CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions as to pensioners and insured persons in His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain.) (Hansard, 14 November 1929)

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, after the word "dominions," to insert the words: "or are working in the employment of a British firm in any part of the world."
Clause 3 deals with those persons who emigrate to the British Dominions, and the British Dominions, according to this 2378 Section, include any territory which is under His Majesty, or in respect of which a mandate has been exercised by the Government in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. An insured person who goes to any part of the Dominions is able to continue his contributions by giving notice to the Ministry, but if he goes to any other part of the world, for some anomalous reason he cannot do so. The case I make cannot be logically resisted. If an insured person is sent by his firm on a contract to build a railway in the Argentine and 2379 the contract lasts for a specific period, he loses his right to insurance, and, if he dies, his widow of course will get no pension. There is a. great project, for instance, for a Zambesi bridge, and those who are sent will be in Portuguese territory. They will fall out of insurance, and their widows will not be entitled to pensions. On the other hand, if they go to the Solomon Islands, where cannibalism prevails and where it is lawful, I understand, to despatch your husband and become a widow at your own option, they can retain their pension rights. This is an obvious, and, as I hope, an unintended illogicality. Surely the only thing that matters is the nationality and status of the person concerned, and, if a man's work should take him temporarily to any part of the world, whether it be Mesopotamia or Persia, it does not seem to me to matter — [Interruption.] This is a very serious matter. British workmen are sent to all parts of the world as hon. Members must know, and it is a great pity that they should lose their status, particularly at this time of unemployment, just because the part of the world to which they happen to be temporarily sent is outside the British Dominions for the purposes of this Sub-section. As I conceive it, the only objection which can be raised by the Minister is the objection of administrative difficulty, but I submit that it is just as difficult to administer a pension in respect of a person who goes to the Solomon Islands as it is to administer a pension in a much nearer part of the world. All that matters is: Can he send his contributions in respect of his insurance? In case objection should be taken on the ground that the words "a British firm" are used, and that it is difficult to define them, I say that that does not in the least matter. All that matters is that an insured person is going abroad; can you or can you not arrange to receive his contributions, so that if he dies his widow, who may remain here, may receive her pension?

§ Mr. MILLS
I desire to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), because I am perfectly certain that if the Lord Privy Seal meets with any success in the endeavours which he is making to 2380 provide forms of employment, the union to which I belong, the Amalgamated Union of Engineers, would be very greatly affected by the operation of an Amendment such as this. Our men do go at present to every corner of the world putting down British machinery. They may be there three months, six months, or 12 months. I myself think that this Amendment is strictly logical, to the point, and in the best interests of those working in the trade.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
I want, first of all, to point out to the Committee the extraordinary administrative difficulties which would be caused by the extension of insurance to all parts of the world. Let us suppose a man goes to China—perhaps in the interior of China—how on earth shall we know whether he is at work, or is unemployed?

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
How are you to know in the Solomon Islands?

§ Miss LAWRENCE
What the Bill provides is that his pension is to be payable in the Solomon Islands, but the Amendment extends insurance to people who are working for British firms in any part of the world.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Surely, the hon. Lady has misconstrued what I said. This Amendment concerns persons who are insured in this country and who go abroad, and who come out of insurance, because they are abroad, after a specified time. If they are in the Dominions, no matter in what part of the world—because according to the definition the Dominions include any part which is under the administration of Great Britain—that is to say if they are in the Solomon Islands, or the Tonga Islands, or the New Hebrides Islands, they remain in insurance if they volunteer to do so. If they go to China they cannot, although if they die they may leave widows behind in this country, just the same.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
Really, there is a misunderstanding. The Clause deals with the payment of pensions to people in the Dominions; but the hon. Gentleman is not asking that pensions should be paid in China or Timbuctoo—he is asking that a person who is insured shall continue to be insured in those parts. It is not the case that he is compulsorily insured 2381 in the Dominions, nor do we in this Clause ask that he should be; the two questions are entirely distinct. The Clause deals with the payment of pensions, and, when a person claims a pension, the claim is verified from the English records and the pension is sent out to the person concerned. What the hon. Member is asking is that persons working abroad should continue to be compulsorily insured. They do not continue to be compulsorily insured in the Dominions, in the Solomon Islands, or in China, or in Palestine; the only place where they—

