Lords Sitting of 19 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at half past eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  NORTHMET POWER BILL.
  Read 2ª.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order).
IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2ª(according to Order).
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order).
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order).
SKEGNESS PIER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order).
WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WALLASEY) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
11.37 a.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not know whether this is a convenient moment to raise one point that is not raised on any of the Amendments before your Lordships today. On the Second Reading of this Bill on March 12, we had some discussion on the question of dealing with alternative remedies, and on that occasion the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said: "The point is, shall we do it in this Bill (if we get the Committee's Report in time), or shall we wait and do it afterwards? In any case, it obviously has to be done before the appointed day comes." We have had the Report of what is known as the Monckton Committee on Alternative Remedies. It is quite a long Report, and somewhat complicated, and it may well be that the Government have not had time to draft the necessary Amendments to bring it into this Bill. But I would like to ask, what are the Government's intentions? Will they bring in another Bill in due course, and not have the appointed day for this Bill until that other Bill can also come into force? We should be content with an assurance to that effect. It is clear to everyone that this is a problem which cannot be left in the air since one schedule of this Bill will repeal the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which have dealt so far with the question of alternative remedies. I raise that point and I should be very much obliged if somebody would deal with it.
11.38 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising what is obviously an important point. I must confess that, having read, marked, and inwardly digested the recommendations of the Monckton Report, I think it is a very

649
difficult matter, and that there are very complicated issues which may well give rise to differences of opinion. Therefore, I think the idea of attempting to deal with alternative remedies in this Bill would be quite wrong. I am consoled in that by the fact that in another place Mr. Peake strongly expressed the view and the hope that it would be dealt with by a separate Bill. It is quite obvious that our work on this whole topic will be incomplete unless before the appointed day we can deal with this outstanding matter, and also with the question of the complete abolition of the Poor Law. As your Lordships know, there is another Bill to deal with that. It is obvious that considerable time must elapse before we can have our appointed day, because, we have a great deal of administrative work to do before we can set up the necessary machine. I have chosen my words rather carefully, because I am anxious not to go a word beyond what I am authorized to say.
During the Second Reading I indicated that we were waiting for the Report of the Monckton Committee before making up our minds whether the question of alternative remedies should be dealt with in this Bill, or in a separate Bill. That Report has now been published, and, as I daresay you have noticed, it deals with a variety of matters, some of which are fairly outside the scope of the Bill now before us; for example, the doctrine of common employment and damages where the man is not employed at all. As we feel that it would be a mistake to deal piecemeal-fashion with such a complicated subject, we do not propose to include provisions regarding any aspect of it in the present Bill. We are, however, examining the Report, and any legislation which may be found necessary will be 'brought forward in a separate Bill. Much will obviously depend upon the kind of legislation that we may ultimately decide to introduce, and I must be careful to avoid appearing in any way to pre-judge the outcome of our examination of the Report by giving a definite undertaking as to when a Bill will be introduced. Obviously, the time-table for this scheme is conditioned by the necessity for setting up the administrative machine to work it, and therefore before it comes into operation there will be time to give this question of alternative remedies the degree of consideration
650
which its importance and difficulty clearly demand. I hope that statement will satisfy your Lordships. I do not wish to go further than that, although I am quite willing again to state my own view, that it would be a real blot on our legislation if we did not manage to deal with this topic before the appointed day.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is a very important matter affecting very closely the subject of the Bill which we now have before us. Like others in your Lordships' House, I have made some attempt in the very brief time at our disposal to master the Monckton Report. I have come to the conclusion that it is unlikely to be a best seller and I should imagine that the film rights were of negligible value! From the point of view of incorporating it in legislation, it clearly requires a good deal of time and close study. I fully accept the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the intentions of the Government, although I confess to a little disappointment, and perhaps some apprehension, that he was not in a position to give a firm undertaking that the Bill we now have in Committee would not come into operation until this other Bill embodying the recommendations, or such as are selected, of the Monckton Report was also ready to take its place on the Statute Book. I think that if one came into operation before the other, it would lead to very great confusion and probably considerable injustice.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for the explanation he has given. I do not think he meant to be any less strong on the point than on Second Reading. Taking these two declarations together I think they should satisfy us, and we can await this legislation in the next Session.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
(The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.)
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
11.48 a.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
"Subject to Regulations, there shall be included among the persons insured under this Act and entitled to its benefits any selfemployed person (whether he employs other

651
persons or not) who satisfies the following conditions:

(a) he must be engaged in some regular occupation and be wholly or mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from that occupation;

(b) he must have made the prescribed application to be registered as an insured self-employed person and pay a weekly rate of contribution equal to the sum of the contributions payable by an insured person and by the employer under Part I of the Second Schedule of this Act."

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Viscount Simon, who is unfortunately not able to be in his place to-day, it falls to my lot to move this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to bring the self-employed man into this scheme. We feel that, as things are, the position is very hard on the self-employed man. I think probably the best analogy which I can draw is the case of a small builder working with two men on a building. If unfortunately the scaffolding collapsed and the two men and the builder himself were injured his two men would get compensation under this Bill but the builder would not—unless he were brought within the scope of the Bill. We have tried by means of this Amendment to bring in the self-employed man. I would draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b) of my suggested new clause, which makes quite clear that he will have to pay contributions both as employer and employee, and that he has to make the prescribed application to come into the scheme. We feel it is of great importance that these men should be brought into this scheme; otherwise, should an accident happen, they would not get anything at all.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Wolverton.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. We discussed at some length on the Second Reading stage the principle of the inclusion of the self-employed person. I think it was made quite clear from that discussion that, unless he were included, a number of very startling anomalies must result. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at that stage, I think, said that the Government would have very much wished to include persons of that class if
652
they had seen a satisfactory method of doing so. I hope that the suggestion now embodied in this Amendment moved by Lord Wolverton has met the wish of the Government in that respect, by presenting them with a workable scheme and that they will find it within their power to accept it.
11.49 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to disappoint expectations. I do not suppose that is at all surprising. This Amendment is quite an impossible one for us to accept. It would indeed, in some respects, be better if the Amendment were a straight Amendment bringing in all self-employed persons. This Amendment has a vice which we have been most careful to avoid throughout this Bill. It allows of the principle of selection against the fund, and against that we have always set our face. When you are dealing with employed persons, they all stand in together. For instance, the miner is going to be covered by his 4d. a week and the 4d. which his employer pays, although in fact the proper insurance rate would be a great deal more than 8d. But the bank clerk equally is going to pay 4d. a week, and 4d. a week will also be paid by his employer, and a fair premium in his case would be much less. So you get what Mr. Churchill calls the benefit of the principle of averages extended to the whole community. That is essential if you are going to have an insurance scheme.
This scheme differs from the national insurance scheme in that there is no definite qualifying period over which contributions have to be paid. In that scheme, in order to get your full benefits, you must have paid 156 contributions. There is no such qualification in this Bill. Let us see what would happen under the scheme of the Amendment. Any self-employed person can come in, but any self-employed person need not come in, because the self-employed person has to make a prescribed application. What would the result of that be? The result would be that only the self-employed Persons would come in whose employment was likely to bring them into danger. The professional prizefighter would obviously come in and pay his 4d. a week, and when he got a thick ear that, I suppose, would be an industrial injury. But the professional chess-player would not come in. The man who

