HC Deb 15 December 1911 vol 32 cc2789-93

Lords Amendment in page 9, line 33, in Sub-section (4), leave out the words "over the age of sixteen years," and insert in line 36 the words "and is, at the time of so becoming an employed contributor, of the age of seventeen or upwards."

[Sub-section (4): In the case of every person over the age of sixteen years who, not having been previously insured under this Part of this Act, becomes an employed contributor subsequently to the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act, the rate of sickness benefit to which he is entitled shall (unless he proves that his time since he attained the age of sixteen has been spent in a school or college, in indentured apprenticeship or otherwise under instruction without wages, or otherwise in the completion of his education, or unless he undertakes himself to pay the difference between the voluntary rate and the employed rate, or pays to the Insurance Commissioners, to be credited to the society, such capital sum as will be sufficient to secure him benefits at the full rate) be such reduced rate as may be fixed in accordance with tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, but not in any case less than five shillings a week……]

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I would wish that the right hon. Gentleman should make some explanation of this Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

This is only carrying out what was done on the Report stage, but in a more convenient form. It is in order to make clear that over sixteen years of age shall not mean a person who will be seventeen years of age on his next birthday, but shall mean a person who is seventeen years of age or upwards.

Mr. GRETTON

The Government inserted sixteen in the Bill. Then, for some reason or other—I strongly suspect an actuarial reason—sixteen was found to be very inconvenient, so on the Report stage they make the age seventeen by a roundabout method. Then they found that the words used were too definite, and other words are put in that they meant seventeen, and not sixteen. This is a most extraordinary course of proceeding. I can only imagine that the Government resorted to this because it has been said up and down the country that the age limit is to be sixteen, and now they find that they cannot adhere to it, and they want to take these words out of the Bill, and they proceed to say that those words do not mean what they mean in other places.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The age of insurance remains sixteen. The only point of the alteration was that in certain cases where the age mentioned is "over the age of sixteen" it is made quite clear that it means seventeen years of age or more. It does not affect the time at which insurance is to be calculated, which is the age of sixteen. The hon. Member completely misapprehends the point.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 5, after the word "Act" insert A county council shall not raise any sum on account of any expenditure incurred by them under this Part of this Act for the purpose to which the agreement relates within the borough or urban or rural district council which has entered into such agreement during the continuance of such agreement.

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment comes within the category of privilege because it affects the question of rating. Of course it is open to this House to amend this Amendment if the House chooses to do that, and a note will be made in the Journals of the House recording the fact that the Amendments were made.

6.0 P.M.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I propose to the House that we waive privilege on this occasion, and I shall submit Amendments which will give effect to what Lord Balfour of Burleigh meant. The effect of the Clause as it comes to us is that it is not possible for the county council to make an agreement with a borough which expended moneys on sanatorium benefit for the county council afterwards to raise any money in that same area for the purpose of paying anything in respect of medical benefits. The object of the Amendment I propose is to leave it open to the county council to raise money in the same way for medical benefit, notwithstanding that an agreement has been arrived at between the county council and the borough to expend money in respect of sanatorium. As it stands, the agreement excludes any rating for sanatoria or medical benefit. I am quite sure that was not the purpose. After the five Amendments to the Lords Amendment which we propose, the Clause will read:— The agreement may provide that the county council shall not raise any sum on account of any expenditure incurred by them under this Part of this Act for the purpose to which the agreement relates within the borough or urban or rural district council which has entered into such agreement during the continuance of such agreement. The effect of that is that, notwithstanding the agreement between the county council and the borough for sanatorium benefit or medical benefit, as the case may be, that money may still be raised by the county council in the particular area.

Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment to leave out the word "A," and to insert the words "The agreement may provide that the"

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I am very glad that the Government has come to a better mind in respect of these Amendments of the Lords. It was claimed loudly that we could, under no circumstances, waive our privileges on Lords Amendments. We are waiving them now, and I hope the Government does not mean to insist literally on the privileges of this kind, and is prepared to accept advice from the Lords, even when that touches on those privileges.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 29, at end, insert (iii.) The Insurance Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding whether any class of employment is employment within the meaning of this Part of this Act, submit the question for decision to the High Court in such summary manner as subject to rules of Court may be directed by the Court, and the Court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question, and the decision of the Court shall be final.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I wish to raise a question on the next Amendment made by the Lords—to add at the end of paragraph (2) of Clause 65 the words, The Insurance Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding whether any class of contributor is employed within the meaning of this Part of the Act submit the question for decision to the High Court … and the Court after hearing such parties shall decide the question and the decision of the Court shall be final. On this question I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the right of appeal is limited to the Insurance Commissioners and why there should not be a double and reciprocal right for the insured persons as well. If it is good in the case of the Insurance Commissioners that there should be a right of appeal, surely it is more so in the case of any person who might be aggrieved by their decision. If a person aggrieved by their decision had the right of appeal, they would have to pay the cost out of their own pocket, whereas in the case of the Insurance Commissioners the cost will come out of the Exchequer or out of the Insurance fund. I see no reason therefore why the right of appeal should not be extended. I think it would be a much more complete and satisfactory arrangement if the double right were given.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think the hon. Member must have overlooked Sub-section (1), because there is there the right of appeal to the County Court by persons aggrieved and a further appeal on questions of law to the High Court. This new paragraph simply says that the Insurance Commissioners when they have doubt in their own minds shall submit the question in doubt for the decision of the High Court.