§
Lords' Amendment: In line 13, at the end, insert:
or
(d) the existence on board ship of any other conditions arising out of any such war as aforesaid which would be abnormal in time of peace.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis Amendment, together with the next one consequential upon it, raises a matter of Privilege. It extends the definition of injuries for which compensation is payable, and because it extends the definition it, therefore, creates a charge. I will have a Special Entry made of this in the Journals of the House.
§ Sir W. WomersleyI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
May I thank my hon. and gallant' Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) for his 131 remarks? I am sorry if we annoyed him because we smiled, but I was smiling at his reference to the Minister of Pensions coming cap in hand to this House to confer upon the Mercantile Marine certain benefits as regards compensation that he himself has been advocating for a long time. I do not think it was necessary for him to say that I had come cap in hand—
§ Mr. SpeakerIs the right hon. Gentleman speaking to the Amendment?
§ Sir W. WomersleyYes, Sir. I am coming to that. As regards this particular Amendment, it was my definite intention—and I was advised that it was included in the Bill when it was passed through this House—that these benefits should be conferred upon the Mercantile Marine. As regards tuberculosis, I have been paying out benefits already, so I think it is clear what my intention was. My hon. and gallant Friend ought to take credit to himself for having started this agitation for clearer definitions in Bills before Parliament. We have tried to meet his wishes and the wishes of Noble Lords in this matter for the removal of any doubts whatsoever. To my mind and to the mind of my advisers there was no doubt—
§ Mr. SpeakerI trust the right hon. Gentleman will not follow a bad example.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 22, leave out "or in paragraph (c) "and insert" in paragraph (c) or in paragraph (d)"
§ Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 6, at the end, insert new Clause:
(Meaning of 'physical injury'.)
A. For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the expression physical injury,' in the principal Act and in this Act. and in the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, includes tuberculosis and any other organic disease, and the aggravation thereof.
§ Sir W. WomersleyI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Petty-Officer HerbertOn this Amendment I want only to refer to a few remarks that were made by the hon. Member for 132 Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who is not present now, but who generally sits in a very prominent position whenever the subject of the Mercantile Marine is mentioned, and indeed, seems to have made for himself a kind of pocket or comer in the Mercantile Marine. I am only a very humble member of the Royal Navy, but I have spent a little time on the water and know something about water. I am not at all sure that can be said about the hon. Member for Seaham, but undoubtedly he is very solicitous for the interests of the Mercantile Marine, so much so that he declines altogether to defend the Mercantile Marine in Secret Session, but insists on speaking in public Session—
§ Sir S. CrippsOrder.
Sir S. GrippsIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to know—as the hon. and gallant Member does not give way, perhaps he does not wish to know.
§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member is in any doubt about what prompted that outburst, perhaps I might ask you whether it is in Order for an hon. Member in open Session to refer to what did or did not take place in a Secret Session of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerWith some patience I have been waiting until the hon. and gallant Member got to the Amendment.
Petty-Officer HerbertI did not say anything about what anybody said in Secret Session. I merely said that the hon. Member for Seaham is so solicitous for the interests of the Mercantile Marine that he could not bear the idea of a Secret Session on that subject, but must have a public Debate. What prompted my right hon. and learned Friend and old-school-tie Friend to say "Order, order," I do not know. I must say with great respect to the Leader of the House, that the less he intervenes in the Debates on this particular Bill—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and gallant Member must deal with the Amendment before the House.
Petty-Officer HerbertDid I make that provocation? The Leader of the House —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am only discussing the Lords Amendment to this Bill. I notice that all those hon. Gentlemen who are so keen on free speech are not so keen on free speech against the critics. I am discussing now the Amendment proposed by the Lords to the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bull, which says as follows—let us be quite clear—as I have been provoked:
Line 6, at the end insert new Clause A: 'A. For the removal of doubt' "—The Leader of the House denied in Committee that there was any doubt in this Bill as it stood, but the Amendment says:For the removal of doubt "—I notice that the Leader of the House does not say "Order, order" to that—it is hereby declared that the expression 'physical injury' in the principal Act "—which means the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939—The principal Act and in this Act,which means the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Billand in the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, includes tuberculosis and any other organic disease, and the aggravation thereof.I have made this elaborate explanation only because I have been provoked and interrupted, and I can now very probably, if not interrupted any more, explain the small point I wish to make. I think it is in Order, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the Debate on the Committee stage of this Bill.
