribution which these people can make, by virtue of their experience, position and abilities. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that we are unlikely to do anything that would leave them with any sense of grievance. The existence of the Committee which I have mentioned is an earnest of the fact that the Minister is genuinely anxious to obtain the views of their representatives on how this matter can be tackled. I hope the noble Lord will allow representatives of approved societies to continue their work, on the understanding that if legislation should become necessary it would be forthcoming later.
§ 3.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this discussion, but there is just one point I would make. I think it is clear that although the Government cannot accept this Amendment, they are willing to give sympathetic attention to the points raised in it. It is only just that they should do that. The noble Lord said that we do not expect a superannuation code included in the Bill; I understand that that is not practicable. Subsection (1) (c), which empowers the Minister to count as years of pensionable service with the Civil Service the years of a man's pensionable service with his former employer, raises a very important point. Under this subsection, the marl who has been engaged for a large number of years on what was in reality State business has, because the machinery has been changed, technically to change his employment. I have no 414 doubt that a great many men in this position are nervous lest they lose the advantage they should have gained. I hope that that point will engage the most earnest attention of the Government, because if these people were deprived of what is their due, a genuine sense of grievance would be created.
LORD PAKENHAMI can assure the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that the point will receive the most earnest attention. There is some doubt whether that paragraph would entail a chary on the Exchequer, and that raises a complication of a different kind.
§ LORD LLEWELLINI am much obliged to the noble Lord for his courteous reply, and for what he has told us. As I understand the position, this advisory committee will study the question, and when it has reported—if its report is accepted by the Government—I gather that it might need a short Bill to do what I seek to do in this Amendment. In that case the Government would bring forward the necessary amending legislation. Would that be so?
LORD PAKENHAMYes, but I cannot, of course, give any guarantee that the Minister would regard as final and binding the report of any advisory committee.
§ LORD LLEWELLINI did say, "if it was accepted by the Government." On that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 78 [Interpretation]:
§
LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert:
'friendly society' means a society registered as a friendly society under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, being a society which as part of its ordinary business provides benefits during sickness, or other infirmity, or in old age, or in widowhood, or for orphans, and not being a collecting society within the meaning of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923;
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has for a moment left the Chamber, because the Amendment which I am now proposing has the same parentage as that to which he previously objected. This one seems all right to me. I have been reading it through carefully in the interim, and it only seeks to define what we mean by friendly societies. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 13, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I was a little relieved to note the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. When the cat is away, the mice will play! I have very much pleasure in accepting the Amendment, because I do think some definition is necessary, particularly in view of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, which we are shortly to debate.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Fifth Schedule:
§ Constitution, etc., of National Insurance Advisory Committee.
§ 1. The National Insurance Advisory Committee (in this Schedule referred to as "the Committee") shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and not less than three nor more than seven other members so appointed. At least one member of the Committee shall be a woman.
§ 2. The chairman and other members shall hold office for a period which, in the cases of each of the members first appointed and of any member appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall be of such duration not exceeding five years as may be determined by the Minister, and in the case of all other members shall be a period of five years:
§ Provided that any member may by notice in writing to the Minister resign office at any time and shall be eligible for re-appointment from time to time on or after the expiration of his term of office.
§ 3. No member of the Committee shall be capable of being elected to, or of sitting in, the House of Commons.
§ 4. Of the said members, other than the chairman, there shall be appointed—
- (a)one after consultation with organisations representative of employers;
- (b) one after consultation with organisations representative of workers; and
- (c) if and when reciprocal arrangements with the appropriate Northern Irish authority are in force under this Act, one after consultation with that authority.
§ LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in paragraph I, to leave out "three" and insert "four." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendments which I am about to move are inter-related. I should like to begin by saying that I am so confident, following the way in which your Lordships have agreed to the first two Amendments to-day, that I would not mind if the noble Lord, Lord 416 Strabolgi, were present. The first two of my Amendments come from somewhat the same source as those already moved. The third is substantial, and I hope that I may speak on it in moving the others. You will recall that the first was one of a series of Amendments which I moved on the Committee stage, with a view to securing the use of friendly societies as responsible agents in the administration of this national scheme. The Amendment which I moved then received from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, a reply which convinced the great majority of your Lordships that what I was proposing was impracticable and undesirable.
