FIRST SCHEDULE. (Hansard, 26 July 1897)

HL Deb 26 July 1897 vol 51 cc1041-57 1041

§ SCALE AND CONDITIONS OF COMPENSATION.—SCALE.

(1.) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be—
1. (a) where death results from the injury—
  1. (i.) if the workman leaves dependants, a sum equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty 1042 pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum; and
  2. (ii.) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds;
2. (b) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average earnings during the previous twelve months, if lie has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been engaged in the same employment, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound.
(2.) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment, regard shall be had to the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average amount which he is able to earn after the accident.
(3.) The payment shall, in case of death, be made to time legal personal representative of the workman, or, if he has no legal personal representative, to or for the benefit of his dependants, or, if he leaves no dependants, to the person to whom the expenses are due; and if made to the legal personal representative, shall be paid by him to or for the benefit of the dependants or other person entitled thereto under this Act.
(4.) Any question as to who is a dependant, or as to the amount payable to each dependant, shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
(5.) The sum allotted as compensation to a dependant may be invested or otherwise applied for the benefit of the person entitled thereto, as agreed, or as ordered by the committee or other arbitrator.
(6.) Any sum which is agreed or is ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested may be invested in whole or in part in the Post Office Savings Bank by the registrar of the county court in his name as registrar.
(7.) Any sum to be so invested may be invested in the purchase of an annuity from the National Debt Commissioners through the Post Office Savings Bank, or be accepted by the Postmaster-General as a deposit in the name of the registrar as such, and the provisions of any statute or regulations respecting the limits of deposits in savings bank, and the declaration to be made by a depositor, shall not apply to such sums.
(8.) No part of any money invested in the name of the Registrar of any County Court in the Post Office Savings Bank under this Act, shall be paid out to any Registrar, except upon authority addressed to the Postmaster General by the Treasury or by the Judge or the county court.
(9.) Any person deriving any benefit under any moneys paid into a Post Office Savings Bank under the provisions of this Act, may nevertheless open an account in a Post office Savings Bank or in any other savings bank in his own name, without being liable to any 1043 penalties imposed by any statute or regulations in respect of the opening of accounts in two savings banks, or of two accounts in the same savings bank.
(10.) Any workman claiming compensation under this Act shall, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself for examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid by the employer. If the workman refuses to submit himself to such examination, or otherwise obstructs the same, his right co such weekly payments shall be suspended until such examination has taken place:
Provided that if the workman objects to such examination he may appeal to the arbitrator whose decision shall be final.
(11.) Any weekly payment may be reviewed at the request either of the employer or of the workman, and on such review may be ended, diminished, or increased, subject to the maximum above provided, and the amount or payment shall, in default of agreement, be settled by arbitration under this Act.
(12.) Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than twelve months the liability therefor may, on the application by or on behalf of either the workman or the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum, to be settled, in default of agreement, by arbitration under this Act, but not exceeding three hundred and twelve times the weekly payment payable at the date of the application, and such lump sum may be ordered by the committee or arbitrator to be invested or otherwise applied as above mentioned.
(13.) A weekly payment shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law.
(14.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland the expression "registrar of the county court" means "sheriff clerk of the county," and "Judge of the county court" means "sheriff."
(15.) Where compensation under this Act is assured by a friendly society, and the scheme of such society has been certified under this Act, the provisions of Section sixteen and Section forty-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, shall not apply to such society in respect of such scheme.

§ THE EARL OF DURHAM
moved in Subsection (1), paragraph (i), after dependants," to insert the words "wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death." He pointed out that in many cases the average earnings of a man would not amount to £150 in three years, and that therefore more would be paid at death than he would have earned. The average weekly wage of the boys employed in the Durham collieries was 5s. 3d. In three years a boy received slightly over £40, but wider the schedule as it stood the parents or others would obtain more than three times as much as the boy earned. He submitted it was not right that parents should 1044 benefit by the death of a boy, but if the clause remained unaltered they would benefit to the extent of at least £100.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
could not help thinking that this provision needed amending. "Dependant" included persons partly dependent upon the person killed. Let them suppose that a man who was killed had allowed a mother, aged, say 75, 2s. a week. The value of that to her could surely be purchased for £50, and yet she could not receive less under the Bill than £150, and it might be £200, if that represented the three years wages. It was obvious that a person who had been only partly dependant upon the earnings of a person killed might get a large and handsome bonus because of an accident. He could not think that was intended.