§ Mr. SpeakerSo long as it has something to do with the Amendment.
Petty-Officer HerbertYes, Sir. What we are now discussing is the question whether we ought to accept a Lords Amendment to the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill—an ill-drafted Bill, as I pointed out, though the hon. Member for Seaham—who has an Amendment—did not agree. I was saying that this particular Amendment includes tuberculosis among the definitions of physical injuries in the principal Act. This is all for the benefit of the hon. Member for Seaham. On the Committee stage of this Bill, I asked:
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that tuberculosis is included in the definition of physical injuries.134 and the Solicitor-General replied:If caused as a result of enemy action, yes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, and June, 1942; col; 602, Vol. 380.]But then the hon. Member for Seaham came in very late in the Debate, and, instead of supporting me in my feeble attempt to suggest the Mercantile Marine, poured enormous mountains of coal upon me and said I was a sea lawyer, or that I was advised by sea lawyers, that the Seamen's Union were quite satisfied with the Bill, and all the rest of it. I say to the Government and to hon. Members; (a) that perhaps in future they will pay a little more attention to people who, however academic they may look, do know something about these matters, and (b) that I will not accept the doctrine that no Member in this House is to say a word about any industrial affairs unless he has a demand or authority to do so by a trade union—especially if it is a trade union like the Seamen's Union—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and gallant Member keeps on getting away from the Amendment. We really cannot digress in this way.
Petty Officer HerbertI am extremely sorry, Sir. We are debating whether or not this Amendment should be agreed to by this House, and when considering that we have to consider the eloquent arguments of the hon. Member for Seaham, who is such a great authority. He said when the essence of his Amendment was before us that everything we said was nonsense and that the Seamen's Union were against it. Since then Lord Strabolgi rose up in another place and said that the Seamen's Union were in favour of it. What are we to think? The substance of this Amendment was debated in this Chamber, and one result was arrived at.
In the Debate in the other House another result was arrived at. Now we ask why the Government go back and cancel their decision, because the essence of this Amendment is precisely the essence of the Amendment originally proposed. The hon. Member for Seaham has a tendency to jump on an amateur like myself, or anyone who wishes to say a few words. However, all is well between us; and I at least have no wish to quarrel with anyone at the time. The important point—and this is the most serious thing in this series of Amendments—the Government should pay a little more attention to the 135 views of Members who are actually present and take part in Debates in this House. Many Members made eloquent and convincing speeches, and the Government sat there and opposed us, briefed not by the Whips, who, I think were with us, but by Civil servants over there—
§ Mr. SpeakerI must warn the hon. and gallant Member that I shall really have to ask him to resume his seat.
Petty-Officer HerbertI am the last person to wish to offend you, Sir, or the House, but I submit that my remarks were at least approaching the main point of the Amendment. The substance of the Amendment was rejected by the House, it was reinserted by the House of Lords, and the Government are now bringing it back. What I am saying is absolutely relevant to the Amendment. If the Government, and especially the Leader of the House, who has stopped smiling and has gone out, had appreciated the sense of the House, this humiliating experience would have been avoided, this admirable piece of legislation would have been amended by this House, and we should not have had the rather sad experience that we have now of people saying all over the country that the House of Lords knows more about this kind of thing than we do and is better at it. I apologise for going on so long, but I think I was absolutely justified.
§ Mr. Shinwell (Seaham)This is not the first time that the House has had to consider Amendments coming from another place. It is quite a familiar experience, and there is no reason why we should take exception to this procedure. This is an excellent Amendment, and, for the party behind me, I commend it to the consideration of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has attacked me, but I am less concerned about his attack oh me than about his attack on the Government, which I think is quite unwarranted. Many of us, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, have on previous occasions criticised Government legislation, but when the Government present legislation which is commendable we ought to say so, and that is precisely what I did when the Bill first came before the House. It is true that it was capable of amendment—not substantial amendment, not violating the principles embodied 136 in the Bill—and that has been done. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been more far-seeing than others who interest themselves in the affairs of the Mercantile Marine, all credit is due to him. Far be it from me to deprive him of any honours he may secure in that connection. I welcome as much as any other hon. Member the interest displayed by the House in the conditions of the men in the Mercantile Marine. It is somewhat belated. For many years when we discussed those conditions the House was invariably empty, and Members were not interested. Now much more interest is displayed, probably because of what has happened during the war. Now that there is an appearance of interest, quite substantial in its character and no doubt well meant, all that I ask is that it be continued—and not continued for the duration of the war, but continued into the days of peace when we shall have to consider not only the conditions of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, but the whole reorganisation of the Mercantile Marine in relation to our trade and the future economic prospects of this country and the British Commonwealth.
