NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 5 August 1913)

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The first two Clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wilton properly come in as Amendments to Clause 10.

Mr. BATHURST
As regards these two Amendments, I endeavoured to move them in Committee, and I was told by the Chairman that they were not relevant to any of the Clauses, and that I ought to put them down as new Clauses. That is the reason why I have put them down on the Report stage.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am very sorry, but that is my ruling.

Mr. BATHURST
As regards these particular Clauses, they are really an Amendment of Section I of the original Act dealing with voluntary contributors.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Clause 10 in this Bill deals with medical benefit, and it seems to me to be the proper place to introduce anything connected with medical benefit.

§ Mr. FORSTER
May I point out that Clause 10 relates to a very small class of persons now under the Act, but the new Clause which is suggested would cover the whole of the insured?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The title of the new Clause is "Medical Benefit," and the best arrangement would seem to be that all suggested Amendments dealing with medical benefit should come under that Clause, so that all Amendments which may from time to time be made with regard to medical benefit may be found under one heading. The same observation also applies to the next two Clauses (Free Choice of Doctor) and (Limit of Numbers on a Doctor's Panel), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). The new Clause of the same hon. Member, dealing with Medical Referees, should be an Amendment to Clause 11. The Clause (Representation of Medical Profession on Committee for Seamen's National Insurance Society), standing in the name of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus), is an Amendment to Clause 22. The next Clause (Pooling Arrangements for Centralised Societies having Members in more than one part of the United Kingdom), standing in the name of the hon. Members for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Hogge) and Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), is an Amendment to Clause 15, and so also is the following Clause (Pooling Arrangements 1294 in case of Societies with Members in snore than one part of the United Kingdom), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle).

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Must I give notice of this Amendment under Clause 15?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must keep an eye on Clause 15 when it comes along, but in case it should not be reached to-day it would, of course, be advisable to put it on the Paper. The first of the two next Clauses (Seamen employed on ships temporarily outside the United Kingdom), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Frederick Hall), ought to be an Amendment to Clause 22, and the second (Employed Contributors) involves a charge, and we cannot deal with it on Report. A third Clause (Exception of Hospital Employés) in the name of the same hon. Member should be an Amendment to Clause 6. Two Clauses (Attendance of Second Doctor) and (Diseases Caused by Misconduct of Insured) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the University of London, are Amendments to Clause 10, and the next Clause (Vesting the Powers of the Several Bodies of Insurance Commissioners in the Joint Committee) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) is an Amendment to Clause 27 or to Clause 15.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
On the point of Order. May I ask you to reconsider that decision for a moment? This new Clause which I have put down has for its object the abolition of the four Commissions, and the Clause to which you call my attention is merely one, as I understand it, to permit regulations to be made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the principal Act, which is not the Section which creates the four Commissions. Clause 27 is really an administrative Clause, giving special powers to the Joint Committee, and the new Clause, on the other hand, is one to abolish the four Commissions and vest all the powers of the four Commissions in one Committee, which in future would be the sole Commission. I submit that it really deals with a very much wider subject, and a subject quite separate from that dealt with in Clause 27.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member might put it as the first Sub-section of Clause 27. It is still relevant to the Joint Committee of the Insurance Commissioners.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
It really does away altogether with the Joint Committee as at present known. It is quite true that the words "Joint Committee" are to be found, in my new Clause, but they are not used in the same sense as they are used in Clause 27 of the Bill. I submit, therefore, that it is really not at all relevant to that Clause.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)
On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman succeeded in convincing the Chairman of the Committee upstairs that it was relevant to that Clause.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory. It was not on that Clause that it was taken, it was on the Clause which is now Clause 15.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
No. Clause 15 was introduced as a new Clause by myself.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
This time I am glad to find myself in agreement with the Chairman of the Committee. The hon. Member's next Clause (Provisions relating to Administration Expenses) imposes a charge.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
May I submit to you that the only effect of this is to take 4d. per person per annum from the reserve values fund and put it into the administrative account of the approved society. The reserve values fund is not a fund which is supplied out of moneys provided by Parliament except in the first instance as a paper credit and not as a cash transaction at all. It is repaid out of the contributions paid by the insured persons and not out of moneys provided by Parliament. I therefore submit that it is not putting a charge upon Parliament.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Supposing the contributions fall short, who has to pay it then?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The contributions cannot fall short in this sense. There is a fixed proportion of the contribution, namely, 1½d per week for women, and 1 5–9d. for men, and the total contribution by the employer and the employed is 7d. I agree that some things diminish under the Act, but I do not think that 7d. can fall below 1½d. and 1 5–9d.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
It is quite true, as I understand it, that there may be an in- 1296 crease of reserve funds, but every expenditure carries with it two-ninths State contribution, and, therefore, next year when we begin to contribute two-ninths out of the State fund it must form a charge.