CRITICISM AND THE INSURANCE BILL.
THE Government supporters of the Insurance Bill—the thick-and-thin supporters, that is to say, the " whole- hoggers " of the Radical Caucus—seem to be drifting into a curious position. They are as sensitive to criticism as a minor poet. The Bill may be amended out of the noble forbearance and the marvellous grace of its authors ; but to press for amendments is the proof of a malevolent heart. They write to the papers declaring that the Unionist who says that he welcomes the principles of the Bill and at the same time picks holes in it is a political Judas. It is ail very curious, and shows the condition to which our legisla- tive processes have fallen through the tyranny of the Cabinet and the Caucus. The British people are to accept measures with humble gratitude as a species of divine gift, and any attempt to look the gift horse in the mouth is no better than lhe-majeste. We are threatened that if we say too much we shall have something worse imposed upon us. This is the pass to which those who profess to expound democracy would reduce a free people. They warn us that free discussion may entail penalties, and yet if ever a proposal called for the closest scrutiny it is the Insurance Bill. In the Government's own interest this scrutiny is desirable, for if the original intention had been followed, and the Bill rushed through under the closure, the only result must have been a deep and universal unpopularity. The measure is badly drafted and the whole scheme imperfectly thought out. The great Friendly Societies and many of the trade unions view it with deep uneasiness. The whole medical profession is in revolt against it. To a large class of the workers in town and country the rate of the levy seems extravagant. If the Unionist Party had been Machiavellian in its tactics it would have abetted the Government in forcing it through at the earliest p)ssible moment. One year's working of the original Bill would have meant a rich harvest in the constituencies.
We repeat what we have said from the start, that we are in favour of the principle of compulsory and comprehensive insurance. There is much in the Bill of which we approve, but we thin`k that its authors, without properly foreseeing the consequences, have carried their principle to a point where it becomes subversive of much that is best in British institutions. Comprehension is carried too far when it involves too vast and too costly a machinery, and imposes an undue burden on certain classes. Compulsion is carried too far when. it means the overthrow of a living and successful voluntary system. The Bill is nothing short of a revolution—beneficent in some ways and clearly malefident in others. We plead for time and full discus- sion. Three-fourths of the House of Commons do not fully understand the measure, and the classes most deeply con- cerned are only beginning to awake to many of its con- sequences. To hustle such a Bill through in the dog-days is surely ridiculous. We willingly grant that Mr. Lloyd George has shown himself very ready and willing to meet his critics. The Unionist Party will gladly co-operate with him in making the scheme workable, but they cannot forgo their duty of criticism merely because various members of the Radical Party threaten that greater blunders will be perpetrated if those which exist are too hardly dealt with.
Let us recapitulate some of the more revolutionary features of the Bill. In the first place it bureaucratizes our greatest voluntary organizations. The Friendly Societies, so far as concerns the fourpenees contributed by their members, become mere outlying branches of a Government department. No doubt they will still ad- minister any surplus in their contributions beyond the sums prescribed by the Bill, but as regards the greater part of their funds they will be simply agents of the Insurance Commissioners. Their constitution and methods of administration will be rigidly laid down for them. It is impossible to expect from such truncated bodies the old spirit of loyalty which made each member of a Friendly Society a guardian of the Society's interests. The difficulty with all State insurance schemes, as Germany has found to her cost, is that it is impossible to prevent malingering. There is no esprit de corps towards the State. If we weaken the corporate independence of the Friendly Societies we are throwing away the only real safeguard against- national waste and an undermining of the national character. We should have preferred to see Societies which provided a reasonable insurance left out of the compulsory part of the scheme. In any ease we greatly prefer some such amendment as that moved by Mr. Worthington Evans, which in the case of members of " approved " Societies allows the Societies to receive the fourpences in the way of ordinary contributions, the State paying over to them the due proportion of the State and employers' con- tributions. Then,, take the case of the doctors. A large part of the medical profession is to be turned into Govern- ment officials. Even if the question of payment is arranged satisfactorily, we cannot regard without misgiving this bureaucratizing of a learned profession. It will certainly not make for professional efficiency ; the fine traditions of the service will be weakened; and that power of free con- tract between patient and doctor, which means confidence, will be gone. Still more difficult is the case of the hospitals. The great voluntary hospitals will have their work increased and their income diminished. They will have to pay between £20,000 and £30,000 a year for the insurance of their employees, in spite of the fact that ample sick benefits for these already exist. Hitherto they have been largely supported by two classes—workmen and employers —who cannot be expected to continue their subscriptions on anything like the old scale. No wonder that Lord Sanderson, speaking at the meeting of representatives of charitable societies last Monday, said that they would have preferred some measure "less ambitious, less indis- criminate, and inore carefully adapted to the classes in need of assistance."
This brings us to the fundamental economic fault of the Bill—its waste. Compulsory insurance, let it be re- membered, is a tax, and, as a tax, must be judged on two principles—the ability of the taxpayer to pay and the cost of collection. It is idle to argue that because the proceeds are to be used in the payer's interest therefore it is no tax. Supposing a Tariff Reform Ministry had raised twenty millions by taxes on food and raw material, and had earmarked the proceeds for an endowment of unemployment and invalidity, would Liberals thereby have been compelled to refrain from criticism 9 Now let it be clearly understood that we do not object to a tax for this purpose. We think that workmen in receipt of good wages can well afford to pay the 4d. a week, and that many employers will not find the levy a hardship. But there is geing to be a fine crop of ex- ceptions. In the ease of wages above 15s. a week there is no graduation, and a man earning 16s. pays the same as a man earning £3. Many families whose income is in the neighbourhood of a pound a week will feel the pinch. It is not too much to say that the Bill is an endowment of the prosperous workman at the expense of the lets pro- sperous, and to our mind it will work hardship unless there is a reasonable graduation throughout. We want it "more carefully adapted to the classes in need of assistance." Then, as to the employers' case. A man in whose total expenditure the labour bill plays a small part will probably not feel the contribution. But if wages, as in many industries, are far the largest item, he may feel it acutely. The result will either be the lowering of wages or the increase of the cost to the consumer. If the Govern- ment hope to avoid this, then they hope to work a miracle. We ask with some interest, what is to be their future line of argument against Tariff Reform ? Finally as to the cost of collection. Mr. Sidney Webb estimates the cost to the nation, taking the expenses of the State and the Friendly Societies together, at between 20 and 25, per cent. of the total yield. This figure may be excessive, but it is certain that it will be many times the cost at which the same amount could be raised by any of the ordinary methods of direct or indirect taxation. It is surely our business to make certain, before we embark on so ex- travagant a scheme, that we are going to get-good value for our money.
Previous page