§ I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not think me ungracious if I say that although he convinced the great majority of your Lordships, he did not convince me. The fact that he did not convince me is only additional testimony to the skill with which he presented his case. If I had not been quite such a new boy I think I might, on the last occasion, have made a better rejoinder to his reply. When I am more used to this particular arena, I may be better able to recover before being counted out. On this occasion I am not attempting to raise questions either as to the impracticability, or the desirability or otherwise, of what I proposed on the Committee stage. I should like briefly to refer to two reasons for this Amendment which I put forward on the last occasion. One was the object of humanizing and individualizing the administration of this great national scheme. The second was to prevent damage to the friendly societies, which have been the pioneers of sickness insurance in this country. Those are the two main purposes of my Amendment, and I believe everybody in your Lordships' House would desire to serve those purposes so far as possible.
§ The first purpose, that of humanizing and individualizing administration, cannot in the main be achieved except by some such means as I have indicated. It is a question of the careful selection and training—and, may I add, refresher training—of the staff. That is possible, and I am sure those who have the scheme in mind will deal with that question. The second object, that of preventing damage to the friendly societies, arises from the fact that they are more threatened by 417 this particular Bill than any of the other people who have been concerned with insurance. Because what is included in this Bill is so close to the work of friendly societies, they are threatened more than the industrial life offices and more than the trade unions. And I must say at once that I still think the danger to them is very real. I know from what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said, and from what other members of this House have said on behalf of the Government, that they believe I am wrong in fearing damage to the friendly societies. Let me say here, that there is nothing which would give me greater pleasure than to find that they are right and I am wrong in that. I move this Amendment in the hope that it will help us to prove that although friendly societies have no part in the detailed administration of the scheme, they can in fact grow and prosper independently of it.
§ Independent of the national scheme, there is still great work for them to do, especially if the Amendments which I propose to-day are carried. That will help them to go on. If this Amendment is carried, it will be a formal recognition by the Government and Parliament, that men ought not to try to live by national insurance alone, but that this scheme of security includes voluntary insurance through the friendly societies in addition to the compulsory national insurance. This Amendment gives the friendly societies a recognised place in advising and helping to advise on the regulations that are made. I hope it may help to achieve a method by which voluntary and national insurance, without infringing any of the principles laid down by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on the last occasion, can still be brought together, avoiding any unnecessary overlap and bringing about as much co-operation as is possible. By having the friendly societies represented on this committee you will most certainly be able to get their invaluable experience of how insurance affects the individual citizen. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and thus make it clear that when national insurance comes in we do not want individual voluntary insurance to go out.
§ You will see that the first two of my Amendments increase by one the minimum and the maximum number of the members of the Advisory Committee. 418 Speaking from my experience as chairman of a similar committee dealing with unemployment insurance, I think it is essential that the Advisory Committee should be kept small, but I do not think there can be any harm in adding one to the minimum and the maximum in order to make it easy to bring in the friendly societies without keeping anybody out. I beg to move the first of my Amendments, and I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to correct me.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Beveridge.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has, I think, taken a very convenient course in discussing the three Amendments together, although, of course, they must be put separately. I am rather glad that on the Report stage of this Bill I am enabled to accept in lull the noble Lord's Amendment. I am glad I can accept them from him, because he has been a most gallant and indefatigable fighter on behalf of the friendly societies. I agree with him that they have done great work in the past, and I sincerely hope they have a great future. Without saying more than that, I will indicate that we are very pleased to accept these Amendments. I am always anxious to prevent these committees from being composed of people who regard themselves as delegates. We must always avoid getting people on these committees who take a narrow sectional point of view, and who regard themselves as being there to see that their point of view is upheld. I do not think that there is any danger of that in this case. That is why we now have a maximum number of eight and a chairman, and a minimum number of four, one of whom, as a result of this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, will be somebody representing the friendly societies.
§ Loan LLEWELLINMy Lords, I rose on Committee stage to support the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, with regard to this Amendment. In fact, I asked for a decision then. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government asked if the matter could be considered between then and the Report stage. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has put down his Amendment again, and that the Government have seen fit to accept 419 it. It is right that the friendly societies should be consulted, not only locally, which was the object of my Amendment, but also on the central committee, which is the object of this Amendment. I am very glad that in this way a tribute can be paid to the work which the friendly societies have done.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 14, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight").
Page 83, Line 32,("after workers") insert—("(c) one after consultation with friendly societies or organizations representative of friendly societies; ")—(Lord Beveridge.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.