653
made a habit of keeping the lion would come in, but the man who was concerned with the lamb would remain out. The whole basis of the scheme goes, and the actuary assures me that the consequences of a provision such as this would be very serious indeed to the whole finance of the scheme.
As the noble Marquess said, I and all my colleagues in the Coalition Government were anxious to bring this about. These self-employed persons are very difficult to get hold of, because they are not in any large union and there is no group of people to whom you can speak as representing them. So what 1 did was to try and see as many fairly representative people as I could. There is one particular group one can see, and they are the grocers. A very large number of these self-employed people are shopkeepers, and many of them are grocers. Their attitude was quite plain. They did not want to come into the scheme and for this reason: they thought the risk which they incurred was such a slight risk that it really was not worth their while paying the full 8d.
On two points, however, they were very insistent. One was that the compensation in respect of illness under the other Bill should start at once, as it does in the case of the employees. Your Lordships remember that under the original Beveridge plan payment under the two schemes would be the same for thirteen weeks, and it was only after that period that there was a different payment. When I prepared my scheme I went as far as I could. I said that the self-employed person was to get his benefit after the end of four weeks. But under the scheme as it now stands in the Insurance Bill, the self-employed person starts drawing his benefits exactly like the employed person. On that point therefore they are met. Having been met on that point, they indicated that they had got all they wanted. I do not believe this would be at all popular if it were applied compulsorily. It is, of course, popular if a man can come in when he likes. I suppose if my prize-fighter is going to have a prize-fight he would come in the week before his prize-fight and stop after that; his entries into the scheme would be in dribs and drabs like that.
There is another reason why I think this is a thoroughly bad Amendment. There must be some possibility of finding out whether the fund is being abused or
654
not. I will take the case of the shopkeeper. If; when the day's work is over and the shop is closed, he goes upstairs to get his ledger in order that he can work on his books, and he falls down the stairs and injures himself, that would be analogous to an accident arising out of his employment. If, on the other hand, he went to get the family Bible, or what you will, and fell down the stairs, that would not be connected with his employment. The matter would turn on what book he was going for, and I am afraid it would be found that in a large number of cases these people would say they were going for the ledger, and no one would be able to check the truth of their statement. That is the long and short of the matter, whether we like it or whether we do not like it. I agree that there may be a case of a small builder-employer standing by one of his workmen when the scaffolding falls, and the builder and the man sustain the same injury but get different compensations. Whereas the builder, if he were a single man, would get 26s., the other man would get 45s. That is an anomaly, but that is historically so. As things are today, a man who is employed is eligible for unemployment insurance and for sickness benefit, whereas the other man is not. It really means that this matter is absolutely implicated by the history of such insurance. We came to the conclusion that this industrial injury scheme had to be super-imposed on the other. We came to the conclusion that it could not be applied at all unless it was applied to the employed person.
I have mentioned a number of objections to this Amendment, and there are at least two others. First of all, I should call attention to the fact that this proposal would involve a very large sum of money. It is a privilege Amendment. Secondly, I think that it is outside the scope of the Bill. The long title of the Bill is:
"An Act to substitute for the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943, a system of insurance against personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of a person's employment,"
and under a Bill with that long title, to bring into the scheme anybody who is working on his own account as and when he likes to come in and pay the contribution so as to get cover for the next week or so, would plainly be outside the title of the Bill. Apart from those technical objections, I do say, having

655
considered the matter very carefully, that this Amendment is quite unhelpful, and I believe it would destroy the Bill.
If I may take your Lordships into my confidence, I may tell you that I look forward to a great development in these schemes. I am sure that what we have to try to do is not to bring the industrial injury benefit down, but to bring the other benefits up, until the happy day arrives when we can abolish this distinction altogether because the benefit will be the same. Whether that can ever be done (it is not possible at the present time; we cannot possibly afford it) without having a new basis of contribution which would have to vary with the amount of income a man had, I do not know; but I am certain that that is the solution. I ask your Lordships to remember that we are here at the first step of a great new scheme, and I hope that ultimately the distinction between this Bill and the other Bill may disappear. It cannot disappear at the present time. We could not possibly afford to bring the benefit of 26s. up to 45s., and it would be a lamentable step to bring the 45s. down to the 26s. For those reasons, therefore, I am unable to accept this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: There is a good deal in what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, says, but one or two of his remarks do not quite seem to meet the point. I am not sure about his statement that this proposal would not come within the long title of the Bill, because I see we are faced with rather a peculiar thing today, namely, a Government Amendment to the long title. If we can move one Amendment to it, I suppose we can, if necessary, move another. The real point I got up to make was this. I quite believe that a large number of people like grocers, bakers, and persons of that sort (with whom I had a good to do when I was Minister of Food) will not want to come into this scheme at all. But there is still the real difficulty about the builder who has a couple of men working for him, the window-cleaner, and men of that sort. I think in his argument the noble and learned Lord rather overlooked the fact that there is an Amendment to Clause 58 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord
656
Wolverton, which seeks to provide that the two different parts of this account shall be treated separately and a report made if the contributions paid by the self-employed people do not cover the benefits that the self-employed people draw out.
At that stage, if that Amendment is accepted, the Treasury will be able to make an Order varying the contributions so that the fund will not be made bankrupt. Even if the contributions have to be slightly more than 8d., even if they have to be 10d., I believe a lot of those men (whom we should all like to see covered) could be covered more cheaply, having regard to the benefits they get, than they could by going to insurance companies outside. I would point out that this Amendment, it is true, does not bring in the people who do not want to come in; but when they once come in there is this consequential provision under Clause 58 which will prevent the fund being made bankrupt by people such as the lion-tamer, the pugilist, or the other categories quoted by the Lord Chancellor, coming into the scheme. I think we might well look at the matter again to see whether there is not some way in which we could meet those people. The objection to it would disappear if your Lordships were to accept the Amendments to Clause 58 after the Amendment now before the House.
LORD WOLVERTON: While thanking the noble and learned Lord for his reply, I must say that I am not altogether convinced of the strength of all his arguments in favour of non-acceptance of this Amendment, although I see that a number of them are very strong. He suggested that probably only the bad lives would be brought in, but I cannot quite see that that is so. People do not have accidents for the fun of it; they try to avoid them by the use of all necessary safety measures. I agree that the footballer and the boxer are probably bad examples, but there are many other good examples. I do not think this would be greatly to the detriment of the fund, but at the same time I have no intention of pressing the Amendment today. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, my leader, is not here, and I should like to have the opportunity of consulting him and, if necessary, puting an Amendment down at

657
a further stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
Right to and description of benefit.
(2) In this Act references to loss of physical faculty shall be construed as including references to loss of personableness, whether or not accompanied by any actual loss of faculty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "loss of personableness" and to insert "disfigurement." The noble and learned Lord said: This raises a question about the use of the words "loss of personableness." I am indebted to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for this Amendment, but, whilst acknowledging my indebtness to him. I have ventured to put down my own Amendment because I am told that his words, "whether temporary or permanent," are not appropriate, in that a later clause of the Bill deals with this matter. I feel sympathy with his use of the word "disfigurement." If you saw a man such as some of those poor airmen who were dreadfully burnt in the war, and who suffered terrible facial injuries, you would say, "What a shocking disfigurement," but I confess that the draftsman would prefer the word "personableness," because he thinks that that word is wider than the word "disfigurement."
He gave me this illustration, and I had one such case in my time at the Bar. A man sustains an accident which in some way or other affects his sweat-glands, and although it does not affect his ability to work it makes him smell very strongly. There might be a case where a man has suffered this misfortune and where his fellows say, "I really cannot stand working with this fellow; he is too high." It is argued that that is loss of personableness and is not disfigurement, but I am not at all sure that it is. I am not at all sure that the word "personableness" does not also refer to what the eye sees rather than to what is perceived by the other organs. Anyhow, it is a matter of very small importance, and even if that gentleman does suffer as a result of this Amendment, he must put up with it. I hope
658
what I am doing will satisfy the noble Marquess, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("loss of personableness") and insert ("disfigurement").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his eleventh hour repentance in this matter. It would, I think, have been a very regrettable thing if the phrase "loss of personableness" found its way on to the Statute Book. I cannot help expressing a word of satisfaction at the fact that the Statute Book has been saved from the indignity of what I have regarded all along as an obsolete, obnoxious and effervescent phrase. I am extremely willing to accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, and I do not propose to move my own.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to congratulate both the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on finding a far better word. I believe that a man who suffers from the disability described by the Lord Chancellor might be said to be disfigured, because even if the word refers only to what the eye can see, the man will normally have a shirt and, if you look at him, you can see something of his disability.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Increase of injury benefit and disablement pension in respect of adult dependants.
(3) Regulations may provide that a beneficiary shall not be entitled to an increase of benefit under this section in respect of a wife or husband—
(a)where the wife or husband is permanently or temporarily resident outside Great Britain;
12.10 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to leave out subsection (3) (a). The noble Lord said: In moving the first of something over twenty Amendments down in the name of the Lord Chancellor, may I say one word in advance? Practically without exception, these Amendments are intended to bring the present Bill into conformity with the main Bill, the National Insurance Bill, which has already passed its Report stage in your Lordships' House. I am sure you will wish me,

