as

Chairman.] I thought so, too. Shall we adopt it? Do you agree, Sir Malcolm?

Sir Malcolm Nacnaghten.] Yes.

Chairman.

1394. Then we will adopt that. That means adopting a number of amendments? (Mr. Graham-Harrison.) There are two amendments which ought to be made in addition to those in the list. We want "contribution" in one place in Clause 15, and in another place in Clause 56: Clause 15, line 28, "employed for the prescribed number of weeks."

1395. "Employed for the prescribed number of weeks" will be "contribution weeks"?-And exactly the same point in Clause 56, page 59, line 11.

7° Maii, 1924.]

[Continued.

1404. Calendar week?-Yes.

1405. What is the definition?" For the purposes of this Schedule the expression calendar week' means the period from midnight on one Sunday to midnight on the following Sunday."

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] The week really does begin at the beginning of Sunday; that is the real week.

Lord Blanesburgh.] This is a statutory week, not a real week, you can make it begin where you like.

Chairman.] Does it matter which it is? Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] It does matter. You could make it plain by saying "the period commencing 12 p.m. on

Sunday night." The truth is Sunday has two midnights, it begins with a midnight and it ends with a midnight. They want to begin at 12 p.m. Sunday night.

Lord Blanesburgh.

1406. That would be right-12 p.m. on one Sunday night to 12 p.m. the following Sunday night?-Mr. Gwyer and I have come to the conclusion that 12 p.m. would be quite right; or could we say "a period from midnight between Sunday and Monday"?

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] Why is not 12 p.m. right? The day is divided into 24 hours. You do it in two sets of 12. When you have got to 12 you get to noon, and then you go on again up to 12.

7° Maii, 1924.]

[Continued.

1413. The next thing is Clause 44. I think we were agreed upon that, and all we did was to ask Mr. Graham-Harrison to bring up the necessary amendment.I am sorry. Here again my list of amendments is not complete.

1414. What are the additional ones?Clause 54, page 56, lines 15 and 16, and lines 22 and 23; Clause 57, page 60, line 29; Clause 58, page 62, line 3; Clause 59, page 63, line 6; Clause 62, page 68, lines 27 and 28, and lines 36 and 37; Clause 64, page 70, lines 26 and 27, and line 31.

Lord Stuart of Wortley.

1415. Is it the phrase "The United Kingdom"? Is not "The United Kingdom" as an expression really a customary abbreviation of the longer expression "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland "?—Yes.

1416. I do not know whether there has been any Statutory change. There has been a Statutory change at least, a change made not by Statute but by an Order in Council having the effect of a Statute, which says that the United Kingdom is henceforward to mean the United Kingdom with the Irish Free State cut off.

1417. That has been done? That has been done. Perhaps I may add this-the phrase "The United Kingdom" is still used, and has been used several times in Acts of Parliament this year and last,

especially in the Consolidated Fund Act, to mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.

1418. Is it not even used as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" without any change?—No, it is "The United Kingdom" simply.

Lord Stuart of Wortley.] On State occasions the longer form is still used.

Chairman.] It is used in the Commission for giving the Royal Assent. Are these additions given by Mr. GrahamHarrison agreed to? Those in favour.

1419. Then these amendments will have to be added like the others to Appendix I, and I think there will have to be a note about this in Appendix II. I do not think there is a note now?-There is not a note.

1420. I think it is one of those cases where we ought to put in a note to the effect of the note that you have got on Clause 44. Will that do?—Yes.

Lord Blanesburgh.

1421. If the note on Clause 44 is to be given permanent form, it might be desirable to eliminate the words "cut adrift ", and substitute a gentler expression: "Since the Irish Free State was constituted".

Chairman.] I think the word "constituted" is suitable.

Lord Askwith.] Instead of saying "outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in all these places why not say "outside this country", and define " country" in the Schedule. Look at Clause 44: "If an insured person ceases to be permanently resident in this country and become a member of any society or institution established in a British Possession or foreign country, of a kind similar to an approved society, which is approved by the Minister, or of any branch established outside this country ".

Chairman.] That makes just as many amendments. I think, on the whole, it is an advantage to keep "The United Kingdom" which is in the old Acts. Do you press your amendment?

Lord Askwith.] No. Chairman.] Shall we adopt these amendments with the additions given?

(The Contents have it.)

7° Maii, 1924.]

[Continued.

ON CLAUSE 54.

Lord Blanesburgh.] The difficulty that presented itself to us last time has now been met by the statement as to what is going to be contained in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Chairman.

1422. That would be that we should amend Clause 54 by putting in 1925 instead of 1924, is it not?-Yes.

(The Contents have it.)

1423. It is already mentioned in the notes, but you will have to put the amendment into Appendix I.—Yes.

ON CLAUSE 61.

A

1424. The next is Clause 61, page 67, lines 14 and 16". I think there cannot be any doubt about that?-There is one point I ought to mention. draft have been made of the Order and published in order to comply with the requirement for the making of these Special Orders. No objections have been received to the Draft Order, and the time for making objections has expired, but the Order is not yet made though it will be made at the next meeting of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee next Tuesday. At this moment the Order is not in force, merely a Draft Order.

Chairman.] It will be in force before this is laid before Parliament. I think we may adopt these. I do not think it requires any note so long as you make the alteration in Appendix I.

(The Contents have it.)

