§ (1) So much of Sub-section (5) of Section 8 as requires the payment of fifty contributions between two periods of disease or disablement in order to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other shall cease to have effect.
§
(2) At the end of the same Sub-section the following provision shall be added—
Where by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of this Act a part only of sickness benefit has been paid to an insured person, he shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be treated as having been in receipt of sickness benefit for a period bearing the same proportion to the whole period in respect of which such part benefit was paid to him as that part bears to the whole benefit, and the period so resulting shall be deemed to have been continuous and to have expired on the last day of the incapacity in respect of which the partial benefit was paid.
§
Amendment proposed [23rd July]: At the end of the Clause, to add as a new Sub-section,
(3) Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act shall be read and construed as if the words 'and is a married woman or, if the child is a posthumous child, a widow,' were omitted therefrom."—[Mr. Rupert Gwynne.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be added to the Clause."
§ Debate resumed.
§ The CHAIRMANThis Amendment was being moved when the Committee adjourned yesterday. From the Mover's statement it was quite evident that it included besides sickness benefit, disablement benefit; and also, on closer examination of this and the next Amendment, it 2986 seems to me they affect maternity benefit primarily, and the conditions under which maternity benefit is given. Therefore, they should come under a separate Section, not under this Section. I therefore propose to call upon Mr. Goulding to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. GWYNNEOn a point of Order. I do not quite see, as you ruled it in order yesterday, why you should rule it out of order to-day. I quote from yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT:—"The Chairman: The hon. Member rose before I finished my sentence. I had not ruled it out of order." I proceeded to move it, and at the end you, Sir, said, "I will call on you first to-morrow." May I submit, on this point, that this is an Amendment which would alter Sub-section (6) (Section 8 of the principal Act)? Well, the Government themselves have got down an Amendment under this Clause itself (Clause 6), and I submit that I have just as much right to move an Amendment to the original Act, under this Clause, as the Government have to move their Amendment to the same Clause; and if one is out of order, I submit that both are out of order. I am not inserting any additional points which do not come within Clause 8 of the original Bill. I am merely asking that certain words should be left out, so that the Clause may treat in the same way a woman who is not married, and has a child, as it treats a woman who is married. I really cannot see how that is bringing in anything fresh. This Amendment deals with a certain Clause in the original Act, and I am seeking to leave out certain words. I do not see that it is a fresh Clause.
§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELI rise to a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member had risen to a point of Order, but he is snaking a speech on the matter.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is quite in order after what was said yesterday. My point yesterday was that, as the Amendment stood on the Paper, I had not detected in it anything which would rule it out of order on this particular Clause, but, as the hon. Member developed his argument, it seemed to me, it referred to Amendments of the principal Act. The hon. Member said Clause 8 of the principal Act deals with maternity benefits. Both these Amendments relate to the Maternity Benefit Clause. Therefore, I thought, for convenience it would be better to have them discussed in another place than this. I quite admit the hon. Member is right.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELI understood you had ruled it out of order.
§ The CHAIRMANNo.
§ Mr. GWYNNEWe are putting on one side a great many important points which will probably be brushed on one side when we come to the end of this Committee stage. I therefore submit that now is a more convenient time to discuss this question. It is a quite clear and simple point; it is merely this, that a woman who gives birth to an illegitimate child shall have the same privileges which you give to a married woman. I really do submit that this is a most convenient place to discuss it, and I would asked to be allowed to go on with my argument.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)On this point of Order, I would be the last to try and rule the hon. Member out from raising his point, but it is really a maternity benefit point in its essentials, and it would be far more convenient and far more in order to deal with it in connection with the various Maternity Clauses, which will be brought up as Maternity Clauses, than to introduce it into a Clause which deals purely with minor matters in connection with sickness benefit.
§ Mr. GWYNNEThe second Amendment does deal with sickness benefit, and this Clause 6 is added sickness benefit. The right hon. Gentleman has not heard my argument in favour of the second Clause. I really do not see why he should rule out all these Amendments merely because one happens to deal with maternity benefit. It is merely leaving out the restriction in Clause 8 of the principal Act, and as we are already dealing with Clause 8 of the principal Act this seems to me the most convenient time for removing that restriction, if we are going to do it. At any rate, we ought to discuss it now. I do press you, Mr. Wilson, to allow me to go on, especially after what you said last night. I do not think it can be said my remarks went very far, because I was stopped before I had spoken more than three or four lines.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI believe we should save time if we got on with the Amendments and did not discuss points of Order.
