HC Deb 23 November 1911 vol 31 cc1369-70

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been called to a case at the Battersea coroner's court, on Friday last, during an inquest on Rosie Ives, who died from the result of burns, when Albert Ives, the father, told the coroner that three years ago he was incapacitated from doing any work by an accident, and was receiving 12s. 9d. per week as compensation money, and paid 7s. 6d. rent, which left 5s. 3d. to maintain the family of six; if he was aware that, in consequence of the Government not agreeing to pay sick pay insurance money in case of accident under the State insurance scheme, hundreds of families would be in a worse position than the case referred to; and if he intended taking any action in the matter?


I may remind my hon. Friend that there are hundreds of families with no provision at all where the breadwinner is incapacitated by illness. In the case mentioned by him the allowance received is 12s. 9d. The result of accepting the Amendment to which he refers would have been to reduce the allowance in cases of sickness to 9s. The Amendment, as my hon. Friend is aware, was defeated in Committee by an overwhelming majority. To have accepted it would have been to disregard the advice of the Government actuaries, which has since been confirmed by the actuary consulted by my hon. Friends below the Gangway.


Is it necessary to take the compensation money in order to give "9d. for 4d."?