26° Martii, 1924.]

[Continued.

Lord Blanesburgh.] I do not see any particular reason why a widow should be given the substituted benefits which are. here intended for a married man.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.

630. You say she becomes less expensive when her husband dies?-(Mr. Hackforth.) Yes.

631. But she might have a posthumous child? I quite agree.

case.

Lord Blanesburgh.

632. Let us follow out Sir Malcolm's Suppose that a child is conceived before the death of the husband, that the husband dies within the year, and that the child is born after his death, the lady being a widow. Let us take that case. As it stands now she would in respect of that child be entitled to maternity benefit?—Yes.

633. Would she be deprived of it if you were to add these words? No, I think not.

634. Is there any maternity benefit for spinsters? Yes.

635. Then she would get the maternity benefit of the spinster?-(Mr. Gwyer.) If the spinster is insured.

Lord Blanesburgh.

636. Ex hypothesi she is insured?(Mr. Vallance.) This is a reduced form of insurance for married women. If this clause does not apply then she gets the full benefit for married women.

637. Therefore the insertion of these words in the clause would not in the sense of that clause deprive her of anything? No. (Mr. Bulloch.) Supposing she went off the insurance within two years; I think she might possibly lose. (Mr. Hackforth.) Yes. The period during which some kind of insurance is extended for married women is longer than the period for which insurance is extended for ordinary persons on ceasing employment, but I think that on balance the ordinary insured person has better value after ceasing employment than the married

woman.

Chairman.

638. What is the effect of it? Is not the effect of it to make a substantial

amendment if you put in "during coverture"?-(Mr. Gwyer.) The whole section in the original Act was dealing exclusively with married women. Widows do not

come into it at all.

Lord Blanesburgh.] I doubt whether it would make any change, because I understand the department acts upon the footing of these words being there, and if it had to be fought out I think it might very well be said that they were right; and it is well that it should be clear. It is well also that so far as may be the rights given by this clause should be given to married women as such, and not to widows or spinsters.

Chairman.

639. Very well; then I withdraw my objection to the words. That these words "during coverture and " be here

inserted. The Contents have it. Then those words also are put in "" as from the date of her marriage," are they not?(Mr. Hackforth.) Yes.

640. Those you have put in? Yes. 1 think really the clause would be almost meaningless without those words, because if the cessation of employment came when the woman had no intention of marrying at all it would be ridiculous that something should have to take effect then because subsequently she marriedin fact it would be impossible to know what to do. (Mr. Graham-Harrison.) In drafting it I thought there was a substantial difference between the two things and I ventured to put the words in in this case.

641. Then the next point on the clause is on the next page, line 15, but that is practically verbal? (Mr. Hackforth.) Yes.

642. Then you suggest a new (iv) after line 21? Yes. We set out here the substituted benefits which we are to give to married women in lieu of the ordinary benefits, and the previous part of the clause, the main part, takes away all the benefits to which she would otherwise have been entitled and substitutes these special forms of benefit; but it says nothing at present about any additional benefits. The additional benefits are those which are given by societies which have a surplus on valuation. The view we have taken is this, that as these women had contributed to the surplus out

26° Martii, 1924.]

[Continued.

of which the additional benefits are given, they should share with all other members who have contributed, in the additional benefits in accordance with the provisions in a later part of this act, which are in clause 75 (1) (a), where it says "if the society is not a society with branches, the society may submit to the Minister a scheme for distributing out of the surplus any one or more additional benefits among insured persons who are members of the society." This woman would still be a member of the society. She would have contributed to surplus; and it is thought that those schemes should provide for giving these women their share in the additional benefits provided out of the surplus. Schemes have in fact been made on that basis by approved societies and are in operation. (Mr. Gwyer.) Some of the additional benefits are peculiarly advantageous for married women. One of them is the increase of the maternity benefit, they are set out on page 144.

Lord Askwith.

the

643. Would this come to more than putting in this particular section, which is the code for married women, pointing out what is laid down in clause 75, that those additional benefits can be accruing

to her? (Mr. Hackforth.) That is all we want to do.