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Surely, the hon. Lady has listened to what I said? I did not ask that they should be compulsorily insured, because the Clause itself says that, if a person volunteers, contributions shall become payable by him at the ordinary rates as from the week following that in respect of which the last contribution under the principal Act was payable by or in respect of him and shall continue to be so payable until he attains the age of sixty-five. If they make application to continue their contributions, they should have exactly the same benefit as if they remained in this country or in any other part of the world, and those whom they leave behind should have exactly the same benefit.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
That is so under the existing Act for a period of about five years. If a man is residing abroad temporarily, wherever he is, he may become a contributor and pay his contributions now. The case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), of a man going out with a machinery firm for three months, is met, so far as it can be met, by his becoming a voluntary contributor. The regulations lay down that a person resident abroad, either permanently or for a substantial part of his working life, is not entitled to be a voluntary contributor; but that where a person who has been insured proceeds abroad for a period which, though likely to exceed the normal three months, is expected to be temporary, or where a person normally employed in the United Kingdom is sent abroad for a period, there is, in the opinion of the Department, nothing to prevent his continuing to be a voluntary contributor if otherwise he is qualified. I am quoting from a circular sent to approved 2382 societies. It goes on to say that the Department would not, however, be ordinarily disposed to take this view if the period abroad exceeded five years. If you go abroad in the service of a British firm on a job like the Zambesi Bridge, ordinarily you would not be absent for more than five years, and you can now, under the existing Act and under the existing regulations issued to approved societies, pay your contributions and remain a voluntary contributor. If you stay abroad for more than five years, you would in all ordinary cases cease to have that right. What I am quoting from is Circular A.S. 258 to approved societies, dealing with various matters to which the attention of the societies is directed. It is pointed out that in such cases contributors will pay the same rate of contributions as if they resided in the United Kingdom, and, although they cannot obtain benefit usually while abroad, they will be able to return into benefit of all kinds when they return to the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
A great many persons are completely ignorant of that. Correspondence from all over the world shows it. Even assuming that it is so, this Clause gives preferential terms to contributors. Under the system she is reading out they must pay both the employers' and their own contributions. Under the Amendment they do not.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
There are no conceivable compulsory means by which you can see that firms residing abroad pay contributions.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
May I refer to the explanatory memorandum which is issued with the Bill in explanation of this Clause: "Unlike the ordinary voluntary contributor who must be insured for health as well as for pensions, this special class of voluntary contributors, who could derive no benefit from contributions paid under the Health Insurance Act, will pay the pensions contribution only (9d. a week for a man and 4½d. for a woman)." Therefore those who fall under the Clause will get preferential treatment.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
The people who fall under this Clause will be allowed to pay for this particular benefit only. They are also entitled to pay for full health insurance benefits. Both are voluntary and they can do as they please. There is no preferential treatment.

§ Mr. HARRIS
Will the hon. Lady make one point clear? The Clause meets the case of persons going to the Dominions. Why is it not equally necessary for persons going to a foreign country?

§ Miss LAWRENCE
It is true that we give the Empire in this matter a preference and it is perfectly reasonable that we should do so. We hope very shortly the Dominions will have a scheme of their own and we can make reciprocal arrangements for people who take up their residence permanently inside a British Dominion.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
My hon. Friend has raised a point that is worrying a great many people. All of us who sit for seaports and engineering districts have people coming to us—I myself have seen hundreds of people. I did not know this was possible in the form it is. It seemed to me in the early part of the hon. Lady's speech that she made it clear that there was no preference. Now there is. This is not a question about whether it is a Dominion or a world preference from that point of view. It is a question of a British working man, temporarily employed, working for a British firm or British service, helping British trade.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
A British working man who goes to reside within the Empire remains very nearly under the Bill as if he were in England, but a British man who goes to reside temporarily in the service of a British firm anywhere in the world is temporarily protected. The case of a British man who goes permanently to reside in a foreign country is a quite different case. The distinction is permanent residence in the Empire and permanent residence abroad. Permanent residence in the Empire is "in"; permanent residence in a foreign country is "out." Temporary residence—the sort of job spoken of by my hon. Friend behind me—outside the British Empire is covered by the ordinary Health Insurance, and when hon. Members say that the people do not know, I would remind them that the approved societies know. A Member who wants to know what his position will be in insurance when he goes abroad, if he is a sensible man goes to his approved society first and the society explains.

