HC Deb 15 August 1913 vol 56 cc3024-9

Any dispute between an approved society and any person, as to whether that person is or was at any date a member of that society, for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act, and any dispute between two or more approved societies or between an approved society and an insurance committee or between two or more insurance committees, shall be decided in like manner as a dispute between an insured person and an insurance committee, and Section 67 of the principal Act shall apply accordingly.

Mr. GWYNNE

I beg to move to leave out the words "Any dispute between an approved society and any person, as to whether that person is or was at any date a member of that society, for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act, and."

The object of this Amendment is to remove the first three and a half lines of this Clause, which if passed as it stands would mean the inserting of the thin edge of the wedge, the effect of which none of us at present know, but which would eventually split up the friendly societies, because it means the taking away from them the control they must have of managing their own affairs and handing it over to the Commissioners. I am glad to see that there is a Clause lower down on the Paper which stands in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Apparently he does intend to give up some of the power which he was trying to obtain. I would like to say that I do not think his draft is quite so satisfactory as mine. If my Amendment was carried and the whole of the Clause was left out, that would leave the friendly societies in the position they are in at the present time so far as regards the members of the societies, whereas, if you accept the Financial Secretary's Amendment, it means that the Commissioners will still have a finger in the pie in deciding disputes between members and the societies. I do not think that is desirable. I understand that the reason of this is that there is yet one more effect of the original Act, namely, that it does not give the right of appeal to men who wish to put their case before the Commissioners if the friendly societies say that they are not members. They have the right of appeal under the principal Act to the Commissioners if it is a dispute between a member and a friendly society, but when the question of membership comes in, that right of appeal does not obtain. I understand the right hon. Gentleman still wishes to retain the first words of the Clause, I wish it to be distinctly understood that, in withdrawing my Amendment there is no question of interference between the Commissioners and a society's own members in settling disputes with their own members.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for affording me an opportunity of giving a very short explanation. The object of the Clause is simply to deal with a very pressing grievance of members of societies. The ordinary apparatus as regards disputes between members of friendly societies and the societies remains unaltered, but the question is—What about members who have paid into Approved societies, and who think that they are members of those approved societies, and whom the approved societies declare are not members of the societies, or perhaps it might be in some cases members of two approved societies? There must be some tribunal for settling that. It is a very pressing grievance, because persons who think they are insured, having got sick, find that the approved society repudiates liability by saying they are not members, although they have been paying in for two quarters. If this power is given, it will operate in the same manner as in the case of other members, with a final appeal to the Commissioners, as in the case of an ordinary dispute between a member and a friendly society.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: After the words "for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act," insert the words "shall be decided in like manner as a dispute between an approved society and an insured person who is a member thereof."—[Mr. Masterman.]

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, at, the end of the Clause, to add the words, Provided that where an approved society or a medical practitioner suspects that an insured person 4who is a member of such society and is in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit, is fit to return to work, the member may be submitted to examination by a medical referee or body of referees appointed by an insurance committee with the approval of the Commissioners, and the decision of such referee or body of referees shall be final and conclusive, if no appeal to the Commissioners is made within three days after such decision has been notified to the member, and if notice that such an appeal has been made is not given to the society within four days after such decision has been notified.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is not in order as a proviso, but if the bon. Member moves it as a new Clause it may be in order.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I do not know whether the Committee would like now to adjourn. This is rather an important question, and may take some time.

Mr. MASTERMAN

This has nothing to do with disputes between friendly societies and the Commissioners.

Mr. BOOTH

Does not this raise the whole question of malingering? If so, I think we had better not enter into the question now.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

This deals with disputes between an approved society and any person—

Mr. MASTERMAN

On a point of order. Should not this be a new Clause?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I do not mind making it a new Clause so long as I may move it as such.

Mr. ALDEN

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, (2) If any question arises as to the person who is the employer of an employed contributor, the question shall be determined in like manner as a question in paragraph (a) of Section 66 of the principal Act, and that Section shall apply accordingly.

This Amendment is in order to enable a dispute to be determined as to who is the employer of an employed person.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. FORSTER

I should like to ask the Financial secretary to the Treasury what he proposes to do to-morrow?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

And on Monday.

The CHAIRMAN

That will be dealt with after the adjournment. I think the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement when we reassemble.

At twenty-three minutes before two o'clock the Committee adjourned for lunch till 2.15, when the proceedings were resumed.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I have had an informal consultation with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) and as a result I think we must ask the Committee to go on sitting day by day. It is true that we have made very great progress, and I am grateful to the whole Committee for that progress. But we have, apart from the Bill as printed, an enormous number of new Clauses to consider, the whole of which are, I believe, non-controversial, and which the Committee would like to see in the Bill. But we must get the Bill by the end of next week at the latest, if we want to pass it this Session, and we have in deference to the wishes of hon. Members opposite not suspended the four o'clock rule. Under these circumstances, I think we must appeal to the Committee to go on as at present, subject to two alterations. I would suggest that tomorrow (Friday) we start sitting at eleven and leave off about three, in order to suit the convenience of hon. Gentlemen who want to go away at that time, and I would suggest that on Monday we should not begin until twelve o'clock, in order to meet the convenience of people coming back from the country.

Mr. FORSTER

I think that the Committee will realise that the strain which is being imposed upon us is a very heavy one, but we have got to make up our minds as to whether or not we are going to pass this Bill this Session. An enormous number of points of great importance are bound to arise on the new Clauses. We really have not yet got to the difficulties connected with the suggested Amendments to the Bill. They nearly all lie in the future. If we are going to have time to discuss the Clauses, I can only say that I for one am prepared, though the strain is heavy, to do what I can to give time for the discussion of these various Amendments, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friends, though many of them have many other matters to attend to, will do what they can also to assist. I think that we have very great reason to complain that important Bills have been brought in so late in the Session, but in the circumstances, for which we are not responsible, we are ready to do what we can to help the people in charge.

Mr. GOULDING

There is one suggestion which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider. Twelve is really too early an hour on Monday for many of us who have to come a long distance. Is it really wise on Monday to meet until after luncheon? If you postpone the meeting until after luncheon, and sit until a later hour than usual, it would he much better. Many of us cannot get up to London until about half-past twelve o'clock.

Mr. MASTERMAN

If the Committee will give me power to apply to-morrow to sit after the House is sitting on Monday, so that we may sit until five or six o'clock on Monday, then I shall be very glad not to begin early on that day.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)

I am sure that all on this side realise the desirability of getting this Bill through, but if the suggestion is now made that we are to sit perhaps until five or six o'clock—

The CHAIRMAN

It is only in respect of Monday—that, instead of sitting from twelve to four, we should sit from two until about six o'clock.

Mr. HALL

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to apply for those powers only for the one day? Because if it is only going to be for Monday, many of us on this side would be quite agreeable; but, if on the other hand, those powers are to be applied for every day—

Mr. MASTERMAN

The present arrangement is only to apply for Monday, and to have the condition that we shall not sit beyond about six on Monday. If I have to ask the Committee later in the week to apply for further powers, I will give due notice to the Committee.

Mr. HALL

As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to fall in with the suggestion as long as those powers are only for the one day.

Mr. GWYNNE

This is a question which affects not only the convenience of Members, but also the work which we are doing. The right hon. Gentleman must know that rushing through in this way must affect the Bill adversely because we cannot at this rate give the attention which is necessary to do the work properly. We have had one example of this in the Pushing through of the original Bill.