ON CLAUSE 97.

1425. Then Clause 97. This is a more difficult point. I do not think there is any doubt that it is an amendment. Is it too much of an amendment? Have you anything more to say about it, Mr. Graham-Harrison ?-I think I have already written too long a note. It was really a point that was discussed before Lord Blanesburgh and Mr. Bulloch at the last meeting of the Committee.-(Mr. Vallance.) The whole Clause is of very little value without this amendment, because the real question in all these summary proceedings is whether the man is

54244

the employer of the particular individual. (Mr. Hackforth.) The proceedings are taken to enforce payment of contributions. In order to enable the Court to make an order for payment of contributions, the matter to be decided is not merely that the worker was employed but was employed by the particular man. Therefore the one point is as important as the other. The Minister has power already to decide both points. The question is whether his decision that a man is employed is to be binding on the Court, and his decision that the man is employed by a particular employer is not to be binding on the Court.-(Mr. Vallance.) I think it was an oversight.

Lord Blanesburgh.] I am inclined to think the amendment ought to be made. Chairman.] And that it does not go too far?

Lord Blanesburgh.

1426. I apprehend it does not make the decision of the Minister conclusive except for the purpose of proceedings in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction?Quite.

1427. But in proceedings in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction it does seem to be as necessary for the purpose of convenience that his decision should be conclusive upon the question who is the employer as upon the question who is the employed?-(Mr. Graham-Harrison.) I think there is no doubt about the desirability of making the amendment. The present provision is almost inoperative because it only applies to half or less than half of what has to be decided.

Lord Blanesburgh.] We might deal with it as a casus omissus without straining our conscience.

Lord Askwith.] On the principle on which these Bills are being revised-such amendments as are necessary in order to bring the Act into conformity with the existing law.

Lord Blanesburgh.] Under the existing law, as I understand it, the decision of the Minister on this subject is not conclusive for any purpose whatever. He may give a decision but it is not conclusive. We are proposing to make it conclusive for the purpose of proceelings in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Lord Askwith.] I should support putting it in.

Lord Blanesburgh.] If I may say so, I think it is only fair to the worker that it should be equally conclusive on both sides.

J

7° Maii, 1924.]

[Continued.

Lord Ask with.] You leave the stool without a leg unless it is inserted.

Chairman.] Do you move that we make this amendment?

Lord Askwith.] I will move it.
Lord Blanesburgh.] I will second it.

(The Contents have it.)

Chairman.

1428. You will have to make rather a careful note about it in Appendix II?--I have already got a note on it in Appendix II. I assumed the Committee would do it, and acordingly I wrote a note.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] Do not the words" or not " have to be added to the amendment-" within the meaning of this Act or not "?

Lord Blanesburgh.] "Or any question whether or not a person is."

Chairman.] That would read better "whether or not."

66

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] The words are there with reference to the or not " employed person. Make it applicable to both.

Lord Blanesburgh.] "Whether or not a person was an employed person within the meaning of the Act," or the employer within the meaning of the Act, or whatever the proper words are.

Chairman.

1429. Do you see any objection to that Mr. Graham Harrison? The first question is "whether a person is or was an employed person within the meaning of this Act or not." I should have thought we might have uniformity of phrase in the case of both these persons. We might alter the first perhaps to make it agree with the second, as put by Lord Blanesburgh.

1430. Yes, I think that would be better. Will you do that?—Yes.

1431. That will have to be added to Appendix I, and we will presently look at the note.

(The amendment as amended is agreed).

ON SCHEDULE VII.

1432. Why does the note on Schedule VII come in here?-It comes in here because I was dealing first of all with the portions of the Bill which was postponed, and Schedule VII was postponed. It was

not passed by the Committee at all. Then I go on to Clause 56 which was not postponed, but the clause based upon it was reserved. That is the only reason it is dealt with in that way.

1433. These amendments to the Schedule are obvious, are they not. There is no question about those?-I think not. (Schedule VII as amended is agreed to be scheduled to the Bill.)

ON CLAUSE 56.

1434. We discussed Clause 56 fully on the last occasion. I think the only question was how you would make the amendments?-We were not prepared

with the actual amendment; it was a consequential amendment, but something which the Committee had already agreed to do in the earlier part of the clause.

1435. Clause 56, page 58, line 39, "shall for the purpose of determining her title to benefits other than additional benefits be treated as if she had become insured for the first time on the date on which she so becomes employed." Shall we agree to this amendment?

Act.

(The amendment is passed).

(The clause as amended is passed).

ON CLAUSE 75.

1436. We agreed the other day that this should be done. It was only a question of how it should be drafted?-That was so, my Lord? (Mr. Hackforth.) It reads now "and if it so provides shall make a corresponding modification." I think it ought to be " may make a corresponding modification." It is "may " in the present The provision is slightly altered in consequence of the arrangements dealing with arrears now being different from what they were when the first Act was passed. This provision for modifying the arrears penalty was not compulsory under the 1911 Act, it was optional, and we think it should be optional still, and that this amendment should read 66 may make a corresponding modification." The provision in Section 37, Sub-section 2 of the Act of 1911 is: "A scheme made under this section may prescribe the conditions to be complied with as respects any additional benefit conferred by the scheme, and every such scheme shall, so far as practicable. provide for the reduction, suspension, or deprivation of the additional benefits conferred