Fund, and it is impossible that it could ever have done so, inasmuch as there is a National Health Insurance Fund for each national unit. whereas there is only a single Central Fund which is under the control of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. It cannot be doubted that the references to the Central Fund inserted by the Act of 1918 in the enactments reproduced were purely and simply mistakes. CLAUSE 75. The Committee consider that the words in paragraph (b) "among "insured persons who are members of the branch for the purposes of "this Act" have been rightly inserted in the Bill, though they do not appear in the enactment reproduced. It is desirable to state in terms in the case of a branch, as under paragraph (a) it is stated in the case of a society without branches, that the surplus is only to be distributed among members of the branch. CLAUSE 77. The words at the end of subsection (1)" and in the case of a society in "relation to which an employer has undertaken any obligation, in so "far as it is not made good in accordance with that obligation" have been inserted by the Committee in order to make plain what, as a matter of construction seems clearly to be the intention of the Act of 1918, viz., that in the case of a society guaranteed by an employer the cbligation of the employer, though it comes after the contingencies fund, is to be resorted to in priority to the Central Fund. CLAUSE 97. 1. The opening words of subsection (4) have been slightly altered. Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1920 referred to proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction, and it has been suggested that these words, which in England would cover summary proceedings in civil cases (e.g. proceedings for the recovery of sums as civil debts), might in Scotland receive a more limited construction and be regarded as limited to criminal proceedings, in view of the fact that the expression "court of summary jurisdiction" in relation to Scotland is capable of being interpreted as meaning a court exercising jurisdiction as regulated by the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908. There is no doubt that this distinction between proceedings in England and proceedings in Scotland cannot have been contemplated by the Act of 1920, and the change in the language will operate to place Scotland on the same footing in this respect as England. 2. The enactment from which subsection (4) is reproduced relates only to questions whether a person is or was an employed person within the meaning of the Act, and doubts have been expressed as to what the position is when a question arises in summary proceedings as to whether a person is or was the employer of an employed contributor, a question which the Minister has power under Clause 80 to determine, just as he has power to determine questions of the first-mentioned kind. The Committee consider that it was merely by an oversight that this second class of questions was not included in the original enactment, and they have accordingly inserted in subsection (4) "or on any question whether a person is or was the employer of an employed contributor within "the meaning of this Act or not ". CLAUSE 117. Subsection (2) of Clause 105 of the Bill provides that justices, in deciding whether or not to make an order under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, for the payment of the expenses incidental to the birth of a child, shall not take into consideration the fact that the mother is entitled to maternity benefit. This Act of 1872 does not apply to Scotland, and it has therefore always been considered that the enactment reproduced in subsection (2) of Clause 105 had no application in Scotland. Substantially, however, the position has been exactly the same in Scotland as in England, inasmuch as ever since 1912 the Courts in Scotland have consistently followed the rule that in awarding inlying expenses (i.e., expenses incidental to the birth of a child) no deduction is to be made on account of maternity benefit. It appeared to the Committee that it would be more satisfactory that the legal position in Scotland in relation to this matter should, like that in England, form the Subject of a statutory enactment and, as there is no reasonable doubt as to the law, they therefore felt justified in adding to the Bill the new subsection (5) of this clause, though there is nothing corresponding to it in the existing enactments. SCHEDULE III. In paragraph 8 of this Schedule the Committee have substituted the word "provision" for "building or leasing". It appears that in practice the corresponding paragraph in the existing enactment has been construed as authorising societies to purchase convalescent homes and there is every reason to believe that this was the intention of the Act of 1911. MEMORANDUM ON OUTSTANDING POINTS. The Committee when going through the Bill postponed the following portions of the Bill:: (a) Clause 9 (1). (b) Clause 44. (c) Clause 54. (d) Clause 61. (e) Clause 97. (f) Schedule VII. The Committee also directed:- (g) that the further amendment required in Clause 56 in consequence of the insertion of the new paragraph (iv) in subsection (1) (1) should be brought up for consideration: (h) in connection with Clause 75, that words should be brought up for insertion in subsection (2) of the clause for the purpose of safeguarding ordinary benefits where under the scheme additional benefits have been reduced, etc., on account of arrears; (j) in connection with Clause 110, that an attempt should be made to give more explicit recognition to the fact that Wales is a separate area for the purposes of National Health Insurance. Suggestions for dealing with these various reserved matters are made in Part I of this Memorandum, and in Part II there are set out certain points which it is desired to submit to the consideration of the Committee. PART I. (a) CLAUSE 9 (1). 66 The point reserved on this clause arises in connection with the expression "calendar week". It is suggested that the most satisfactory course will be (1) to abolish the expression "calendar week" and to substitute for it the expression contribution week ", the latter expression being already in use in some of the statutory regulations and having the advantage of being an apt term to describe what is meant, and to insert the necessary definition of "contribution week" in Clause 131, and (2) to insert "contribution " before "week" in the proper places in the Bill. To carry out the above suggestions, the following Amendments will be necessary:· Clause 3, page 3, line 23, after the second "the" insert "contribution ". Clause 3, page 4, line 17, after the second "the" insert "contribution ". Clause 9, page 7, line 35, leave out "calendar ". Clause 9, page 7, line 39, leave out "such ". Clause 9, page 8, line 6, leave out "such " Clause 9, page 8, line 10, leave out "such " Clause 9, page 9, line 8, leave out "calendar". Clause 9, page 10. line 4, at end insert as a new subsection: "(10) In this section the expression' week' means a contribution "week". 