659
therefore, to take them fairly rapidly as they come along. The only one over which it is necessary, I think, to linger for a moment is this Amendment to Clause 18. With the permission of the House I will speak to this Amendment and at the same time to the Amendment to Clause 32. Of course, they will have to be moved separately, but they produce a collective result. The total effect here, as in almost all these cases, will be to bring this Bill into conformity with the main Bill.
The principal changes effected by the new form of drafting are three. The first is that a beneficiary, or that person's dependent wife or husband, will be disqualified from benefit in future if he is absent from Great Britain; as the Bill now stands, he will be disqualified if he is resident permanently or temporarily outside Great Britain. I understand the test of residence involves not only a fact of where you are but an intention. If you simply refer to absence, that is taken to refer only to a fact as to where you are, and therefore it is intended to introduce a reference to absence from Great Britain instead of residence as in the Bill as it now stands. The second change is that that beneficiary or a dependent wife or husband would under the Amendment be disqualified if he or she is undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment or detention in legal custody instead of, as the Bill at present stands, if the beneficiary himself or herself is an inmate of any prison. We have really two points involved under that heading because as the Bill stands at present there is no specific provision for disqualifying the dependent wife or husband who is in prison; it is possible that they might be disqualified in another way, but it is thought that it would be cleared up much better by making a reference in this clause to the dependent wife or husband in prison.
Again, the new phraseology applies with more certainty in the case of persons detained in custody pending trial, detained in a criminal lunatic asylum or detained in a Borstal Institution who are not fully covered at present. This new phraseology was fully debated in another place and has been passed in your Lordships' House without challenge. There is a third change. The Bill as it stands provides that a person is disqualified for benefit if
660
he is an inmate, other than for the purpose of receiving medical treatment, in a workhouse or other institution, but this disqualification disappears in the new subsection proposed. I will do my best to answer any points that arise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: There is only one point I wish to raise on the Amendment to Clause 32. That is the phrase, "or detention in legal custody." It is quite clear that we want some other phrase than "penal servitude or imprisonment" to deal with people who are detained, say, in Broadmoor or in a Borstal institution. The case I want to raise is the third case which was mentioned by the noble Lord, that of the person in detention pending trial. It seems to me that if that person is afterwards acquitted he ought not to suffer this penalty. Although it may be necessary to have these wider words "detention in legal custody" in the Bill, I would ask that the Regulations shall be drawn in such a way as to provide that people who are detained in custody pending trial shall not lose these benefits if eventually they are acquitted.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising a point of considerable importance, which I am glad to say has not been overlooked. It is the intention that the Regulations should only suspend the benefit of someone in legal custody awaiting trial, and if he is acquitted then he is paid his benefit in full.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Adjustments for successive accidents.
29. Where a person suffers two or more successive accidents against which he is insured under this Act,—
(a)he shall not for the same period be entitled (apart from any increase of benefit under sections thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of this Act) to receive benefit, either by way of injury benefit and a disablement pension or pensions or by way of two or more disablement pensions, at an aggregate weekly rate exceeding—
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to leave out "under sections thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of this Act "and insert '' such as is mentioned in the following subsection".
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee. I will explain three Amendments to Clause 29 together. Their total effect is to correct two points in which the Bill would give rise to anomalies and to carry out what has long been the intention but which at present would not be carried out owing to drafting errors. There are, however, two quite separate results of these two Amendments. The first point to observe is that the clause, as it stands, provides that a juvenile who meets with a second accident cannot get more by way of basic compensation than 33s. 9d. if he is between the age of seventeen and eighteen or 22s. 6d. if he is under seventeen. The first correction flowing from these three Amendments secures that if he is entitled to a special hardship allowance of us. 3d. under Clause 14 that amount can be paid in addition to the 33s. 9d. or the 22s. 6d. as the case may be. That sounds enormously technical but I would point out that already he can get this special hardship allowance if he only has one accident and owing to a drafting error he would be worse off after his second accident than before. He would lose money. Therefore this is simply to correct an error in drafting. That is the first effect of the three Amendments.
In the second place the Amendments correct another drafting error in the original clause. A person in receipt of disablement benefit who enters hospital for treatment in respect of one injury is given under Clause 16 of the Bill pension at the full 100 per cent. rate during the period for which he receives such treatment. Where there is a second injury, under the Bill as it now stands he might get up to I think it is 190 per cent. of the basic rate. That has never been intended and the effect of the Amendment is to ensure that as in other cases of double pension the maximum amount payable cannot exceed the 100 per cent. rate. The total result of those Amendments is to correct two drafting errors which might be quite damaging if they were not corrected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("under sections thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and
662
eighteen of this Act ') and insert ("such as is mentioned in the following subsection ").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: I beg to move the second Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("under the said sections thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen") and insert ("such as is mentioned in the following subsection").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved at the end to insert:
"(2) The increases of benefit referred to in the foregoing subsection are increases in the Tate of injury benefit Or a disablement pension under sections thirteen, fifteen, seventeen and eighteen of this Act, and for the purposes of paragraph (a) of that subsection include also, in a case to which subparagraph (ii) or (iii) of that paragraph applies, any increase in the rate of a disablement pension under section fourteen of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the third Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Disqualifications, forfeitures and suspensions.
32.—(1) A person shall not be entitled to benefit for any period during which

(a) he is resident permanently or temporarily outside Great Britain: or

(b) he is an inmate of any prison, or an inmate, otherwise than for the purpose of receiving medical treatment as an in-patient therein, of a workhouse or other institution supported wholly or partly out of public funds:

Provided that, in any prescribed cases, this subsection shall not apply or shall apply only so as to suspend payment of benefit to any person instead of disqualifying him for benefit.
(2) Regulations may provide for the forfeiture of injury benefit by a claimant or beneficiary for failure without reasonable cause to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) of section twenty-five of this Act in respect of the relevant injury, and may further provide for the forfeiture of benefit by a claimant or beneficiary—

(a) for failure without reasonable cause to comply with any requirement of regulations

663
made by virtue of any other provision of that section (including, in the case of a claim for death benefit, a failure on the part of some other person to give the prescribed notice of the relevant accident);

(b) for wilful obstruction of, or other misconduct in connection with, any examination or treatment to which he is required under regulations so made to submit himself, or any course which he is so required to attend, or any proceedings under this Act for the determination of his right to benefit or to the receipt thereof;

or for suspending proceedings on the claim or payment of benefit, as the case may be, in the case of any such failure, obstruction or misconduct.
12.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
"(1) Except where regulations otherwise provide, a person shall be disqualified for receiving any benefit, and an increase of benefit shall not be payable in respect of any person as the beneficiary's wife or husband, for any period during which that person—

(a) is absent from Great Britain; or

(b) is undergoing penal servitude imprisonment or detention in legal custody; and regulations may provide for the suspension of payment to or in respect of any person during any such period as aforesaid of benefit which is excepted from the operation of the foregoing provisions of this subsection or which is payable otherwise than in respect of that period."