§ LORD BELPER
said the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, with some very slight modifications of the wording. For instance, he suggested they should leave out "dependants" and insert "any dependant wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death." Then he would suggest that there should be inserted as a new sub-section at the end of line 12, page 8,— If the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum not exceeding, in any case, the amount payable under the foregoing provisions as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, may be determined on arbitration under this Act to be reasonable and proportionate to the injury of the said dependants.

LORD WINDSOR
desired to draw attention to the slightly different words which he had put upon the Paper by request, namely,— If the workman leaves only dependants partly dependent upon his earnings at the time of, or immediately prior to, his death, such a sum, not exceeding in any case the amount specified in the preceding sub-section, as the arbitrator may consider reasonable and proportionate to the loss sustained by such dependants. It was thought that under the Amendment just moved by Lord Belper and accepted by the Government, there might be two sets of compensation applied for. There might be cases in which men left dependants wholly dependent 1045 upon them, and dependants partly dependent upon them, and there might be two sets of compensation claimed. His words were meant to cover such cases.

§ LORD BELPER
said his attention had not been specially called to the point, but he took it that under the first Subsection the fact that a man left dependants wholly dependent upon him would not be negatived by the fact that there were others partly dependent upon him. But he would further consider the matter.

§ Amendment to leave out "dependant," and insert "any dependant wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death"—(Lord Belper) put and agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF DURHAM
moved, in the same paragraph, after "earnings," to insert "in the same employment." He thought the compensation should be based upon the wages received by the men at the time of the accident, and that would obviate a great difficulty to the employer. If the wages were to be taken as a basis, the employer might have to inquire from previous employers, and have considerable difficulty in ascertaining the average wages received during three years.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF DURHAM
moved, after "injury," to insert,— but if the period of his engagement in such employment has been less than three years, then 156 times the average weekly earnings during the period of his actual engagement.

§ LORD BELPER
said that some such words were necessary, and the Government, therefore, were willing to accept the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment made: Add at end of paragraph (i)— If the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum not exceeding in any case the amount payable under the foregoing provisions as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, may be determined on arbitration 1046 under this Act, as reasonable and proportionate to the injury to the said dependants."—(Lord Belper.)

§ *THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH
moved in Sub-section (1) paragraph (b), to leave out "fifty per cent." and to insert "one third." The Amendment dealt entirely with the question of disablement; and disablement, he would point out, constituted probably the largest majority of the accidents that happened either in collieries or other works. One of the great objections he saw to the Bill was that it gave a great incentive to carelessness. These accidents occurred in the course of employment, and no doubt in dangerous employments it was almost a normal condition of the industry that these accidents should happen; and in the case of the mining industry, which was one of the leading industries of the country involving the greatest risks, it became a very grave matter that threw a heavy burthen on the employer for accidents which might be due to the careless use of machinery or tools by the workmen. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in 1893 on the Employers' Liability Bill of the late Government, said:— You cannot make a workman more careful by putting an extra liability upon the employer. If you want to make the workman more careful, you must put an extra liability upon him. That was the reason why he asked the Committee to adopt this Amendment. It formed part of that series of Amendments to which their Lordships had paid attention, but which, unfortunately, had not been successful in the division lobby; and they were intended to lighten the burthen which was a grossly unjust burthen upon the employers of the country. The Home Secretary in explaining the Bill in the House of Commons, took as the average rate of wages 26s. a week. Fifty per cent. of those wages would be 13s. a week, and he said that that was a very immoderate amount of compensation to pay, because it was largely in excess of what the workmen themselves in their own societies laid down for their own compensation. For instance, in Northumberland and Durham the society paid for the first twenty weeks 5s. a week, and after that 8s. a week. In Lancashire and Cheshire they paid for the first week 5s. and afterwards 10s. a 1047 week. In Monmouthshire and South Wales for the first six weeks they paid 6s. and afterwards 8s. Therefore 13s. a week, which the Bill proposed, was largely in excess of what the workmen laid down for themselves, and with which they were perfectly satisfied, and he thought that in fixing the rate of compensation under this Bill their Lordships could not do better or wiser than to follow the example of the workmen themselves. Again, lie would point out that if they fixed a large amount of compensation they would give the greatest possible inducement to malingering. In Lancashire and Cheshire in the year 1873 the amount paid through disablement was 6s. per week, and the number of members who came on the fund amount to 12.5 per cent.; in 1874 the amount was raised to 8s., and the number who came upon the fund amounted to 13.5; in 1896 it was raised to 10s., and there was a rise to 18.3 per cent. of the members who came on the fund. lie thought those figures would show the wisdom of the workmen in keeping the amount of compensation low; for in fixing a large amount there was afforded an incentive to malingering which human nature could not resist. As far as he could see, the longer this Bill was regarded in the country the less it was liked, and he believed the growing feeling of dissatisfaction which was felt would some day give the other House of Parliament cause for repentance. He begged to move the Amendment.

