§ (1) The rate of sickness benefit shall not be reduced in the case of an insured person who became an employed contri- 1305 butor within one year after the commencement of the principal Act by reason that at the date of so becoming an employed contributor he was of the age of fifty years or upwards, and accordingly Sub-section (3) of Section nine and C in Part I. of the Fourth Schedule of the principal Act shall be repealed.
§ (2) Part I. of the principal Act shall apply to persons who at the commencement of the principal Act were of the age of sixty-five or upwards, and under the age of seventy, and to persons who have since the commencement of the principal Act attained or may hereafter attain the age of sixty-five in like manner as it applies to other persons, and accordingly Sub-section (4) of Section one, paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section four, and Section forty-nine of the principal Act shall be repealed:
§ Provided that a person who is of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the time of entering into insurance shall not be entitled to medical benefit after he attains the age of seventy unless the number of weekly contributions paid by or in respect of him exceeds twenty-six.
§ (3) The Insurance Commissioners may make such regulations as they may consider necessary for providing, in the case of any such classes as aforesaid, for the transition from the provisions of the principal Act affecting them to the provisions of that Act as amended by this Section.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one year" ["within one year after the commencement of the principal Act"], and to insert instead thereof the words "sixty-five weeks."
I am not quite sure that I ought not to tell you, Sir, that the Amendment may be out of order, on the ground that it imposes a charge. Under Clause 2 of the Bill, sixty-five weeks have been substituted for one year, so that employed contributors and voluntary contributors can gain the advantages of the Act within a period of sixty-five weeks, instead of the original period of one year. At the time that Clause 3 was moved in Committee upstairs, that alteration had not been made. Had it been made, I have no doubt that the form of the alteration would have been sixty-five weeks instead of one year. It seems absurd that for all people except those over fifty years of age sixty-five weeks should be the qualifying period, but 1306 for those over fifty years of age one year should be the qualifying period. It seems unwise to differentiate between the two classes in a mere matter of thirteen weeks. If the Amendment does impose a charge, of course I shall not be able to move it. I do not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury is going to claim that it does impose a charge.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat is not for me to decide, but I should have thought it did increase the charge. If it does not, we will consider it, and see whether we can insert it in another place.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI suppose the hon. Member for Colchester will be satisfied with that?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.