The noble Lord said: Reference has already been made to this in connexion with a previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"Provided that regulations under this subsection providing for the forfeiture of benefit for any of the following matters, that is to say—

(i) for failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) of the said section twenty-five;

(ii) for failure to comply with the requirements of regulations under that section relating to medical examination or treatment;

(iii) for obstruction of or misconduct in connection with medical examination or treatment;

shall not be made so as to disentitle a claimant or beneficiary to benefit for a period exceeding six weeks on any forfeiture."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given on
664
the Report stage in another place, and brings this Bill into conformity, once again, with the main Bill. The point is that at present, if when injured you take up an unreasonable attitude towards medical treatment, you are stopped from receiving benefit for an indefinite period. Following the undertaking given in another place, in future the limit of forfeiture is confined to a period of six weeks. That is the short purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is the effect of this Amendment that if, after the end of the six weeks, you still go on obstructing, you may get another six weeks?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that it is.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 36, agreed to.
Clause 37:
Appeal from, and review of, Minister's decisions.
(2) Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating references and appeals to the High Court under this section, and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which appeals may be brought.
12.23 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"and shall authorise the Court to grant to the claimant payment of his costs (including his own costs) by the Minister, notwithstanding that the claimant fails in his appeal".
The noble Lord said: It will be found that most of the cases under Clause 37 can go to the High Court only in regard to the four matters which are set out in the first four sub-paragraphs of the preceding clause. The Minister may take the other party to the High Court, or the party who feels himself aggrieved may go there. It seems to me that these are the kind of cases that normally will not go to the High Court unless there is some real point of law to be decided. Indeed, quite obviously there must be a question of law, and not merely of fact, before such cases can go to the High Court. In my view, it is most unfortunate for a particular claimant—if that is the right word to use—whose case is one which is to decide a point of law,

665
upon which other cases may depend, and who fails, that the cost of deciding the point should fall on him. It seems to me only right that when what I have just described happens, the costs should be borne by the Minister, for they are general costs and they ought not to fall on one individual.
My Amendment precludes a man having these costs as of right. It authorises the High Court to grant them only if it thinks fit to do so. If it were a case which the claimant ought not to have brought, the High Court would not give him costs. I want to give power to the High Court to give these costs only when it is quite clear that the case has gone to decide some particular question of law. In such circumstances, the man concerned should not have to bear the costs. Apart from that, it is well that when these cases go to the High Court they should be properly argued on both sides. It is right that there should be counsel for the claimant as well as for the Minister, and that the claimant, precluded by his lack of means from engaging an advocate, should not be confined to uttering a few halting words which is perhaps all that he is capable of doing. The judges should have both sides of the case fully argued before them. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, which is only an empowering one for the benefit of the High Court. It will prevent occasional cases of hardship and will, I believe, enable better justice to be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 2, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord has in mind, but my own experience of this matter—and it is rather a long one—is this: What a man wants particularly, when he embarks on litigation, is to know in advance, if he can, what the position is going to be. When I was Attorney General I used to argue a great many Income-Tax cases in which I was using some quite humble man really as a peg on which to hang a decision which was very likely going to be taken to the House of Lords. I used to say, quite frankly, at the beginning of the proceedings: "Whatever the result may be. I will pay the costs of both sides all the way up." I
666
think that that is right and proper. It is much better to be able to do that than to have a position where a man concerned in a case does not know what will happen until the last moment when the judge gives his decision. Nobody quite knows, of course, what our judges are going to do. When the matter is left in doubt like that, the poor man concerned is necessarily kept in a great state of anxiety and nervousness. Therefore, I think it is better to rely on the Minister undertaking to pay the costs in cases of this sort and to give him the opportunity of agreeing in advance to do so. When that is done the man concerned knows where he is.
So far as the legal position is concerned, it is this: that a judge to-day has an absolute discretion. Without any words being put in this clause, a judge could, if he liked, exercise that discretion in the way of saying that the Minister, although he may have won a case, should pay the costs because the proceedings have been very useful to him and have enabled him to get a decision which he greatly wanted and which would apply in many other cases. Therefore, a judge may say: "You have to pay the costs." He has power to do so in these cases in which the Minister or the Crown is a party. He has complete discretion as to costs. In practice, the thing has worked out in this way. Some case has to be decided raising some point in connexion with unemployment insurance or national health insurance. So far as national health is concerned, neither side ever asks for costs; we have eliminated costs altogether. There never has been a case in which costs were asked for.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Who are the people concerned in these cases? Friendly societies?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; I suppose it would be the approved society and the man. In regard to unemployment insurance the practice is the same; no costs are asked for. In one case. which was apparently thought to be a very bad case, counsel for the Minister of Labour asked for costs. The judge said: "I am tempted to make an order for payment of costs by the appellant, but on the whole I will not, because the rule that no costs should be granted is a wholesome rule." That is the practice, but, on the other hand: as I have said, the judge has complete discretion. I

667
hope that this matter will be met if I say that the general rule will be that there will be no costs. In proper cases the Minister will say, "I think that this is a case which ought to be litigated, and I shall be grateful if you will take it up. I will pay the costs." I do not really think that this Amendment is necessary.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that the only thing which slightly "shook" me was the statement of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that agreement was made that there should be no costs. The purpose of my Amendment was to ensure that the man did get his costs. If the Ministry are to say, "We want this case brought, and we will pay the costs of both sides," that is a different matter. That would meet my point. If there is any question of going back to the old rule of no costs, that would not meet it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In proper cases, the Minister will pay costs.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Appointment of Commissioner and deputy Commissioners
42.—(1) For the purposes of this Act an Industrial Injuries Commissioner (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioner") may be appointed by His Majesty and such number of deputy Commissioners as His Majesty thinks fit may be so appointed.
12.32 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"The Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall be barristers or solicitors, or in Scotland advocates or law agents".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Rushcliffe, who apologizes for his absence which is unavoidable, I beg to move this Amendment. I hope that we shall have more success with it than we had with an earlier one. The object of this Amendment, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, with great experience of these matters, feels very strongly, is that the Industrial Injuries Commissioners and the Deputy
668
Commissioners, should be barristers or solicitors in England, and advocates or law agents in Scotland. These Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners may have very difficult legal points to decide. I also attach a good deal of importance to this Amendment. I am in no way connected with the great legal profession, so I can speak quite freely on this matter. There may be questions of very great legal importance for these Commissioners to decide, and it would be much better if they were members of one of those great professions.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 35, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Wolverton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, except that I take a rather stronger view than he does. I think that the Commissioners and the Deputy Commissioners ought to be members of the Bar. When we come to local tribunals, I quite realize that it would be proper to have solicitors, but for these purposes I am very anxious that we should have somebody who is as good as we can find. As you will see presently, when we come to the Amendment to the scale of pensions, we have not agreed with the Treasury what payment is to be made. I am hoping that I shall be able to get somebody of the status of a High Court Judge, somebody from the class of people I should be considering if there were a vacancy on the Bench. It is a mere accident that this Bill and the other are not one. You must realize that the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners referred to in this Bill would be the same persons as the Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners referred to in the other Bill. If I were pressed, I would not mind putting it into the Bill, but an absolute undertaking has been given which meets the point, and I rather think that your Lordships may be satisfied with that. Certainly, in appointing the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners the Minister will ask my advice, and he will obtain people of the very highest status in the profession. The whole scheme depends on that. I will consider the proposal of this Amendment between now and the Report stage, and if your Lordships press me I will include the words then. I hope you will accept the very definite assurance which the Minister gave in another place, and which I repeat now.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, was extremely keen on tins point, and, as I think the House realizes, he has had great experience in matters of this kind. Before he went away, I had a talk with him and he was anxious that these words should go into the Bill. I should, therefore, be grateful if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will think out some words to include in the Bill before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do that. I am anxious that this Bill should run parallel with the other Bill, and I do not want to amend the other Bill. It would be a little lop-sided to put these words in this Bill and to specify a barrister of so many years' standing. I can give the assurance of which I have spoken. Does the noble Lord press me to do more than that? If I include his words in the Bill, it would get us out of step with the other Bill; but if he does press me I will consider it, and see what I can do.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I just say a word? The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has offered us an assurance. Of course, we accept any assurance that he or the Minister gives, hut they are giving that assurance for the present, and this Bill will go on the Statute Book for the future. I suggest that there are advantages in having these words in the Bill, in order to cope with the situation in the future. A future Minister may be less amenable to reason than the present holder of the office.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think we are in a technical difficulty about this, because we are taking the Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill immediately after this Committee stage and it is not possible to put in manuscript Amendments on the Third Reading—we had a similar case the other day. This would mean postponing the Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill until a later date. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be better able than I am to say whether this course is a possible one to take. The Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill will be largely formal; there will be very brief discussion, and we may well expect that it will be over in half an hour. In view of the fact that there are a large number of Amendments to be discussed, perhaps the wisest course would be
670
to draft an Amendment to this clause on the lines suggested, and take the Third Reading at an early date next week.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May we leave it that I will consider this, and see if I can get an Amendment on Report? The National Insurance Bill has to go to another place. I cannot conceive that any trouble will arise.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Might we consider, between now and the Report stage, whether it is necessary to have these words in both Bills? Could we not make some Amendment to this Bill which would cover the other Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be very untidy, since you have Commissioners under both Bills, to state in the subsidiary Bill what should be their qualifications. I know that the Parliamentary draftsmen would not like it, but I will see what we can do.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: But it would meet the case. If the Commissioner was required in one Bill to be a barrister he would be also in the other, whether it is put down or not.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps the noble and learned I ord, the Lord Chancellor, will consider words which might be inserted on the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Constitution of local appeal tribunals.
43.—(1) A local appeal tribunal for the purposes of this Act shall consist of one or more members chosen to represent employers, with an equal number of members chosen to represent insured persons, and a chairman appointed by the Minister.
12.40 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, in subsection (I), after "chairman," to insert "who is a barrister or solicitor, or in Scotland an advocate or law agent." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble and learned friend, Viscount Maugham, who unfortunately is not able to be in his place to-day, and for whose absence I have been asked to make apologies to the Committee, I beg to move this Amendment. It is very much on the same lines as the Amendment which has just been discussed, but it goes a step