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
said the difference between the noble Lord and the Government was one of opinion and not of fact. The Government had taken their stand from the beginning on the principle that the wear and tear of the human part of our productive machinery should be borne by the industry. Having adopted that principle, and having determined that compensation for injury should no longer fail on the rates, the Government had to consider what was the fairest scale to all parties concerned. The noble Lord had argued as if the 50 per cent. was the certain amount in all cases, but it was nothing of the kind. The 50 per cent. was the maximum and that was a common scale which had been adopted by employers entirely on their own initiative. The Government were well aware of the great dangers that arose 1048 from malingering, but they were of opinion that by the proposals contained in the Bill sufficient safeguards had been taken against malingering. Under those circumstances they could not agree that one third would be a sufficiently high maximum, and they must ask the House to endorse the maximum of 50 per cent. which, he would remind them, was not mandatory.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
in supporting the Amendment, said he did not think their Lordships realised to what an extent malingering would increase if they only offered a sufficiently high compensation. He thought the Government all through that Debate had taken a view which was not consistent with the responsibilities that the industries were able to support, and he thought they would find that their calculations were entirely wrong. He had said on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Bill was simply a premium on malingering, and had quoted statistics in proof of that contention. The fact was that if they gave the men the opportunity of net relying upon themselves to maintain their permanent Relief Funds, those funds would entirely disappear, and he thought that was a great responsibility for the Government to take upon themselves. He heard from Lancashire and South Wales, as well as from his own part of the country, that this was what would happen, and he cordially endorsed therefore the words that had fallen from his noble Friend.

§ Question put that the words "Fifty per cent." stand part of the Bill.

§ The Committee divided:—

CONTENTS	90
NOT CONTENTS	28

§ Amendment made: In paragraph (b) leave out the words "in the same employment," and insert the words "in the employment of the said employer."— (Lord Belper.)

§ *LORD RATHMORE
moved at the end of paragraph (b) after "pound" to insert "nor to be payable for a longer period than 365 weeks." He submitted that the same principle should be applied to weekly payments to an injured workman 1049 as was proposed to be applied to weekly payments when redeemed by a lump sum. Seven years had been adopted by the Government as a fair one in such compensation, and he contended that in the case of a poor man who could not afford to pay down a lump sum, he should not be subjected to a perpetual payment, and that the same limit should he assigned to a continuous payment, and the same lump sum should be applied in that case as the Government had applied in paragraph 12.