Lord Blanesburgh.

644. I am not satisfied that if you did not put it in sub-section (iv) she would be entitled to those benefits if the scheme gave it to her?--Yes, that is the view we have acted upon.

Lord Askwith.

645. For convenience you refer to clause 75, where you find what you can get? Yes, there are the words "subject to the provisions of this Act" at the beginning of (a).

Lord Blanesburgh.] We all agree upon this.

Chairman.

646. Very well. That new sub-section (iv) be inserted. The Contents have it. Then some amendment will be required in sub-section (3). What will the amendment be?-(Mr. Graham-Harrison.) May we bring that up, my Lord; I have not got it ready? Chairman.] Yes.

(Clause 56 is postponed.)

2° Aprilis, 1924.]

[Continued.

section, which, instead of making an alteration in the law, leaves the law as it is.

Chairman.] Yes.

(Clause 56 as amended is passed.)

ON CLAUSE 57.

(Mr. Graham-Harrison.) The only point. I have on this Clause, my Lord, is the one mentioned in the Note, which arises in connection with Maltese airmen. If your Lordship will look at the Clause you will see that at present soldiers "of the Royal Malta Artillery or a native soldier of any regiment raised outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland," are outside the scope of the section. When, however, you come to the Air Force, any airmen who are raised in Malta or native airmen who are raised outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are included. Of course they ought not to be, but the position is that they are quite clearly for the moment included, and it is suggested by the Air Ministry that the Committee should make an alteration in the Bill; but I feel great difficulty in pressing this Amendment upon the Committee, for this reason, that exactly the same question arises in connection with Unemployment Insurance, and in a Bill which is just about to be introduced into Parliament, there is a clause putting this particular point straight; that is to say, it has been regarded as a distinct amendment of the law, and therefore I do not think I could for the moment

2° Aprilis, 1924.]

[Continued.

suggest to the Committee that if they thought they would not be amending the law

Lord Blanesburgh.

653. Would they be amending the practice? I do not know whether there are any of these Maltese airmen at present. (Mr. Hackforth.) Yes, there are, but they are not insured. So it would not be amending the practice. I understand that the point of view of the Air Ministry is this, that before the separate Air Force was established, these men, if there had been such men, would have been soldiers, and as such would have been excluded. When "soldiers " was extended to include "airmen " it should have involved a simple exclusion of airmen who were Maltese, but that provision was not made; it was an omission.

Chairman.

I think we must leave it alone.

Lord Blanesburgh.

654. You are inviting the Ministry to perpetuate and to continue a breach of the law?-Might I read the letter from the Air Ministry?

Chairman.

say:

655. Yes.-The Air Ministry "With reference to the consolidating National Health Insurance Bill now before the House of Commons, a copy of which has been received in this Department, I am commanded by the Air Council to call your attention to the provision for the insurance of airmen in Section 57 (1), which reads as follows:- '. there shall be paid to the Minister by the Air Council . . in respect of every member of the regular Air Force . . . a sum, etc.' Since the institution of the Royal Air Force and the application of Section 25 of the Act of 1918, it has been the practice, with the acquiescence of your Department, to regard Maltese airmen enlisted in Malta as excluded from the operation of the National Health Insurance Acts in the same manner as soldiers of the Royal Malta Artillery. Such an interpretation of the existing law was the more permissible because the reference to soldiers in Section 46 (1) of

the Act of 1911 was qualified by an exclusion of the Royal Malta Artillery and native soldiers of any regiment raised outside the United Kingdom; and Section 25 of the Act of 1918 extended the provision for soldiers in the Bill of 1911 to airmen. In the new Bill the provision as to soldiers stands as before, but is followed by a substantive provision as to members of the Air Force, and, as regards the latter, there is no exclusion of Maltese or native airmen. It is a question, therefore, whether at any rate Maltese airmen should not be expressly excluded from the scope of the new Bill. As regards native airmen, whilst at present there are no airmen in the Royal Air Force other than British or Maltese, there may at some time in the future be such airmen, and it is a matter for consideration whether it would not be advisable similarly to exclude any such airmen from the operation of the Acts. I am accordingly to suggest that the two points referred to above receive the early consideration of your Department." Their contention is that the intention of the 1918 Act was that airmen should have been put into exactly the same position as corresponding soldiers; that these Maltese airmen correspond to Maltese soldiers.