671
further and seeks to require that the Chairman of the local appeal tribunal should be a barrister or a solicitor so far as England is concerned, and in Scotland an advocate or law agent.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 11, after ("Chairman") insert ("who is a barrister or solicitor, or in Scotland an advocate or law agent").—(Lord Wolverton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This time I think it is right that we should have a barrister or a solicitor, but may I say that the phrase—"an advocate or law agent" is inappropriate. That could go in the Scottish application clause. Here again the Minister has given a pledge. I am a little hesitant in accepting this Amendment for the reason that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the chairman of this local appeal tribunal will be either a barrister or a solicitor. There may, however, be an odd spot in the country where it is not convenient to get one, or there may be a case of illness, and, if a tribunal could only be legally-constituted by having a barrister or a solicitor, matters would be held up until one could be procured. Therefore, this again is a case where I hope that your Lordships will be content with the assurance of the Minister that it is his intention to have as chairmen of all these tribunals—where he can get them—barristers or solicitors. I hope that I shall not be pressed to insert these words in the Bill, because there will be the odd case where it will be rather difficult to constitute a tribunal with one of these people, and there will be the odd time when the man who would normally act is ill. That means that, although I am quite in favour of the principle of the Amendment, I should prefer not to be asked to include it in the Bill.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I do not press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Appeals to Commissioner]:
12.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert:
"(—) Any question of law arising in connection with the determination of any such
672
appeal may, if the Commissioner thinks fit, be referred to for decision to the High Court, and every person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner on any such question of law which is not so referred may appeal from that decision to the High Court.
(—)Provision shall be made by rules of Court for regulating references and appeals to the High Court under this section, and these rules shall provide a limit of time within which such appeals may be brought.
(—) As much of subsection (1) of section sixty-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, as requires an appeal from any person to the High Court to be heard and determined by a Divisional Court, shall not apply to appeals under this section."
The noble Marquess said: No doubt in dealing with this Amendment the objection will be advanced on behalf of the Government that it would tend to produce a very large volume of litigation with consequent delay and expense which is very desirable to avoid. The last thing I want is to turn the procedure of this Bill into a sort of gala performance for the benefit of the Bar. But, on the other hand, it does seem to me to be wrong that you should shut out the High Court from any possibility of giving a decision on what may prove to be an extremely important question of legal principle, which may have an effect on the position of the very large proportion of the population who are or who may be affected by this Bill. As it now stands there is provision for a High Court decision under an earlier clause of the Bill. Questions under subsection (1) (a) of Clause 36 may, under Clause 37, if the Minister thinks fit, be referred for decision to the High Court. Clause 37 (1) states:
"… and any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister on any such question of law which is not so referred may appeal from that decision to the High Court."
Having opened that door, I suggest it is not only logical but also just to open this further door and give to the Commissioner power to refer points of law for decision to the High Court, and to give parties before the Commission the right to appeal to the High Court.
The legislation embodied in this Bill supplants a very considerable volume of legislation which has hitherto been found in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Under those Acts admittedly a very large corpus of legal decisions grew up. One does not want to see a further amount on the same scale grow up under this Bill.

673
Many of the decisions which were given under the Workmen's Compensation Acts would also be applicable to the present scheme. For instance, one of the most fertile sources of litigation…as any of us who have at any time been concerned with practice at the Bar will remember—was the construction and application of the phrase which recurs and indeed is the basic phrase of this Bill… "accident arising out of and in the course of employment."
All the cases which have been decided in the past fifty years on the subject of accident arising out of and in the course of employment "would presumably be applicable to cases under this Bill, and it would not be necessary to build up a further body of decisions on that same phrase under the new provisions. I therefore suggest at this stage of development of what is fundamentally workmen's compensation law there would not be a large volume of new cases, but I can imagine instances in which it would be of great satisfaction to the Commissioner himself, confronted with a decision of great moment and of wide application, to be able to say. "I think that this is a case which, for future guidance, I ought to be able to refer to the High Court in order to get a final decision." I think, too, there may well he an instance where the parties before the Commissioner may also feel that they desire, in view of the importance of the subject under discussion, to have a decision from the High Court upon the legal question involved. I would be prepared to water down the suggested right of appeal, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thought fit, as regards the first paragraph of my proposed Amendment, by putting in the words, "with the leave of the High Court "in the second part of it, and making it read that any question of law might be referred to the High Court by the Commissioner:
"…and every person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner on any such question of law which is not so referred may with the leave of the High Court appeal from that decision to the High Court."
That is a suggestion which I put forward in order, in some degree, to restrict such right, if it is thought fit to apply any such restriction. I do suggest, however, as a general principle, for the convenience of persons involved and for the establishment of an authoritative body of law on this subject, that it is only right that there
674
should be a door open to the High Court in order that an authoritative decision may in proper cases be obtained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved…
(Page 34, line 17, at end insert the said new subsections. … (The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, especially with regard to the proviso "with the leave of the High Court." I think that is important. There may be different decisions given in different parts of the country, and it would be desirable with the leave of the court that the appeals should be allowed to go to the High Court.
LORD MESTON: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. For some reason which is unknown to me, both the present Government and their predecessor have resolutely set their faces against allowing any appeal to the High Court on a point of law from a tribunal such as a tribunal pa sided over by a Commissioner, with one exception. The exception is the case of the pensions tribunals, and I think everyone will agree that appeal to the high Court from pensions tribunals on a point of law has been the dominating factor in maintaining uniformity in the administration of the Pensions Acts. While I support this Amendment, I cannot help indulging in the doleful reflection that a similar Amendment was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on the National Insurance Bill. The reason the noble Lord gave then was that the National Insurance Commissioners would all be lawyers of great experience, and therefore A was unnecessary for the matter to be taken to the High Court.
But as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has pointed out, this present Bill deals with hundreds of points similar to those which arose under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. I do hope an exception will be made in the case of this Bill, and that it will be possible to take some of the points, if necessary, to a judge of the High Court. The trouble is that when you allow an appeal to the High Court you inferentially allow further appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, and the result may be (I say this with no disrespect to the Courts of Law) that instead of it being decided in three or six months it may not be decided for