§ LORD BELPER
said he thought the House would see at once that his noble Friend's Amendment was different in its effect as regarded the dependant who had got compensation under the Bill from the other provision under which he would be able to compound. It was true that after 12 months an application could be made to have the weekly payment compounded, and if compounded it was to be a payment of not more than six years. But it would be seen that if a payment of not more than six years were made the persons dependent could buy an annuity and have a substantial sum, which would keep them for a reasonable part of their life. But in the case suggested, after payment had been going on for seven years, it might be absolutely stopped. In that case at the end of the seven years the dependant might be in as bad a position as he would have been if he had not received compensation. But apart from that it would be clear that in cases where compensation was made by a lump sum representing six years' wages there was a far larger sum than the payment for seven years annually, because the dependant would have the full benefit of the lump sum. Under the circumstances the Government could not accept the Amendment. They did not think it would be right to fix an absolutely certain payment when an annual payment of the sort ceased with the alternative in the power of the employer to get this compounded. If the employer could not pay the whole he would probably be able to make an arrangement under which the money could be raised.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1050

§ THE EARL OF DURHAM
moved in section (2) after "accident" to insert. and to any payment which he may receive from the employer in respect of his injury during the period of h.s incapacity resulting from the injury, the object of terms of Amendment being to save an employer who might be already making payments to an injured workman from paying twice over. In Northumberland and Durham employers paid compensation to every workman injured underground. From the date of injury he received 5s. per week, called "smart money." This should be taken into account, and deducted from the amount of compensation for which an employer was liable under the Bill. If this was not done the workman, instead of 26s. a week in the county of Durham, would, after the second week, receive 13s. from the employer—half his wages—and 5s. smart money. He thought it was only fair that employers, whether from philanthropic motives or from the custom of the district who were now in the habit of paying smart money to their employés should not be mulcted by the Bill. He hoped, therefore, tins Amendment would be accepted, so that the employers would not withdraw from the habit of giving smart money to men which was of assistance to them. This giving of smart money was accepted as a proof that a man was incapacitated. If the Amendment were adopted it would save litigation in Northumberland and Durham, because all the parties would be only too willing to help make the Bill work as smoothly as possible.

§ LORD BELPER
observed that the answer to the Amendment was that it was perfectly competent for the arbitrator to take into consideration—as he no doubt would—any payment of a voluntary character that the workman was receiving from his employer in consideration of an accident over and above what the employer was bound to pay under the Bill. It was not intended, of course, that the employer should have to pay twice over in this way, and there was no doubt the arbitrator would consider the matter. If they were to put in special words limiting the arbitrator's power in regard to a particular case of this kind it would 1051 exclude possibly a large number of other benefits the workmen might receive.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
regretted that the noble Lord who had spoken on behalf of the Government had not consented to accept the Amendment which had been moved by the Earl of Durham in a speech of great ability and moderation. Lord Belper said the reason for not accepting it was that a special arrangement could not be made. But this Amendment dealt with a special case. He believed there was no other part of the mining community in which smart money was paid at once. This 5s. a week commenced from the moment a man was injured; and 2s. 6d. a week was paid in the ease of a boy. The question turned upon this. It had been the custom for many years to give smart money, and owing to this being the custom the men had got to consider it as part of their wages, but lie believed none of the representatives of the men would declare it as part of their wages. They knew that consideration was given to this smart money, but if it was to be added to the compensation which the arbitrator thought fit to give, the employer who had philanthropically for many years past been giving that smart money would be punished for his philanthropy. It might be said they must make fresh arrangements when they engaged the men, and let them understand they were not to have that smart money, and then they would come under the administration of the arbitrator exactly as everybody else would do. lie did not believe his noble Friend would contradict him if he said, if they re-engaged their men on fresh terms after their Lordships passed this Bill, they should have in the whole of Northumberland and Durham a strike at once, because the workmen had got to regard what was philanthropic generosity on the part of their employers as part and parcel of their wages, and they would not give up what they considered to be an absolute right. It was necessary that the Government should consider this Amendment, this being a special case, which required special treatment. They could not direct the arbitrator too closely; they should leave as little as possible to his discretion, and Parliament ought to tell him that smart money was part of the compensation. If 1052 continued to be given the workman would benefit by the smart money being given at once, whereas the compensation that was awarded to him would only be given at the end of the fortnight.