§ The CHAIRMANMy judgment is this, that it would be more convenient to discuss it later. I cautioned the hon. 2988 Member, as you will see from the OFFICIAL REPORT, at the concluding part of yesterday's sitting, that I thought it had developed into a maternity benefit question rather than one of sick benefit. That is to say, sick benefit only arises after cases of maternity, and, therefore, it would be better to deal with it, under another Clause than this. If the hon. Member will accept my ruling I will, as far as I can, secure that he shall have an opportunity later for discussing this point.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAnything I can do to forward that promise I shall do.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI submit to your ruling. With regard to the second Amendment, I take it your suggestions do not cover the whole of these Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst)?
§ The CHAIRMANI think it is the same point.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSAs I understand it, it will be more convenient to deal with maternity benefits as a whole, but the second Amendment does not deal with maternity benefits. Quite the contrary, it deals only with sickness and disablement benefit. It is true the person to whom sick and disablement benefits are to be given will also be given maternity benefit, but that does not make it maternity benefit. On the contrary, it comes as a sickness benefit, and is paid out of the contributions for that.
§ The CHAIRMANI pointed out yesterday that the hon. Member had by his speech put the first Amendment on the same basis as the second, which I said evidently dealt with disablement rather than sickness benefit.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not want to press it unduly, but under the original Act Section 8 is the Section which lays down the conditions of benefit and defines the benefits, and, if that Section stands as it is, will it not be said that a new Clause is brought up which is contradictory to the main Section 8 of the original Act, and that it cannot be moved without amending Section 8 of the original Act? If I am right in that, where would you suggest that an Amendment of this nature should be proposed to Section 8? Where should it come into this amending Bill? The Government have chosen the place; they have chosen this place. All that my hon. Friend is doing is selecting 2989 the same lines as the Government have selected, and adding to the Amendments which are being proposed. If ever there was an Amendment of Section 8 it must surely come in here in the place which the Government themselves have selected!
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis new Clause does not say "Amendment to Section 8" either in the Title or in the Clause, and therefore it does not shut out other Amendments to Section 8. Section 8 is here, in the original Act, occupying two and a half pages. It contains a very large number of Sub-sections, and I should submit that an Amendment to Section 8 would be relevant.
§ The CHAIRMANI take the view that those particular two Amendments are not germane to the subjects mentioned in Clause 6, which we are discussing, whatever the title may be. Members are perhaps misled by the side-note. It seems to me that I should not dream of ruling this Amendment out of order if it were brought forward as a new Clause on the grounds that the hon. Member has referred to.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIt would hardly come in as a new Clause because at present in Clause 6 of this amending Bill we are altering Sub-section (5) of Section 8, and I merely want to omit something from Subsection (6) of Section 8. But I would like to know what words did I say yesterday which led the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he had given a wider interpretation to my remarks than he originally thought, because according to the OFFICIAL REPORT I did nothing but read out the Amendment as it stood without making any comment at all.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member will look at the last column of the REPORT he will see that he referred to disablement and maternity benefit.
§ Mr. GWYNNEThe right hon. Gentleman will find that I did nothing but read out the Amendment itself which he had before him. I made no comment, and no remark upon it.
§ Mr. FORSTERMy hon. Friend, if he wants to be in order here, should move the Amendment leaving out the reference to disablement. I think that that would be clearly in order. All these discussions about order are taking up an unnecessary amount of time.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat would make it exactly the same as the Amendment which has been already ruled out of order.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESIf this Amendment is in order, and as Section 8 I think deals with every benefit in the Act, therefore Amendments relating to any benefit would be in order as an Amendment to Clause 6.
§ The CHAIRMANI think for the general convenience, it is better to take these Amendments which include very wide changes in the original Act as standing by themselves in a separate class, and not coining in under a more or less technical Clause such as Clause 6.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI do not want to be argumentative, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who objected to my moving this Clause on general disablement that Sub-section (5) of the principal Act, which is being altered by this Clause, deals with disablement and sickness as well as Sub-section (6), and if he can alter Section 8 in this respect why cannot I? He said yesterday: "What on earth has this to do with the Clause under discussion? It deals with sickness and disablement benefit." So does Sub-section (5).