675
two or three years. However, that matter may be dealt with, so far as the High Court is concerned. I hope the Government in this case will consider very seriously allowing appeals from the Commissioners to the High Court on points of law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to say that on this matter I cannot give way. Both this Government and their predecessors attach great importance to having a system as cheap, inexpensive, rather informal and as speedy as possible under which these things can be dealt with. May I point out what the position is? There are certain topics on which the Minister gives a decision. Those are set out in Clause 36. With regard to the first four of those, the Minister having decided, there is an appeal to the High Court. It is provided in the Statute that the appeal to the First Court is to be final; there is no appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords from that. Under the sort of matters we are dealing with here, the Minister does not come into it at all. The first decision is given by the insurance officer, then there is an appeal to the local tribunal, and then, unlike the pensions case, in order to secure uniformity amongst all the various local tribunals you have a further appeal to the Commissioner, and it is provided that he may sit with two other Commissioners. You may, therefore, have a Court of three Commissioners, all of whom will be lawyers of distinction.
It is now suggested that we add to that the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords. That is what the Amendment says. You will finally get a decision by a majority of three to two in the House of Lords after about three years, having expended a vast sum of money. That is not what is wanted, and so long as we can get the right sort of Commissioner we believe our system is very much better. You may compare this with the procedure on pensions if you like, but there they stop at the first Court. If your Lordships know anything about the administration of pensions you will appreciate the difficulty that arises. The only way in which you can have harmony between the Courts of Scotland and the Courts of England is by going to the House of Lords, which is an appellate Court from both of them. One of my great difficulties at the present time is
676
that a difference of decision exists between Scotland and England, and a pensioner in Scotland may find himself in a better or worse position than a pensioner in England. I cannot bring those cases to the House of Lords, because they are dealt with by the nominated judge.
Having had a case under this Bill determined by the insurance officer, the local tribunal, and then by these three Commissioners sitting together, it is then suggested that it should be taken to the High Court. The Amendment is drafted on the assumption that we then go to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, but let us assume for a moment that you are going to stop at the High Court. You are then going to have one set of decisions in England and another set of decisions in Scotland which cannot be reconciled. That would be falling into the very error we fell into when the Workmen's Compensation Act was passed. The whole object of the framers of the Workmen's Compensation Act was to have an informal, cheap and expeditious procedure. No one put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Brampton. He said:
"Another object was. … to provide a simple proceeding entailing comparatively trifling expense by which such compensation might, if necessary, be enforced. To carry out these very laudable objects the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 was passed."
Now after 50 years experience you ask me, in addition to all these tribunals which have been set up, to allow the High Court to come in, then the Court of Appeal and finally the House of Lords. It will certainly not entail "comparatively trifling expense"; it will certainly not be a "simple proceding", and it will certainly depart very far from what one of the noble Lords referred to as the fireside chat, which is the sort of informal way in which we want to do it. This Government and the last Government considered this point, and we all come to the conclusion that this would be a profound mistake and would really interfere with the administration of the Act. For those reasons I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble and learned Lord has given me very much the answer which at the beginning of my remarks in moving the Amendment I ventured to expect from him. I confess I am a little startled at the proposition that justice must be cheap and quick but not necessarily accurate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not agree with that at all. I never said anything like that, and I think it is a great pity that the noble Marquess should caricature what I said in that respect. I do say that justice must always be accurate, but it does not always follow that when you incur great expense and great time you achieve accuracy.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I agree that it does not always follow, but if you are prepared to say the tests you want applied to the provisions under this Act are cheapness and rapidity, and you cut out the High Court, then I deduce from that that you run a considerable risk of not getting an accurate interpretation of the law. In that way I do not feel that I caricatured the noble and learned Lord's remark. I am sorry the noble and learned Lord finds himself unable to accept this Amendment. I think, for the reasons which I have already given, that it is in the ultimate interests of society that this procedure should be followed. I am bound to say that if the Committee stage of this very important Bill had not been taken on a Friday morning and, there had been a larger attendance, I should have been very tempted to divide the Committee. As it is, I can only further express my regret and reluctantly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING had given notice that he would move at the end of subsection (5) to insert:
"(—) Any party to such an appeal shall be entitled to be heard before the Commissioner either in person or by a representative or, by leave of the Commissioner, by solicitor or counsel."
The noble Marquess said: The noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, has an Amendment on the same point, and I frankly prefer his words to my own. If his Amendment is going to be moved, I am prepared not to move mine but to accept his in its place.
1.2 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, at the end of Clause 47, to insert the following new subsection:
". A claimant or beneficiary may apply to the chairman of a local appeal tribunal for leave to be represented by counsel or solicitor at the hearing before such tribunal and the chairman may grant such leave if he thinks
678
fit. On appeals to the Commissioner, the claimant or beneficiary shall be entitled to be so represented."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Rushcliffe, I should like to move this Amendment. Its object is to ensure that the appellant, with the leave of the chairman of the Court, can be represented by counsel or solicitor at these hearings. The noble Lord feels, as I do, that it is very important, if you are going to have a barrister or a solicitor as chairman of these Courts, that the appellant may, with the chairman's permission, be properly represented by counsel or solicitor. With those few words I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 17, at end, insert the said new subsection.—[Lord Wolverton.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite in agreement with the principle of this Amendment, and I will give an undertaking to do this by regulation. If I am pressed I will go further than that, but I would like to do it by regulation because it is by regulation that it is going to be done under the main Bill, and I want, if I can, to keep these two Bills in step. I have already discovered that I have to make one departure, and I do not want to make two, if I can help it. If your Lordships press me, I will find some words on the Report stage, and I think the right place in which to do it would be in Clause 51 (3), which provides for the making of regulations dealing with various matters. It could be done there, but I would rather not put it into the Bill. In the main Insurance Bill it is dealt with in Clause 43 (5), being merely a matter for regulations. Regulations have the advantage, of course, that they are more flexible and that if you want to alter them in some respect or other, you can do so. There is a further point. I think I am right in saying that this matter of representation by counsel, and so on, is not a matter which is normally in a Bill but is neatly always provided for in regulations made under the Bill. I have put all my cards on the table. If your Lordships tell me you would prefer that it should be in the Bill, I will find words On the Report stage to do it, but I myself would rather do it by regulations.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It seems to me that one part of this Amendment should be to Clause 46 and the other to Clause 47. Clause 46 deals with the appeals to, and the decisions of, local appeal tribunals, and Clause 47 deals with appeals to Commissioners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If you do it under Clause 51, you provide for both cases.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That would mean that Clause 51 would prescribe that the regulations should provide for this. I am a little doubtful whether the flexibility of regulations is what you want in a case like this. I look upon this from the point of view of a man who cannot express his own views properly before a tribunal, and who should, therefore, be entitled to be represented.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do it in that way, if the noble Lord wants it, but I would rather do it by regulation, because it is done that way in the other Bill. I think it is neater to do it by regulation. This sort of topic, namely, the right of audience by counsel, is a matter which you will normally never find in a Bill; it will normally be done by regulation.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is always a difficult matter to decide whether to put a provision into the Bill or whether to do it by regulations. In the majority of cases, when the Opposition ask that it should be put into the Bill it is because they are afraid that some subsequent Government may alter the regulations without coming back to Parliament. I think this is rather a different case, because once it becomes the ordinary practice under the regulations that the beneficiary can be represented by counsel, it is very unlikely that any subsequent Government will withdraw that right. I should be inclined, therefore, to advise my noble friend to accept the Lord Chancellor's view. I think it is very important that it should be in the regulations, because we all know there are people who have an extremely good case but who have not the intellectual capacity to put that case forward. Obviously they ought to have the right to be represented. I should think that in this particular case the regulations will establish a practice, and that practice, once established, will be very unlikely to be revoked.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Having had a very similar Amendment on the Paper to the one which is now before your Lordships' House, I should like to say that, so far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to accept that this particular provision should be made by way of regulation and should not go into the body of the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Will Clause 51 cover it without amendment? I very much doubt it. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to look into this matter before the Report stage. I have been looking at Clause 51(1), paragraphs (a) to (j), and I do not see that this is completely covered. I rather think we shall have to have a paragraph (i).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will be done under Clause 51 (3).
LORD LLEWELLIN: Clause 51 (3) says:
"Regulations under subsection (1) of this section prescribing the procedure to be followed in cases before a local appeal tribunal or the Commissioner shall provide that any hearing shall be in public except in so far as the tribunal or Commissioner for special reasons otherwise directs."
It does not cover this particular point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly see that the regulation-making power is wide enough to make these regulations.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Interim payments, arrears and repayments.
(2) Where by a decision on review or appeal a person entitled to death benefit is awarded—

