HC Deb 21 July 1920 vol 186 cc2103-11
Mr. BECKETT

I beg to move, in page 21, line 41, at the end, to insert the words Provided that in such case the woman shall have the right of appeal to the court of referees. My friends and I who are responsible for putting down this Amendment are not quite sure, after a careful study of the Bill, whether we are asking the Minister to do something that he has not intended to do previously, or whether we are asking him to do something which he has already intended in Clause 29 to carry into effect without this Amendment. We have consulted very eminent and learned Members of this House and they have been unable to give us any very definite opinion as to whether our Amendment is covered by Clause 29 or not. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot accept our Amendment, or some similar Amendment, which will make the intention of the House more clear to the people who have to administer the Act. When the matter was discussed previously, after we had objected to the whole principle contained in this Clause, there was a long discussion as to the exact meaning of cohabitation, and how it was to be defined, and I very distinctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he would consider preparing some clear definition of his intentions in this matter before we reached the Report stage. We are very disappointed to find that, no doubt owing to the tremendous pressure of work that he has had, he has been unable to give his attention to this matter and to redeem the soothing promise which he gave us.

I do not want to take up a great deal of time because the Amendment is almost non-controversial. We are all agreed that to allow a woman to be deprived of her pension for an offence which is not defined, on information which may not always be impartial, on the report of investigation by a local authority, which, however excellent it may be in managing municipal business, is not made up of people to whom we can confidently leave the final discretion and consideration of the moral character of a woman—we are all agreed that that is not desirable. A town council, elected for the many business-like qualities of its members, is not necessarily the final arbiter on ethical problems, and it would be a very great pity if the woman had no appeal in such cases. Clause 29 is extremely vague as a protection for these women. As far as I can see, the words of the Amendment are very innocuous. They provide a complete safeguard against a woman using her pension wrongly, and yet they do not add in any way to the just financial burdens which the Bill will have to bear. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view on the legal situation.

Mr. MARCH

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member has been quite misled as to any statement I made regarding a further definition of the word "cohabitation." I have not the particular passage of my speech here, but I am confident that the hon. Member will find—

Mr. BECKETT

If I implied that that promise was given, I did not intend to do so. All that I intended to imply was that at the end of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman said he would see whether the whole of this Clause could be defined more clearly.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Then I need not go further into that matter. I have investigated the Clause and I am advised that the insertion of the words in Clause 29, which I promised in Committee —the words "or decision" after the word "award"—will make impossible any doubt as to the opportunity of a woman to appeal to the Court of Referees. That makes the matter absolutely clear. There was some question as to whether, in Clause 21, the action of the Minister was not rather a decision than an award. We, therefore, made the words "award or decision." The Amendment is unnecessary because the appeal asked for is already given in the Clause.

Mr. BECKETT

May I take it that there is no doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that the woman will have always the right of appeal covered by the Amendment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

That is so.

Major HORE-BELISHA

The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain to the House how this Clause will operate if the Amendment is not carried. In the discussion on the Committee Stage a very strong feeling was expressed about this Clause. It is really a most revolutionary procedure that this Clause introduces into English legislation, as it invests the Minister with a moral jurisdiction, and it is important, if we are to initiate legislation of that kind, that we know exactly where we are. The intention of the Clause is quite sound. It is obviously wrong that a woman should be allowed to defraud the public by cohabiting with a man when she should marry; but to try to secure what is quite a just aspiration by using language of this kind is laying yourself open to a great many injustices which may appear in the future. Who is going to decide on this question of cohabitation? How is the woman to be notified that she has lost her pension as a result of cohabitation? Is she to go one morning to draw her pension and suddenly to learn that without more ado she is to be deprived of her pension. Is the charge to be specified against her in writing, and what kind of appeal will she be able to have? Is an indictment to be delivered, making specific accusations against the woman that during such and such a period she was cohabiting with such and such a man, or is the charge to be couched in quite vague language? The Minister is introducing something that is unknown in British law if I am correctly informed, namely, the creation of an offence which is not defined.

Mr. SPEAKER

We have gone beyond that point. The only question now is whether these words with regard to appeal should conic in this Clause, or in a subsequent Clause.