66 Clause 56, page 58, line 28, after "the "insert" contribution ". contribution contribution "(m) The expression contribution week' means the period from midnight on one Sunday to midnight on the following Sunday ". (b) CLAUSE 44. The discussion on this clause seems to indicate that the Committee desire to discard the phrase "Great Britain and/or Northern Ireland" and to substitute "United Kingdom", not merely in this clause but throughout the Bill. It seems scarcely necessary to insert any definition of "United Kingdom ", as it wili necessarily follow from the context (see specially Clause 19) that "United Kingdom" will mean the United Kingdom as it exists since the Irish Free State was cut adrift. The necessary amendments giving effect to the above proposal are the following: Clause 19, page 24, lines 9 and 10, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom". Clause 19, page 24, lines 25 and 26, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 19, page 24, line 41, leave out Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 19, page 25, lines 3 and 4, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 19, page 25, line 11. leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 19, page 25, line 15, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". 54244 C Clause 20, page 26, lines 42 and 43, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 20, page 26, line 44, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". 66 Clause 20, page 27, line 1, leave out 'Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 20, page 27, line 9, leave out "Great Britain (including Northern Ireland)" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 44, page 48. line 36, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 44, page 48, lines 40 and 41, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 44, page 49, lines 5 and 6, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 44, page 49, lines 25 and 26, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the Urited Kingdom ". Clause 45, page 49, lines 31 and 32, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". Clause 45, page 50, lines 5 and 6, leave out "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom First Schedule, page 139, line 3, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". First Schedule, page 139, lines 12 and 13, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". First Schedule, page 139, line 16, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". First Schedule, page 139, line 17, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert the United Kingdom ". First Schedule, page 139, line 37, leave out "Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom First Schedule, page 139, line 40, leave out Great Britain or Northern Ireland" and insert "the United Kingdom ". (c) CLAUSE 54. The Committee were dissatisfied with Clause 54 as drafted, on the ground that its provisions will only continue in operation until 31st December, 1924, whereas the Bill as at present drafted will not come into operation until 1st January, 1925. It has been ascertained that section 42 of the Act of 1911 is to be continued by this year's Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to the 31st December, 1925, and it is submitted that in these circumstances" nine"teen hundred and twenty-five" should be substituted for "nineteen "hundred and twenty-four" in line 14 of page 55. (d) CLAUSE 61. The National Health Insurance Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Order, 1924, of which a draft was published on the 18th April, 1924, and which will shortly come into operation, has the effect of extending subsection (3) of this clause to the Army Reserve, Territorial Army, Air Force Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force when called out for service at any time otherwise than for training or for permanent service or on embodiment. The Committee decided that the substance of this Order should be incorporated in the Bill, and for this purpose the following amendments will be necessary: Clause 61, page 67, line 14, leave out "permanent service" and insert "service otherwise than for training ". Clause 61, page 67, line 16, after "embodiment" insert or on service "otherwise than for training". (e) CLAUSE 97. It is understood that the Committee desired to have the present state of the law further considered before dealing with the suggestion that subsection (4) of this clause should be extended to cover questions whether a person is or was the employer of an employed person within the meaning of the Act. Clause 89 of the Bill, reproducing the existing enactments, provides that if any question arises which falls within any one of several categories (one of these being questions whether a person is or was the employer of an employed contributor), the question shall be determined by the Minister; this provision is not expressly qualified in any way and might, therefore, prima facie be regarded as applying to any such question even when it falls to be determined in the course of judicial proceedings. In considering the point at issue, viz., whether the enactment relating to the determination of questions by the Minister ousts the jurisdiction of a court to determine questions of this nature when they arise in the course of proceedings before it, it must be borne in mind that the enactment reproduced in Clause 89 does not stand alone, but must be read in conjunction with the enactment reproduced in subsection (4) of Clause 99, and it is submitted that the existence of an enactment declaring that the decision of the Minister is to be conclusive for the purpose of summary proceedings necessarily implies that, apart from it, a court would have had power to deal with the matter, and even to override a previous decision by the Minister. On the assumption that Clause 89 ousts the jurisdiction of the courts in this matter, a large part of the enactment reproduced in subsection (4) of Clause 97 is otiose, as it would have been sufficient to enact that where a question of this kind arose the proceedings should be adjourned until it has been determined in the statutory manner. In connection with the point at issue, which was raised before the Committee by Mr. Bulloch when the clause was under consideration (see Minutes of Evidence, page 95), a further suggestion was made that (on this view of the law) if in the course of summary proceedings it was contended by an employer that he was not the employer, it would be obligatory on the magistrates to dismiss the summons. As regards this further suggestion, even assuming that the effect of the provision in Clause 89 is to oust the jurisdiction of the court, it is submitted that it would nevertheless be within the discretion of the court, instead of dismissing the proceedings, to adjourn them until the question had been determined in the manner provided by the statute. Assuming then that under the law as it stands the decision of the Minister as to whether any person is or is not the employer of an employed person is not binding on a court and that a court has jurisdiction to decide such a question for itself, the addition to subsection (4) of the words suggested by the Ministry of Health would involve an amendment of the law, inasmuch as it would have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of a court of summary jurisdiction to determine questions of this class and make the decision of the Minister binding on the court. If, on the other hand, the view of the law suggested by Mr. Bulloch is correct, the amendment would in substance amount to no more than imposing a statutory requirement on a court of summary jurisdiction to adjourn the proceedings until the decision of the Minister had been obtained, instead of dismissing them. If it is decided that the amendment desired can properly be made, the following would be sufficient for the purpose:· Clause 97, page 102, line 18, after "not insert or any question "whether a person is or was the employer of an employed contributor "within the meaning of this Act." 54244 C 2 |