(a) a pension in lieu of a gratuity or allowance previously awarded; or

(b) a gratuity in lieu of a pension or allowance previously awarded; or

(c) an allowance in lieu of a pension or gratuity previously awarded;

the decision on the review or appeal shall, subject to and in accordance with regulations, direct that any payments already made on account of the benefit originally awarded shall be treated as having been made on account of the benefit awarded by the decision on review or appeal.
1.9 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "death." The noble Lord said: This closes a small drafting gap. Clause 52 (2) as it stands, enables an amount paid to a person on account of one form of death benefit to be treated as having been paid on account of another form which is substituted on award or appeal. Under the Amendment, this power of offset is, by the omisson of the word "death," extended to the case of a disabled workmen who on appeal or review is awarded a pension in place of a gratuity or vice versa.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 37, leave out "death."—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved after subsection (6) to insert:
("(7) Where a person has received sums on account of an allowance under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, to which by virtue of this Act he was not entitled by reason of his being entitled to death benefit under section twenty-one thereof subsequently awarded (whether in respect of the same or a different child), those sums shall be treated as paid on account of the death benefit and the amount thereof shall be repaid to the Treasury out of the Industrial Injuries Fund.")
The noble Lord said: This, once again, brings this Bill into conformity with the main Bill. The effect is to set off any family allowance that may have been paid against any arrears that may accrue from a subsequent retrospective award of death benefit in respect of a child under Clause 21. Supposing a man dies, and his family is dispersed, supposing one of his children is taken into a household and the father of the house receives the family allowance on that child who is received into the house, and supposing that later on a death benefit is paid either to the paterfamilias or to the materfamilias on behalf of that child, the sums he has already received by way of family allowances are counted against the arrears of death benefit that would accrue to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 46, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: There is just one point which arises on this Amendment. I was looking carefully through the Bill to see if I could find which children were entitled to this grant. I have not been able to find it myself, and I should be
682
Very much obliged if the noble Lord could look into it, or get his officials to get into it, to see between what ages the child qualifies for the grant. I do not think it is in the Bill so I would ask the noble Lord to look into it before the Report stage to see whether something ought not to be put in the clause.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly look into that. As the noble Lord is aware only one child can attract the 7s. 6d. which flows from the death benefit, and this Amendment really is necessary because it may take a little while to make a decision as to which child is to get the 7s. 6d. I will look I further into the point raised to see if it is possible or necessary to add anything.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the age of the child is never defined.
LORD PAKENHAM: As on all other matters I will take the noble Lord's information on that because I have no information to the contrary. I will certainly have it looked into.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
1.12 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to insert the following new clause:
Superannuation allowance for Commissioner and deputy Commissioners.
"(1) The Minister may from time to time recommend to the Treasury that there shall be paid to the Commissioner or any deputy Commissioner an annual sum by way of superannuation allowance calculated in accordance with the Fifth Schedule to this Act if either

(a)he is at the time of his retirement over the age of seventy-two or, where he retires after fifteen years' service, the age of sixty-five; or

(b)the Minister is satisfied by means of a medical certificate that at the time of his retirement he is, by reason of infirmity of mind or body, incapable of discharging the duties of his office and that the incapacity is likely to be permanent.

(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection and the said Schedule

(a)service as Commissioner or deputy Commissioner which is not remunerated by means of a salary shall be disregarded;

(b)sevice as deputy Commissioner shall, subject to the foregoing paragraph, count (in the case of a person retiring as Commissioner) as service as Commissioner;

683

(c) the Treasury may by regulations provide for counting as service as Commissioner or as deputy Commissioner pensionable service in any other capacity under the Crown.

(3) The decision of the Treasury shall be final on any question arising as to—

(a) the amount of any superannuation allowance under this section; or

(b) the reckoning of any service for the purpose of calculating such an allowance.

(4) Where the rate of a Commissioner or deputy Commissioner's superannuation allowance under this section is increased by virtue of regulations made under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) thereof in respect of service in some other capacity, the allowance shall be paid and borne partly in the manner provided by subsections (1) and (2) of the section of this Act relating to the expenses of Government departments and partly in the manner in which a pension payable wholly in respect of service in that other capacity would have been paid and borne, in such proportions as may be determined by the Treasury regard being had to the relative length of service and rate of remuneration in each capacity.
(5) In this section the expression 'pension' includes any superannuation or other retiring allowance or gratuity and the expression 'pensionable' shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Lord said: This rather lengthy clause is simply intended to give the Industrial Injuries Commissioner the same rights as regards superannuation allowance as are given to the National Insurance Commissioner. The same applies also to the deputies in each case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 53, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think this is a very wise Amendment to make, and I assume that the Amendment after the Fourth Schedule is consequential upon it. I think we are doing what we ought to do to see that the men who are appointed to these responsible positions are properly treated.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61:
Inspectors.
(2) An inspector appointed under this Act shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:—
(c) to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks
684
fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an insured person or employed by the employer of any insured person, and to require every such person to be so examined and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined;
(4) If any person—

(a) wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of any power under this section; or

(b) fails answer any question or to furnish any information or to produce any document or to sign any declaration when required so to do under this section; or

(c) conceals or attempts to conceal any person or prevents or attempts to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector;

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds in the case of a first offence under this subsection, and not exceeding fifty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent such offence:
THE MARQUESS OF READINGhad given notice that he would move, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Marquess said: This is a very drastic subsection, but the Amendments standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor take sufficient of the sting out of my objection so that I am prepared not to move my Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved in subsection (2) (c), after "Act" to insert "on which he may reasonably require information." The noble Lord said: As the noble Marquess has implied, the five Amendments put down in the name of the Lord Chancellor to this clause offer additional protection—if one can put it that way—to the citizens against the inspector, and restrict the powers of the inspector in almost every case. That applies to all the five Amendments except the Amendment at page 46, line 39, which is virtually a drafting Amendment. The other four offer this increased protection to the citizen, although I am sure there is no need to fear the inspector in those cases. I am glad the noble Marquess feels that these Amendments give him the safeguards he requires.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("on which he may reasonably require information").—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: If my memory serves me aright this Amendment brings this section into line with what we did on the National Insurance Bill. I am glad we did that in that Bill, because I think as originally drafted these clauses went too far. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for bringing them into line after the long discussion we had on the earlier Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend.
Amendment moved——
Page, 46, line 26, leave out ("and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: I beg to move the third Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 39, after ("is") insert ("or was").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.18 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, in subsection (4) (b), before "fails" to insert "wilfully." The noble Marquess said: At the bottom of page 46, subsection (4) says:
If any person—
(a) wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector,…"
and subsection (b) says:
"fails to answer any question or to furnish any information…"
It does seem to me that mere failure—for there may be a number of perfectly good reasons and explanations—ought not by itself to render any person liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 or not exceeding £20 as the penalties are set out. "Wilfully fail "or, if you like, "neglect or refusal." I can well understand. But to impose that penalty for mere failure without any qualification of any sort seems to me to be going too far. Whether the insertion of the word "wilfully" is the right way of dealing with it, or whether the words I just suggested "neglect or refusal to answer or furnish any information" be preferable, I do suggest to the noble and learned Lord
686
that some alteration ought to be made in this clause to make it less harsh in its application than it is at present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 1, after ("(b)") insert ("wilfully").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly do not like the phrase "wilfully fail". It seems to contain two antithetical concepts. To "fail" obviously includes the attitude of the man who does nothing about it or is too tired to bother. "Wilful" is something more active and a wilful failure would not do at all. It seems to me that the noble Marquess on reflection will withdrew his Amendment, but I will consider whether I can put down some words on the Report stage on those lines.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I was not very much attracted by the words "wilfully fail" myself, and that is why I hope the other words I suggested will be more acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PAKENHAM: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. This is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 2, leave out ("or to sign any declaration").—(Lord Pakenham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to leave out subsection (4) (c). The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 3, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 6.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
General provisions as to prosecutions under Act.
(5) The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence under this Act may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charaed.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act, the wife or husband of the accused shall be competent to give evidence, whether for or against the accused:
Provided that the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence or, in giving evidence, to disclose any communication made to her or him during the marriage by the accused.")
The noble Lord said: This is, for the most part, a drafting Amendment. It contains additional defences for the husband or wife. As originally drafted, the subsection was intended to make the wife or husband of the accused a competent, but not compellable, witness for the prosecution or defence, but it is very doubtful whether that purpose was really served adequately. It is now considered that the new words will serve the purpose that was originally in mind. There is a further point in connexion with the new words, and that is that the Amendment secures that even if a spouse does agree to enter the witness box, that spouse will not be compelled to disclose communications made by the other spouse during the marriage. I apologise to your Lordships for using the word "spouse" so often in giving this explanation and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: It seems that the Lord Chancellor and I both put down an Amendment on this matter; therefore I ought perhaps to give one word of explanation with regard to it and the next two Amendments which stand in my name. They were put down very shortly after we had discussed this matter on the Second Reading in March. Since then, we have had a discussion on the National Insurance Bill on the Committee stage, and these words, after some discussion in your Lordships House, were accepted by the Government. Consequently the Amendment which is now under discussion was put down by the Lord Chancellor and myself. It is obviously right that we should have the same thing in the two Bills. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for putting this Amendment down and for agreeing to what I suggested.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68:
Recovery of contributions on prosecutions under Act.
68.—(1)In any case where an employer had been convicted of the offence under Part I of this Act of failing to pay a contribution, he shall be liable to pay to the Industrial Injuries Fund a sum equal to the amount which he failed to pay.
(2) In any case where—