Major HORE-BELISHA

I appreciate that, but on the question of appeal I was merely asking what kind of appeal the woman could have under that subsequent Clause? Before she can appeal it is necessary to establish an offence. I am asking how the offence is to be established, and what form the appeal is to take. It is not an ordinary appeal. In the court of first instance, if I may call it that, you must have established the charge. While I expect that in general matters any one can go before the Court of Referees, if you have not in the first case established a specific charge against the woman, how is she to appeal? What evidence can she call and what evidence is to be called against her?

Mr. BECKETT

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. As I have said, if large numbers of learned gentlemen cannot interpret the definitions, it is rather difficult for anyone else to do so; but as the right hon. Gentleman seems confident that his interpretations are correct, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir CYRIL COBB

I beg to move, in page 22, line 2, after the word "section," to insert the words "such of."

This Amendment is meant to pave the way for further Amendments to Schedule 3. There was an appeal made in Committee for an explanation from the Minister as to why a woman or a man who is entitled to an old age pension, because that man or woman has had to enter a Poor Law establishment, by reason of sickness or any other cause, should be deprived of the pension that he or she would otherwise have enjoyed. An answer could not be given on the Committee stage, because the question was raised only on the Schedule and not on the Clause. My Amendment is moved now, so that when we come to the Schedule we can deal with the matter there also. The main reason why on the merits this question should be discussed is that it has been impressed upon the House that this is a contributory scheme. Surely it is not right that the men or women whom I have mentioned should be deprived of benefits from their own contributions because they happen to be so unfortunate as to be obliged to enter a Poor Law establishment for health or other reasons.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This Amendment raises rather an important point of principle, and, as has been pointed out,. must be read in conjunction with a suggested amendment of the Schedule. What is asked for is the upsetting of a practice which has hitherto prevailed, namely, that the rates should be relieved by reason of the benefits given under the Pensions Act. What underlies this pro- vision, which we have taken from the Old Age Pension Act, is that we do not desire to do anything which would encourage people to go into these institutions. We do not make any similar provision with regard to out-relief. What we want to do is to encourage people to keep out of the Poor Law institutions as much as possible, and we have found, in our experience under the Old Age Pensions Act, that every effort is made by the people concerned and by their relatives to help them to keep out of such institutions. A provision such as that in this Amendment, which would mean that they could go in and draw a pension while in the institution, seems to be one which would be likely to work in an opposite direction to that desired. After that explanation I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS

There is a difference between this claim and the old age pensions position. The latter is a non-contributory scheme. It is not right to say that the man is getting money from the State and at the same time getting money from the local authorities. This money a man is entitled to because of his contributions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The principle is in the National Health Insurance Act.

Mr. HARRIS

The State has no right to say that if a man through infirmity goes into an institution, he should suffer. A large percentage of people go into the workhouse for physical reasons, and are forced to take shelter and to ask for the personal care of a Poor Law institution. That is quite sound in principle. The whole justification of a contributory scheme is that the man gets his pension, not as a favour from the community, but as a right to which he is entitled because

of contributions made, in just the same way as he may have contributed to an insurance company run on commercial lines. The Amendment ought to be persisted in because it is the foundation of the whole scheme.

Mr. DAVIES

I am glad that this Amendment has come from the other side of the House. It is a very important Amendment. I would not have risen but for the interjection of the Minister. I should be surprised if that interjection carried weight with Members of the House. It gave me the impression that the principle underlying the Bill in this connection is already established in the National Health Insurance Act of 1911. As a matter of fact, this is the practice under National Insurance. I am fairly familar with it, and I think I am rightly stating the position. Where a person is entitled to National Health Insurance sickness or disablement benefit, the approved society pays that sum to the dependant in respect of the man while he is in an institution. Where he, has no dependants, he can remain in an institution for two, three, or four years, and the amount though not payable while he is in the institution it is paid when he comes out of the institution. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is really a fundamental difference between benefits under this Bill and benefits under the Old Age Pensions Act. When a man pays contributions under this Bill, the benefits ought to be paid to him and regarded as his own. I think it is a good thing in the interests of those people that this Amendment has been brought forward, and I trust it will be pressed to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House Divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 228.