§ The CHAIRMANI think if we had not reached this Amendment rather hurriedly at the close of the sitting, the hon. Member would have been perfectly ready to accept my ruling on the matter, if he had made his speech. To that extent I admit that it does give a justification to this discussion that has taken place, and I hope that he will be satisfied to allow us to proceed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add,
(3) The expression 'day' in Section 8 (1) (c) of the principal Act shall be deemed to mean a calendar day, but such interpretation shall not affect the meaning of the said expression as used in Schedule 2 thereof.I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. The object of the Amendment is to save confusion in the administration of the principal Act, and to prevent, as we have at the present day, Sunday counting in some places and not counting in other places. It is merely to see that there is some uniformity in the administration of the Act throughout the country. The simple point is whether it is desirable to 2991 continue the system under which some people interpret Sunday in a different way from that which the Commissioners suggest in the regulations, or whether there should be uniformity throughout the country.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI see now what I did not see before, that the hon. Gentleman's intention in the matter is to deal with the question of Sunday as a day. I do not think that he will meet it by this Amendment, but I am very anxious that the question of Sunday should be dealt with, and if the hon. Gentleman will confer with me at some appropriate time and now withdraw his Amendment, I think that we may be able to produce a. Clause that will deal with this Sunday question. But the suggested Amendment does not deal with it at all.
§ Mr. GOULDINGI would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman where we would bring it in if we cannot bring it in here, and also why this would not deal with it. I have had it explained to me by those who are very competent to give an opinion that this is the place where it must come in. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the present position is undesirable, and that the variety of interpretations as to whether Sunday should count or not ought not to continue, but that, in the interests of the good administration of the Act, it is desirable to have uniformity. I am perfectly prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but I do think that I am entitled to know where he thinks this should come in and why this Amendment does not meet the case.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe word "day" already means a calendar day from midnight, and in the Schedule "day" is qualified by the word "working" and would not be affected in any case by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I think that we can meet the point on the Schedule. If not, we can meet it on a new Clause. It would have to be a much wider Clause than the mere definition of "day" as it stands at present. I shall he very glad to confer with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the Government view on the matter. Is Sunday to count or is it not to count as one of the three working days? It would be a guide to the Committee and to my hon. Friend in considering the 2992 matter, and in conferring usefully with the Government on this matter, if the Committee knew now what the Government view is. Is it the view of the Government that Sunday should count as one of the three days, or that the three days should be irrespective of the Sunday?
§ Mr. MASTERMANAs the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester is willing to withdraw, I do not want to open up a debate now on this subject, but generally I should say that Sunday should not count as one of the working days unless it was normally a working day; but if we could reserve the question until the hon. Gentleman's new Clause comes up, I think we can meet him.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI beg to propose at the end of the Clause to add,
(3) The expression 'incapable of work' in Section 8 (1) (c) of the principal Act shall hereafter be interpreted to mean 'incapable of following his ordinary employment.'This Amendment is an Amendment to Clause 6. If you refer to the original Act, Section 8, Sub-section (1), Paragraph (c), you will see "Periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement of which notice has been given, commencing from the fourth day after being so rendered incapable of work and continuing for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks (in this Act called Sickness Benefit')." This is a matter, I admit of some importance, and it may be a matter involving some cost, but I think it is a matter which we should discuss here, because, if my recollection serves me right, in the original Act it was arranged that when a man was incapable of following his ordinary employment he should receive sickness benefit, and then for some reason, unknown to the House at any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer altered the wording of the Clause on Report, but no discussion at all took place in the House. He made the Clause read "incapable of work." I think I am also right in saying that it was one of the points which the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out as an inducement, either at the Tabernacle or some other building where he delivered one of his speeches, in favour of the Act. He stated that as soon as a man was incapable of carrying on his ordinary employment he 2993 was to receive sickness benefit. That was passed on the Report stage without any discussion at all. The point really is this: When is a man incapable of carrying on work? Are we to suppose that if a man who is engaged taking down shorthand notes gets writer's cramp from endeavouring to follow the debates of this Committee, and is, therefore, unable to continue in that occupation for a certain time, and if, on the other hand, he can find some less exacting work in the country, he is to be entitled to sickness benefit? That is the point. I will put another case. Supposing a man is a gardener and, being ill, is unable to follow his occupation, say, of digging, but can earn a few shillings by going to a local fair and