There is no reason why the hon. and gallant Member should get hot under the collar about the matter. I do not pretend to be an expert about shipping questions. I have some knowledge of the subject, because for about 20 years I worked on the docks in connection with a seafaring organisation. I have made some study of the subject, and I have my own decided views about it. If I care to express them, that is my affair, and if I refuse to express them, that is a matter which I alone can determine. I recognise that other Members are just as interested in the affairs of the Mercantile Marine and I do not regard them as amateurs. I am prepared to regard them as professionals if they would rather be described in that fashion; but whether we are amateurs or professionals, so long as we show some interest in those substantial matters affecting the men of the Mercantile Marine I am satisfied, and if the hon. and gallant Member can render further assistance, we shall be gratified. If I take exception to what he says it is because of his observations about the seamen's organisations. I have had bitter quarrels with them in the past, but the organisation of the men and the organisation that caters for the officers have rendered yeoman service to the 137 officers and men. My hon. and gallant Friend should not deride their activities.
Petty-Officer HerbertThe hon. Member said in the previous Debate that the Seamen's Union were satisfied with the Bill, that I was advised by "sea-lawyers" and that what I said was nonsense. That is proved to be wrong by the fact that the Government, the Seamen's Union and the hon. Member are now accepting what I said.
§ Mr. ShinwellI do not want to enter into any controversy about it, but I thought it right that I should say something for the seamen's organisations. They may not be perfect, but we have to listen to the views of the organisations concerned. If the legal profession, which is very well represented in this House, had views to express, no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend would listen very patiently to them. The same thing applies to other interests. Although the organisations may not say the right thing, at any rate they must be regarded as experts. In any event, they represent the officers and men and their views deserve consideration. I apologise for not being present earlier, but I expected this Amendment to go through without any comment. In the circumstances perhaps it ought to have gone through without any comment.
§ Sir W. WomersleyIn view of what has been said, I think it is only due to the House that I should explain why this Amendment has come from another place and why I have moved that we should agree with it. It is a fact that there was an expression of doubt in the minds, or at least in the mouths, of certain hon. Members of this House as to whether we had really covered tuberculosis in the Bill. I am satisfied that we had, and so was my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, but when this Measure was debated in another place there was another eminent lawyer who expressed a doubt about it. I am a fellow of this kind, that if there is any doubt whatever when I am trying to do something which I feel is right and proper I want it removed, and so I was not going to let pride, or any idea that another place was doing something more than the House of Commons had done, stand in the way of 138 accepting the Amendment. I wanted to remove the doubt, and I am glad that with the assistance of the Lord Chancellor, who went to a great deal of trouble to draft an Amendment that would put any question of doubt right out of the way, we have been able to insert this Amendment in the Bill, That was not done because we had intended to leave these Cases outside the Bill, because we have already been paying compensation for injuries such as tuberculosis, but because instead of confining ourselves to tuberculosis I wanted to go further and make it clear beyond all doubt that
other organic diseases and the aggravation thereofcould come in for compensation. I represent a seaport; I know what these gallant men are doing, and I want to give them the benefit of all that it is possible to give them in the way of compensation if they suffer injury on account of their work. Reference in the Amendment to the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, is necessary since that Act was passed at the same time as the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, which also refers to physical injuries, and it would clearly be impossible to make any provision as to the meaning of the phrase in the one Act without applying it to the other. I still say that if this Bill had remained as it was, we should have awarded compensation to those who, unhappily, suffer this physical injury—that is, tuberculosis—on account of war conditions. Still, I am sure the House will agree that this Amendment will make the position doubly secure, and is all to the good, and therefore I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
§ Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
§ It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.