§ THE EARL OF DURHAM
asked whether there were in the Bill any words which showed that the arbitrator had any authority to take into consideration this smart money.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER
said the noble Lord had asked a question which had been perplexing the Government for the last few minutes—there was considerable doubt whether the arbitrator had the power or not, and he should be sorry to come to a decision that night, because the point must be ascertained. If the arbitrator had no power of considering it clearly an injustice would be done. ["Hear, hear!"] If the noble Lord could move his Amendment on Report stage the question could be cleared up in the meantime.

§ THE EARL OF DURHAM
assented to this course, and, by leave, withdrew his Amendment.

§ Amendments made: In Sub-section (8), leave out the words "any registrar"; in Sub-section (9), leave out "under," and insert "from."—(Lord Belper.)

§ Amendments made: In Sub-section (9) leave out "paid into," and insert "invested in"; in Sub-section (10) leave out "claiming compensation," and insert "receiving weekly payments."—(Lord Belper.)

§ LORD BELPER
said on the subject of medical examinations he would submit an Amendment on Report.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
said it was possible that Amendment would meet the point he desired to raise. The House had had under consideration in previous parts of the Debate the liability imposed under Clause 4 on railway companies or colliery owners, taking them as examples in respect to workmen who were contractors themselves, who were not in the ordinary sense in the employment of the undertakers who were made responsible, and fears were expressed of loss by malingering and the difficulty of detecting it. The 1053 difficulty would obviously be much increased in the case of the liability of a colliery proprietor in respect to injury to a man not in his direct employ, but, say, of an independent builder. In respect to a man in his own employ there would be some knowledge; he would be known to the foreman or manager and to his fellow-workman, and there was reasonable prospect of the employer obtaining information of the workman professed to be more injured than he really was, or professed to be injured and really was not; but when the proprietor was made responsible for accidents to the servant of the builder, it was obvious that the other workmen would know nothing of the man and his immediate employ, or would not be interested in getting at the actual facts. Under such circumstances the danger of malingering would be seriously increased. Whether anything could be done by way of safeguard he did not know, but obviously it would be important to have an investigation of the case by a medical man. Sub-section (10) did compel submission to examination by a medical man provided by the employer, but there the employer was the actual employer of the injured man, and such a case as he had referred to would not be covered by the Sub-section.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER
said his noble. Friend proposed to bring up a clause on the subject of examination by a medical man, and the point raised by the noble Lord would lie duly considered in framing, the clause.

LORD WINDSOR
said he could in a few words explain the object he had in putting down his Amendment to leave out "claiming compensation under this Act," and insert,— alleging himself to have been injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. As the section stood, any workman claiming compensation under the Act would, if so required, from time to time have to submit to examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid by the employer, but if their Lordships would turn back to Clause 2 of the Bill, it would be seen that the claim for compensation must be made within six months of the time of injury. Surely the 1054 moment when the employer required to have an examination made by a medical man employed by him would be when notice was given, and he could not help thinking it was meant so to be read, but the words claiming compensation being left in would defer the examination to six months after the occurrence of the injury.

§ LORD BELPER
said it was a point of some importance, but the Amendment would not come in this place. This section dealt with the case where a man was receiving weekly payments, which would be some time after the period to which the noble Lord's Amendment would refer. The case the noble Lord wished to meet was this—that when a man had given notice that he had received injury, then the employer should be placed in a position to know exactly on medical evidence what the state of the man was immediately after the alleged injury. It was true the claim for compensation might not be made for some months afterwards; therefore it was obviously desirable that the employer should have the means of knowing the condition of the man immediately after notice was received of the accident. He proposed to insert a new clause providing that when a workman gives notice he shall, if so required, submit himself to examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid by the employer, and if he refuses to submit, or obstructs such examination, his right of compensation will be suspended until such examination takes place. This should have been inserted in another part of the Bill, and he would propose the Amendment on Report. He did not propose to move the Amendment to line 31, of which he had given notice, to insert the words, "by agreement or if directed by an order made in the course of arbitration under this Act."

