§ "Where under any provision of the principal Act or any regulations made thereunder the Insurance Commissioners are required or authorised to hold, or to appoint any Committee or person to hold an inquiry, the witnesses shall, if the Commissioners think fit, be examined on oath, and if the Commissioners so direct the committee or person appointed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer oaths for the purpose."
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. MASTERMANOn a point of Order. I should like to ask about the new Clauses. Will it be in order for the Member himself to move them, or shall I move them formally?
§ The CHAIRMANI think if you move them formally, I will undertake to call upon the real father of the Clause as soon as he rises.
§ Mr. FORSTERI really must protest against that.
§ The CHAIRMANI meant if it is the desire of the Committee, as I understood was the case.
§ Mr. FORSTERI should like to make it clear that so far as I am concerned it is not agreeable to me. It really is impossible that we can conclude to-day if the Government do not accept responsibility for what they are doing, and if they call upon somebody else to move the Clauses.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI propose to move the new Clauses and in moving them I accept responsibility for them, but I am not 3357 going to make a statement concerning the new Clauses. That must be done by the hon. Gentlemen in whose names they stand. What, I guaranteed was to give them an opportunity of putting their case, and to start Clauses which would be accepted by the Government.
§ Mr. FORSTERUnder those circumstances I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have considered it desirable to make a statement giving the reasons which induced the Government to take over the Clause.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI may make a statement later. I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Dr. ADDISONAs my name is on this Clause, I desire to say a few words upon it. As far as medical men are concerned, it is an important Clause. It is important, too, in many other respects, because the inquiries which are held by the Insurance Committees, and are reported to the Insurance Commissioners may, for example, result in a medical practitioner being deprived of the whole of his practice under the Insurance Act. It is possible to strike a man off the panel, and he may perhaps have a large practice under the Insurance Act. I think it is only fair to a man whose whole living may be taken away as the result of an inquiry of this kind that the witnesses who are called upon to give evidence should be required before the final tribunal to do so on oath. There is no provision of that kind at present in the measure, and I think it is only fair that that defect should be removed.
Mr. BATHURSTI do not object to a Clause dealing with a particular difficulty of this kind, but the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Clause did not of itself explain the particular subject matter about which he was apprehensive. These inquiries, of course, are not only concerned with disputes with medical men.
§ Dr. ADDISONI only gave that as an illustration.
Mr. BATHURSTThese inquiries do not only relate to disputes as between doctors and other persons. They may relate to disputes as between a society and one of its members, and other matters to which I need not make reference. That being so, I want to ask whether there is any particular virtue in the words "if the Commissioners think fit"? I, for my part, knowing what is the more common procedure of 3358 the Courts, should prefer either the omission of these words, or, if the words remain, some such words as these added, "or if the parties so demand." I think many cases will arise where the Commissioners will not be sufficiently seized of the subject matter which is going to be dealt with to be the best judges as to whether or not the person should or should not be put upon oath, and a considerable injustice might, in that event, be done to one of the parties to a dispute who is anxious that the other party to it should be put upon his oath, and is unable, if he has the Commissioners against him, to secure that being done. I should like to, move the addition of those words.
§ Mr. FORSTERI entirely agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend. We do not want to give any person who is charged before an inquiry the right or the power to put some witnesses upon oath and to allow others to give evidence without being sworn. I think it is very much better, when you are having anything in. the nature of a judicial inquiry, that the witnesses should be examined upon oath, and that the same rule should apply to all witnesses, and that there should be no power to pick and choose as to Which witnesses should be placed on oath and which witnesses should not.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
Mr. BATHURSTI should like to move, after the words "think fit," to insert the words "or if the parties so demand."
§ Mr. MASTERMANAny one of the parties?
Mr. BATHURSTYes, I am willing to accept the words "any one of the parties" if you like, and I move it in that form.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am suite prepared to accept that addition.
§ Question, "That the words 'or if any of the parties so demand' be inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThere will be a. consequential Amendment. You will have to leave out the words "and if the Commissioners so direct." Obviously, you cannot have those words in, because the presiding officer, whoever he may be, must have the power to administer the oath. Why should the Commissioners have anything to do with the direction of whether a judge or the chairman or whoever is conducting the inquiry should 3359 administer the oath. The chairman ought to have the power and not be at the direction of the Commissioners.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI agree that that is consequential.
§ Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "and if the Commissioners so direct."
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.