holding a horse or attending to cattle, is he to be deprived of sickness benefit altogether? [An HON. MEMBER: "What would a friendly society do?"] If the hon. Member knows what a friendly society would do, he can tell the Committee later on. I do not pretend to speak for every friendly society, but I do know, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know, that the majority of friendly societies wish to have their members fairly treated, and also to have the Act made more clear than it is. They want to know what the interpretation is without having to write to the Commissioners every week asking "What do you think of this case?" and have one decision sent to their society and another decision sent to another society which asks the same question. We have now to discuss the question: "When is a man entitled to sick benefit and when is he not?" I am surprised at the interruption of the hon. Gentleman if he wishes this amending Act to do sonic good to the friendly societies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a clear interpretation of the meaning of these words, and that he will enable this Amendment to be inserted in the Bill, because I think it will be fairer, and will certainly save much time if it is put clearly in the Act whether a man is to be incapable of work or incapable of following his ordinary employment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe have heard a great deal, and rightly, in the course of the Committee Debates on the funds of friendly societies and on the funds of approved societies. We have heard a great deal also of the necessity, especially at this time, of protecting the funds of friendly societies. There is not a friendly society or approved society in the United 2994 Kingdom that would give any kind of support to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Tins is moved just at the time when friendly societies are complaining, rightly or wrongly, that doctors are giving certificates too easily for persons who are not sick.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSWrongly.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI said "rightly or wrongly." They complain that there is an enormous development of the cases of women who claim sickness benefit, and it is suggested, and I believe there have been a good many cases, of women who when their employment gives not very much more than the amount of their sick pay, are inclined to go on the sick fund, and at the same time to do work at home, taking under those conditions a good rest. I do not want to condemn these people, but it all means ruin or bankruptcy to the approved societies if it goes on. The only test ever used by any approved society is the test of incapacity for work—that is to say, that the man is actually sick. There is a certain amount of discretion given to the friendly societies. They use that discretion, and I believe they use it wisely under the Act, but to make it a rule that a man, who is incapable of working at his ordinary employment, supposing he is a coal miner, can take other work at 20s. or 30s. a week, and yet come on the sick fund, appears to me to be a perfectly monstrous suggestion. I must ask everyone who approves of protecting the funds of friendly societies to vote against the Amendment.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASI agree that it is a most monstrous proposal which the hon. Gentleman has made, and it is certainly not one in the interests of the approved societies. Every week the societies have to deal with this very question. Take the railways workers as an illustration. There are probably hundreds of men every week off ill for a period of time. They are capable of some kind of work, but not capable for their ordinary employment. They are earning perhaps three-fourths of their ordinary wages, and to suggest, under these circumstances, that approved societies should be called upon to pay sickness benefit is monstrous, and I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment never consulted anybody about it, and that he does not know what his proposal would really involve.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been quite fair to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I do not want to argue the actual merits of the question, but I think there is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says as to the possibility of friendly societies being financially affected. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that during the passage of the original Bill through the House practically in the whole of the Committee stage the words, "Unable to provide his own maintenance," were in the Bill, and it was on the strength very largely of these words that the Chancellor of the Exchequer popularised his Bill in the country. I quite well remember that in Whitefield's Tabernacle he said that every person who was unable to provide his own maintenance would have 5s. disablement benefit. He said that over and over again, and it was largely through that promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer popularised that part of the Bill in the country. I do not think it was quite fair for the right hon. Gentleman not to answer that point. There is another point to which I wish to refer. I am not prepared at this moment to say that I can support the proposal quite blankly to allow every person to do a little bit of work under the present scheme, and come under the Act, if he is unable to earn his ordinary wages, but the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my hon. Friend, should have remembered that in Germany there is, under their scheme, the possibility of a person getting benefit and earning pay up to one-third of his ordinary wages. I do not think, therefore, that it is a sufficient answer to say it cannot be done. It is possible that under the actuarial scheme of the Bill it cannot be done, but I believe it is perfectly possible to arrange a scheme by which the members of approved societies, who are thrown out of their ordinary employment, shall be able to get a certain amount of benefit; although earning a very small proportion of their ordinary wages. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my hon. Friend, was not quite fair in making out that the suggestion of my hon. Friend was an impossibility.
