National insurance (1911)

Post date: Feb 17, 2014 4:57:48 PM

Extract from Parish Magazine of December 1911 with vicar's reflections on National Insurance Bill introduced by Lloyd George in 1911.

It was (Sir Robert Ensor England 1870-1914) "a vast contributory scheme to insure the whole working population against sickness, and certain sections of it against unemployment; modeled on the working of the German Law of 1889, in that compulsory contributions were collected from employers and employed by means of stamped cards (a device till then untried in England); but differing , in that the great English friendly societies, which had covered much of the less difficult ground on a voluntary basis, were with the trade unions brought in as 'approved societies' to administer the money benefits for their members."

THE INSURANCE BILL.—A petition against the servants clauses of this Bill is being extensively signed in the parish by mistresses and maids alike. It is laid down in the Bill that indoor servants will not be able in times of sickness to obtain the benefits for which they and their employers make weekly payment if they remain under the roof of their employers. This part of the Bill would really seem to be framed of malice prepense to make it impossible for mistresses in the future to keep and look after their maids, when they are temporarily ill, as they have done in the past. Colonel Borton, who has studied the Bill thoroughly, advises working men to seek admission into some Friendly Society without delay. Everyone is in favour of insurance. Every wise man tries to make personal provision for the unseen future. Societies help men to help another by insurance on co-operative lines. The 'nationalization ' of insurance was bound to come sooner or later. So we have this Bill. It is framed on a contributory and a compulsory basis. There are not a few people who regard the compulsory basis as wrong in principle, but still the principle of the Bill seems to have been accepted by all political parties. There agreement seems to end. The Bill fails to reconcile the conflicting interests and claims of different bodies and classes of people, such as the Friendly Societies and the Medical Associations, who, looking upon it from a social or professional rather than a political point of view, object on varying grounds to many of its provisions. It is difficult to see how the scheme can work smoothly. It is left to a small body of Commissioners to adminster the Bill and to settle these and all other difficulties that may arise. The Commissioners are invested with extraordinary powers—powers that seem to enable them to interpret the Act without appeal allowed to the ordinary Courts of Justice, and to alter the Act without reference to Parliament. This is a new departure—a revolution. Such a transference of responsibility from Parliament to a Commission is a very serious matter. We have seen a sign of the dangers of departmtal government in the treatment of the "Swansea Case" by the "Education Department." It is also a serious matter that whole clauses of an important Bill should be forced through the House of Commons without any opportunity be given to the representatives of the people to amend,or even to discuss them; in fact without their being even read in the House. This is legislation not by Parliament but by the Cabinet; and, since the conditions attending the introduction of many of the.new clauses make it quite certain that they cannot have been considered by the Cabinet, it amounts to this-—that it is legislation simply by the individual fiat of the Minister who has charge of the Bill.