HC Deb 18 August 1911 vol 29 cc2261-3

(1) Any rule of law and any enactment, the effect of which is to cause relief given to a wife or relative to be treated as relief given to the person liable to maintain the wife or relative, shall not have effect for the purposes of section three of the principal Act (which relates to disqualification).

(2) Two years shall be substituted for ten years as the further period of disqualification under sub-section (2) of section three of the principal Act, both as respects persons convicted before the passing of this Act, and, as respects persons convicted after the passing of this Act, in cases where the term for which a person has been ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine does not exceed six weeks.

(3) Any person in receipt of an old age pension who is convicted of any offence which is mentioned in or deemed to be mentioned or included in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, shall, if not subject to disqualification under the principal Act, be disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive an old age pension for a period of six months after the date of his conviction unless the court before whom he is convicted direct to the contrary.

Lords Amendment: After the word "to" ["wife or relative to be treated"] insert the words. "or in respect to."

Mr. SPEAKER

With regard to this Amendment, I have to say that although it is difficult to understand it completely, yet it seems to me to be a privileged Amendment. The Amendment, so far as I understand it, adds to the number of those who are not disqualified. That is to say that it adds to those who are qualified to receive old age pensions. If it adds to the number of those who are qualified, then it means that more pensions will be payable, and if more pensions are payable then it increases the charge upon the public funds. If it increases the charge on the public funds then it is a privileged Amendment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)

Mr. Speaker, the facts which you have given to the House are correct, but I move that we waive the question of privilege. For this reason, that Scottish law differs from the English law in respect of what is called "constructive relief." Under the Scottish law relief is given not to the wife, but to the husband in respect of the wife. Unless these words are taken out, they will nullify the provisions of the Clause in respect to Scotland. Personally, I confess I am not concerned very much whether we get the Clause or not, but it does make a difficulty in respect of Scotch law, and I shall therefore move that we waive the question of privilege.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. BATHURST

I do not want to suggest that I am not heartily in sympathy with the extension of the Old Age Pensions Act contemplated by this Clause. If the words were introduced only in order to extend the benefit to Scotland, I, for one, should not object, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that many similar Amendments of this sort were made by the Lords in the Old Age Pensions Act, and the Government claimed that there were breaches of privilege and opposed them, but now, because it happens to be for the convenience of the Government to ask the House to waive its privileges, we are expected, as a matter of course, to agree to that suggestion. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable that because it suits the purpose of the Government to have these Amendments made we should now be expected to agree, while three years ago similar Amendments were not entertained by this House, because it did not suit the Government to accept them.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

The question of waiving our privileges in this matter is not for the convenience of the Govern- ment, but for the convenience of certain poor people in Scotland. The Government have, in every way, met us upon this Bill, and I think we might waive these very small privileges so that the poor people in Scotland shall not be shut out from the benefits of old age pensions.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER

It is not a question whether the Government shall waive their privileges, but it is a question whether the House shall waive its privileges by consenting to these Amendments in order that poor people who are shut out from benefits may secure them now.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It is quite true that exactly the same might be said of what occurred three years ago, to which my hon. Friend behind me referred, except that it was not the wish of the whole House to agree with the Lords Amendments. The majority decided to refuse to accept the Lords Amendments then. They sacrificed the poor people for the sake of a quarrel with another place.

Sir W. BYLES

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question, namely, whether in waiving its privileges, this House is not weakening its privileges, and establishing a precedent which may be very dangerous?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must form his own opinion. This House, on many occasions, waived its privileges, and I do not think it has weakened itself.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

On a point of Order. Is it not necessary—I may be quite wrong—that a substantive Motion should be put from the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not necessary, but a special entry will be made in the Journals of the House to the effect that the House waived its privileges.