§ *VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD
said there had been considerable discussion on this point in Lancashire, and he was glad to find the noble Lord did not propose to move his Amendment, but to leave the section as it was settled in the House of Commons. As it now stood there must be an application to enable the arbitrator to act. application either by the employer or workman to enable the arbitrator to act. 1055 As the proposed alteration stood it would apparently enable the arbitrator, by an order made in the course of the arbitration, without any application, to interfere and settle the amount. But he was very glad to find that the noble Lord had consented to adopt the clause which had been settled by the House of Commons.

§ LORD BELPER
said he must guard himself from what he said before—that he did not move, this now, but would give it further consideration on Report.

§ LORD RATHMORE
hoped the noble Lord would bear in mind that the words as they now stood in the Bill were arrived at after very many discussions in the House of Commons, and were solemnly adopted by the Government as those by which they would abide as the result of a compromise.

§ *THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY
endorsed what had fallen from his noble Friend. This clause was inserted in Committee and passed the Third Reading. He certainly hoped his noble Friend would allow this clause to remain as it stood. It was one with regard to which great anxiety had been displayed, and it was felt inasmuch as it was absolutely impossible for an owner to insure with any degree of finality, it would be absolutely impossible for an estate to be wound up if there was to be a certain charge remaining on it, or in the event of an estate passing into other hands.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
desired to ask a question which arose in connection with Clauses 12 and 13 of this schedule. The scheme of the Bill was that any workman injured during his employment was to be liable to be compensated, if not fatally injured, by the payment of a weekly sum during the time that he remained crippled. That compensation was to be received whether the accident was due to anyone's negligence or not, and even if the accident was due to the negligence of the person who received the money. He could find nothing in the Bill which excluded the ordinary common-law liability of the servant for any act of negligence. He was liable like anyone else, and his employer could sue him if through his negligence lie suffered any damage. Under this Bill would it be possible or not for a workman, through whose negligence an accident happened, to be sued by his employer? His employer sued 1056 him, and said, "You were guilty of negligence; by that I have been put to pecuniary loss, and that pecuniary loss you must recoup me." At present he did not, see what, answer there would be to such an action or what would stand in the way of the employer getting judgment. If he got judgment, was there anything to prevent his getting the fruits of that judgment out of the sum which was supposed to compensate the workman by reason of the injury he had sustained? The workman was to get a weekly sum, but at the end of a year, at the option of the employer, that weekly sum could be commuted into a. lump sum. The employer, having sued, had got judgment against the workman for £100, or whatever it might be. Was there anything in the Bill to prevent the employer himself getting that lump sum instead of it going into or remaining in the pocket of the workman? He had been unable to find it. He did not know whether it was intended or not, but it seemed to him that some very curious results would follow, and some results not altogether consistent with the scheme and principle of the Bill. He saw that as regarded the weekly sum there was a provision that it should not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and should not pass to any other person by operation of law, so that so long as it was a weekly sum it could not be got hold of. But as soon as it was commuted into a lump sum he could find no similar provision; therefore, presumably, the lump sum could be charged and attached and made to satisfy the judgment which had been obtained.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
thought the matter certainly required consideration before the next stage.

§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (12) leave out the words "may be ordered by the Committee or arbitrator to be," and insert before "invested" the word "shall"; leave out Sub-section (14) and insert it after Sub-section (15). In Sub-section (15) leave out:— compensation under this Act is assured by a friendly society, and the scheme of such society has been certified under this Act, the provisions, 1057 and insert— a scheme certified under this Act provides for payment of compensation by a friendly society.

§ In the same sub-section, after the words last added, insert "of the proviso to the first sub-section of Section 8."

§ At the end of Sub-section (15) insert as a new sub-section:— (16.) In the application of this Act to Ireland the provisions of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877, with respect to money deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank under that Act shall apply to money invested in the Post Office Savings Bank under this Act."—(Lord Belper.)

§ First schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.