(a) an employer is convicted of an offence under Section thirteen of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, as applied by regulations made under this Part of this Act or of an offence under regulations made under this Act; and

(b) the evidence on which he is convicted shows that the employer, for the purpose of paying any contribution which he was liable to pay, has affixed to any insurance card any stamp which had been cancelled or defaced in any way whatever, whether it had actually been used for the purpose of payment of a contribution or not;

the employer shall be liable to pay to the Industrial Injuries Fund a sum equal to the amount of the contribution in respect of which the stamp was affixed.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved in subsection (2) (a), after "convicted" to insert "of an offence under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section sixty-six of this Act or." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to make quite sure what is otherwise not quite certain, that if a person affixes any used insurance-stamps to an insurance card the value of the used stamps can be recovered from the person convicted of such an offence even without a civil action. Without the Amendment, some kind of civil action would probably be necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 6, after ("convicted") insert the said new words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 14, leave out from ("any") to the end of line 16 and insert ("used insurance stamp within the meaning of the said paragraph (b)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76:
Mariners and Airmen.
76.—(1) The Minister may make regulations modifying in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of this Act in their application in relation to—
(2) Any such regulations may in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, provide—
(g) for enabling a mariner to authorise the payment of the whole or any part of any benefit to which he is or may become entitled to the prescribed dependants of the mariner.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved in subsection (2) (g) after "mariner" to insert "or airman." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which is in line with the provisions of the main Bill, enables regulations to be made to extend to airmen the facilities which can already be granted to mariners. The facilities in question are those under which payment of the whole or part of any benefit to which he may be entitled may be made, on his authority, direct to his dependants. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 37, after ("mariner '') insert ("or airman").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 39, leave out ("the prescribed dependants of the mariner") and insert ("such of his dependants as may be prescribed.") —(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Supplementary Schemes]:
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved at the end of subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) Section thirty-three of the Finance Act, 1921 (which exempts from income tax income receivable for the purposes of a supplementary scheme in connection with unemployment insurance by the body charged with the administration of the scheme) shall apply in relation to a supplementary scheme under this section as it applies in relation to a supplementary scheme under this section as it applies in relation to a supplementary scheme under any other enactment."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment applies to the funds of supplementary
690
schemes set up under the industrial injuries scheme the provisions in regard to exemption from income-tax already accorded to the funds of similar schemes set up under the main Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 46, at end insert the said new subsection. —(Lord Pakenhdin.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is obviously right; I am glad that it is being done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Interpretation]:
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to insert:
"'earnings' where used in relation to a person includes any remuneration or profit derived from a gainful occupation "
The noble Lord said: This is an interpretative Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 6, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89:
Application to Scotland.
89. In its application to Scotland this Act shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—
(g) section sixty-eight shall have effect as if for any reference to a summons or warrant there were substituted a reference to a complaint;
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, at the end of paragraph (g), to insert "and as if subsection (5) thereof were omitted;". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended, and indeed is needed, to make the clause fit into the general framework of Scottish law, for reasons which will, no doubt, readily occur to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 40, at end, insert the said new words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
Provisions limiting benefit payable in respect of any death.
6.—(1) A person shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as satisfying the conditions for the receipt of a pension under the said section twenty-three notwithstanding that he is a child, if he may satisfy those conditions on ceasing to be a child.
(2) The provision of this Schedule limiting the number of persons entitled to a pension under the said section twenty-three shall not preclude a person from becoming so entitled on ceasing to be a child by reason only of some other person having previously been so entitled.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, any pension or gratuity under the said section twenty-three to which a person may become entitled on ceasing to be a child shall be disregarded.
LORD PAKENHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 50, after ("person") insert ("becomes or").—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would rather like to know, what difference it makes. Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 6 at present says:
"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, any pension or gratuity under the said section 23, to which a person may become entitled on ceasing to be a child shall be disregarded."
That is, it says, "becomes entitled." What is the difference between "becomes entitled" and "may become entitled"?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord has raised a point of great interest. To answer it in full will require an investigation which I hope will be completed in time for me to give an answer. If I may just read the appropriate passage, for the benefit of those members of the House who have not copies of the Bill in their hands, we find in sub-paragraph (3) the words:
"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, any pension or gratuity under the said section 23, to which a person may become entitled on ceasing to be a child shall be disregarded."
Now we have to put in the words, "becomes or". The mystery deepens. I am afraid that it will require intensive research before I am in a position to give the noble Lord the answer to which he is most certainly entitled.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved after the Fourth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:
"Scale of Superannuation Allowances of Commissioner and deputy Commissioners.
When the number of completed years of service is as specified in the first column of the following table, the annual allowance shall not exceed the fraction of the last annual salary respectively specified in the second column of that table:—

Years of service

Fraction of salary

less than 5

Six-thirtieths.

5

Ten-thirtieths.

6

Eleven-thirtieths.

7

Twelve-thirtieths.

8

Thirteen-thirtieths.

9

Fourteen-thirtieths.

10

Fifteen-thirtieths.

11

Sixteen-thirtieths.

12

Seventeen-thirtieths.

13

Eighteen-thirtieths.

14

Nineteen-thirtieths.

15 or more

Twenty-thirtieths."

The noble Lord said: I have already referred to this in connexion with the new clause inserted after Clause 53. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 21, at end, insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
Eighth Schedule:

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter.

Short title.

Extent of repeal.

9 Edw. 7. c. 49.

The Assurance Companies Act, 1909.

Paragraph 2 of head D of the Eighth Schedule.

LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to leave out the reference to the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the passing of the Assurance companies Act, 1946.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: The next Amendment is also consequential on the passing of the Assurance Companies Act, 1946.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 57, at end, insert:

("9 and 10 Geo. 6. c. 28.

The Assurance Companies Act, 1946.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section five; paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of Part III of the Second Schedule.")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL.

  TITLE.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The proposed alteration in the Title is consequential to an Amendment made on Clause 81, subsection (5) in another place, which included among the Acts to be repealed the Workmen's Compensation (Pneumoconiosis) Act, 1945. We could not talk, therefore, of Acts up to 1943, and we had to substitute 1945.
  Amendment moved—
  In the Title, leave out ("1943") and insert ("1945 ").—(Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lore's, in order to make certain adjustments, and to bring this Bill into line with the one which has just been considered in Committee and also because it is necessary to secure the passage of the Bill with which we have just been dealing before the National Insurance Bill becomes law, I understand that it would be convenient if we did not proceed with the Third Reading of this Bill today.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I quite understand the difficulty of the Government, and I assume that: they will have the Third Reading this Bill as soon. as possible next week.

  BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL. [H.L.]
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg leave to introduce the British North America Bill to provide for the re-adjustment of representation in the House of Commons of Canada on the basis of the population of Canada, and to move that it be read a first time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before two o'clock.