NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 155 



That Clause 51, as at present drafted, is wrong in principle 

 and unworkable. 



3. The actuarial statistics upon which the Government 



relied, and upon which they based their estimates, were those 

 of the Manchester Unity. These statistics clearly demonstrate 

 that rural England possesses an excellent standard of health, 

 unknown in the towns. Under present Friendly Society con- 

 ditions the excessive sickness experience of the towns is, to a 

 considerable extent, counterbalanced by the better health of 

 the country districts. This, however, only applying to ages 

 after 70. This will, in future, no longer be the case, as the Bill 

 proposes that all benefits (except medical benefits) shall cease 

 at the age of 70. Clearly the country districts will be heavily 

 penalised in the event of the measure becoming law in its present 

 form. 



4. No benefits under the scheme are payable after the age 

 of 70 (except medical benefits). All men over the age of 65 at 

 the passing of the Bill, whether previously insured or not, were 

 debarred under the Bill as originally drafted from receiving 

 benefits, although the employers had to pay contributions in 

 respect of them. Under the Chancellor's proposed amendment 

 they are to receive an amount equal to the employer's contri- 

 bution, and 2d. from the State. Thus the benefit payable to a 

 man over the age of 65 will be much greater if he reaches that 

 age after the passing of the Bill than if he did so before. It is 

 suggested that men over 65 at the passing of the Bill, who have 

 been insured in a Friendly Society, should receive the same 

 benefit as if they had been insured under the Bill, and thus be 

 put in the same position as men who reach the age of 65 after 

 the passing of the Bill. 



5. So far as your Committee can see, no provision appears 

 to be made for an equitable treatment of employers of, and of 

 those employed in, casual labour. This will be a great handicap 

 on seasonal branches of agriculture. It will be especially hard 

 on those w r ho produce hops, fruit, vegetables and to a serious 

 extent on all agricultural employers, while it will at the same 

 time inflict grave injustice on all casual employes. The whole 

 question of casual labour would seem urgently to require re- 

 consideration. 



6. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has drafted a new Clause, 

 and has asked the Council to express their opinion upon it. 

 Your Committee have carefully considered this Clause, but 

 find to their disappointment that it does not attempt to meet 

 the objections to the Bill which were put forward in their last 

 report, and which were debated at the last meeting of the Council 

 on llth July, and in the House of Commons on the 10th July. 

 So far as a large part of Scotland, and to some extent parts of 

 England, \vhere annual hirings are customary, the new Clause 

 may be beneficial, though even in these districts we consider that 

 the reduction of the payments required from both employer and 