Lord Blanesburgh.

656. May airmen be recruited outside of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, except in Malta?-They may be.

Mr. Foot.

657. Did I understand you to say that a Bill is going to be introduced dealing with this point?-(Mr. Graham-Harrison.) The same point arises in connection with Unemployment Insurance, and a Bill, which you will shortly see, deals with this very point, treating it as a substantive amendment of the law.

Lord Blanesburgh.

658. There would be this difficulty, that apparently the Air Ministry does not ask that this Bill shall be amended so as to exclude airmen recruited elsewhere than in Malta. They do not apparently ask for the inclusion of airmen otherwise than those recruited in Malta ?-(Mr. Hackforth.) Because there are not any at present; there may be some at some time.

2 Aprilis, 1924.]

[Continued.

659. There might be some in India, for instance? (Mr. Graham-Harrison.) I am afraid of the thing from this point of view, if I may say so: The Labour Ministry, who are responsible for unemployment insurance, acting under the advice of their legal advisers, have taken up the position that it is necessary to deal with this point in an amending Bill, and it is therefore being treated as an amendment of the law. I am so afraid that if it appears that this Committee have amended the Consolidation Bill in this respect, someone will say: Oh, in the case of unemployment it has needed an amending Bill to do it.

as

a

date in order that any necessary instructions may be communicated to the various Marine Divisions regarding the Warrant Officers to be excluded or included from the provisions of the Health Insurance Acts." The point, as I understand it, is this: that Warrant Officers of Marines have now been divided, for the last four years, into two classes, the first class of which has been given the status of Naval Warrant Officers, who are excluded from insurance. The second class is now reduced to four individuals, and is to be abolished as soon as these four

individuals are done with. The Admiralty therefore say that Warrant of Marines should now be

Lord Blanesburgh.] Yes. That is what they will do.

Chairman.] Have you got to make an amendment in your clause as it stands?

Lord Blanesburgh.] No. Airmen recruited everywhere under the clause as I understand it, are brought within the scope of the measure.

Lord Askwith.] The clause as it is is all right, unless you want to exclude them.

Lord Blanesburgh.

661. Yes? (Mr. Hackforth.) A point has been brought to our notice only this morning by the Admiralty on Sub-section 4 of clause 57. They say: "I have to observe that by Order in Council dated 22nd January, 1920, the then existing Warrant Officers Class I were given equivalent rank with Naval Warrant Officers, with effect as regards full pay from the 1st February, 1919, and as regards retired pay from 1st April, 1919, and that the rank of Warrant Officer Class II was to be abolished when the last of the officers of that Class ceased to exist. There are only four Warrant Officers Class II remaining on the lists, and these are the only Warrant Officers who are in the view of this Department properly insurable. In the circumstances, therefore, I have to suggest that it would appear desirable that Section 22 of the Insurance Act, 1913, should be considered for amendment at an early

now

663. Are they excluded from insurance merely by Admiralty ukase or under the law as it stands? (Mr. GrahamHarrison.) It looks to me as if they were not excluded under the law as it stands, but having become a superior class of person they ought to be excluded.

Mr. Foot.

664. They are still Warrant Officers? --(Mr. Hackforth.) They are now of the grade of Naval Warrant Officers, which is excluded by the clause.

665. Is not the phrase "Warrant Officers of Marines" still used? Whatever may be their rank and whatever may be their emoluments as compared with those of another branch of the Service are they not still considered Warrant Officers of Marines?-I think they are being distinguished as Warrant Officers Class I.

666. If that is so this clause does need amendment?-(Mr. Gwyer.) Yes. It is a new category of officers which was not in existence when the Insurance Bill passed; they have come into existence since.

Lord Blanesburgh.

667. Would it be permissible to say on the mere construction of the law as it stands, that these new Warrant Officers