§ Mr. WINGI should like to say that to pass this Amendment would be to break down one of the safeguards of the friendly societies. They have regarded the doctor as really the man who should say whether a member was entitled to such pay or not. Personally. I regard this as a wrecking Amendment, moved with a desire to upset 2996 the actuarial position and then to denounce it as unsound.
§ Mr. BOOTHI want to put right a statement of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). He told the Committee what passed last year. He is entirely in error in the way he put it.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON1911.
§ Mr. BOOTHYes, 1911. I will refresh his memory as to the facts. There was an. Amendment down to make it "incapable of work," and the Government intimated their intention to accept that. It was an Amendment suggested by the Institute of Actuaries. They asked me to put it down, but an hon. Member on the other side wanted to move it and I gave way to him. When it came on he was not in his place. The Chairman ran rather rapidly through the Amendments without calling the names, and I then intervened and asked whether the Amendment should not be moved. Seeing that the Government had promised to nut in a correct definition, to which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has referred, and which in my opinion is the only one upon which the societies can work. The Attorney-General put it on the Paper and it was inserted on Report, and all parties were agreed. It was accepted on Report as an agreed Amendment.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI cannot let that observation pass without a challenge. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has told the Committee only a very small portion of what took place with reference to this Amendment. It certainly was never put in on the Report stage as an agreed Amendment. It was put in under the Closure without a word of discussion in the House of Commons until November or December.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe hon. Member says it is not true. That is not a very mannerly interruption, but we are accustomed to that from him.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI accept the hon. Gentleman's plea of want of memory as an excuse for the statement he made. The fact remains that in the Bill as it was introduced the words were 2997 "unfit to provide their own maintenance." They were to have sickness and disablement benefit so long as they were unfit to provide their own maintenance. That remained in the Bill until November, or early in December, and then on the Report stage, without discussion or explanation on the part of the Government, the words which are now in the Act were inserted. Then the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) says that to put in this proposal which is almost in the words of the Government when they originally brought in the Bill would be a monstrous thing. I feel sure that right up to December the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself thought that these words were intended to remain in the Bill. We remember his speech in Whitefield's Tabernacle which my hon. Friend has referred to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said that those who were broken down would get their old age pensions to the end of their days. What he meant by that was that they would get their disablement benefit of 5s. a week on similar lines to the old age pension. A man may be earning up to 8s. a week and yet get his old age pension. He would perhaps be unable to provide for his maintenance, he might be incapable of following his ordinary occupation, and yet he could earn several shillings a week and that would not debar him from receiving the old age pension. If there has been confusion in this matter, and I think there has been confusion, it is entirely the fault of the Government in the way they brought this before the country. My hon. Friend was quite right, in my view, in moving this Amendment to-day, if only for the purpose of getting from the Government what they really mean, and having succeeded in getting a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think we need now press the Amendment.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the Amendment might be allowed to be withdrawn, without continuing these personal arguments.
§ Mr. BOOTHIt is not a personal argument; it is an attack upon the Government. It is totally unfounded, and I can find for the hon. Gentleman the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT where the Attorney-General identified the Government with 2998 the form of words which are now in the Act, when the Clause was going through. It is absurd to make these party points. It is mere clap-trap.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI have succeeded in getting some information, although I have not got what I wanted. I admit it was a matter of considerable cost and obviously that was a serious consideration in view oil what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) said yesterday. But he did not tell us what the cost would be, and he did not answer the question as to, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had not originally intended this so-called monstrous Clause to be passed. He did not in any way refer to that; he simply put it to one side without argument at all. I think now, under the circumstances, as it is quite clear that total cost would have to fall upon the friendly societies, I should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment on the Paper is out of order under the ruling given on the previous Clauses.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.