§ Mr. PHILIP OLIVER
This is a very important point, especially when there are considerable numbers of British contracts in different parts of the world. We know perfectly well that if it should happen that a man who goes out for an engineering firm to work on a British contract abroad meets with a fatal accident, his widow and dependants receive nothing under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. They are left absolutely stranded. It is of vital importance that we should be assured—and I am not quite certain whether we have been sufficiently assured—that these widows come under this Bill. If the hon. Lady will turn to Clause 3 and the particular Sub-section which we are discussing in reference to persons who are in His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain, she will see that, if any such person being at the date when he last left Great Britain an insured person dies while he continues to be insured, or before the expiration of 12 months from the date when he last left Great Britain, he shall be deemed to have continued to be insured, and his widow will receive full benefit. If that is so, why is it simply confined to persons who are in His Majesty's Dominions, and not extended to British workmen working for British firms in France, Russia, China or the Argentine. This Clause must mean something. The mere fact that it is introduced with regard to the Dominions inferentially excludes the case of a man who is not working in the Dominions but somewhere else. Otherwise this Clause means nothing. Reviewing this Clause and seeing that it refers to the Dominions, one immediately asks: "Well, what about the British workman who is working outside the Dominions?" As the British workman in the Dominions is given this privilege, presumably the privilege is so far withheld from the British workman working for a British firm elsewhere. If such a man meets with a fatal accident and is excluded from the provisions of this Clause, his widow as far as I can see, is still excluded from benefit.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
If a man goes to the Dominions, he may claim to be a voluntary contributor until he is 65. If he goes to a job for a British firm anywhere outside the Dominions he can, under the National Health Insurance 2385 Act, continue as a voluntary contributor for five years only; so that he is left in the same position so far as the first five years are concerned, but he is not in the same position after the first five years. Outside the Dominions you get five years granted, and no more.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am not at all satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I cannot understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite. Surely, their loyalty is to these people. I know the position they are in from the correspondence that I have received. I want to make sure that they are going to be covered. [HON. MEMBERS: "YOU have been told!"] We are not ruled by the Parliamentary Secretary; we are ruled by Act of Parliament. Therefore, it behoves us to be very careful in these matters. I am not satisfied, for the reasons which I have tried to give, and so far as I am concerned I shall press the Amendment.

§ Sir HERBERT SAMUEL
In order to expedite business I would like to make a suggestion. If you have a new Clause in an Act of Parliament applying to persons who go to the Dominions, the effect may be, inferentially, to exclude others, and when you have fresh legislation of this kind it may he that the courts will hold that the new legislation makes the previous provision and the regulations thereunder invalid. There is that possibility. They may say that Parliament has now decided that all these privileges should apply only to persons in the Dominions, and not outside. That is not the intention of the Government. Their intention is to preserve the existing rights, and we ought to be satisfied that people who go overseas but are outside the Dominions shall retain those rights. We do not ask for them rights in all respects the same as are given to the people who go to the Dominions. If they go permanently to live in foreign countries the situation is different. I would suggest to the Ministers that they should look carefully into the wording between now and the Report stage, with their legal advisers, to make quite sure that the case made by my hon. Friend, with the reason for which they agree and which they wish to meet, is in fact covered by the Bill. If they are legally advised that they are covered, we shall be content but if they find that there is doubt 2386 then they themselves would wish to make the position quite clear.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I should like to go back to the original purpose of the Clause. That purpose was to remove what discouragement there might be, because of these schemes, to migration within the Empire and to ensure that those who go to people the Dominions must be able to take their rights with them. That is clear by the Clause as it stands. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) raises an entirely different point. I will as the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) suggests, look into the matter, but I am informed that the existing rights of a British workman going to work abroad, temporarily, which is an entirely different thing from what we had in mind when we drafted this Clause, remains as they were before.
Under that a man cannot go abroad for a very long time—in special cases it is limited to five years—and retain his pension rights. It is difficult to play fast and loose with a compulsory and voluntary system. If you give a man a choice then it is voluntary and he must come in in the terms of the voluntary contributor, but if he goes abroad outside His Majesty's Dominions for an unknown period it is difficult to compel him to continue in insurance. I will certainly look into the matter but hon. Members may take my assurance that a British workman can go abroad for a British firm for a term of years and still safeguard his own position and that of his wife and children if he chooses to do so.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
In the circumstances, and, if the right hon. Gentleman on Report stage can still assure us that those persons can come in and have exactly the same rights to whatever part of the world they go, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the word "being other than a married woman and" This Amendment has been put down in order to obtain information on a point upon which there is some doubt. Under the Act of 1925, no married woman can be a voluntary contributor, but as I 2387 read this Clause a person who is leaving this country and going to one of the Dominions, although a married woman, can become a voluntary contributor. The question I want to ask is this: Is it a fact that under this Clause a married woman, who cannot become a voluntary contributor in this country, can become a voluntary contributor if she goes to the Dominions; and if that be the case, what are the reasons for it?

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I am not sure that the words proposed are necessary, as they are really governed by the right hon. Gentleman's next Amendment; but I am prepared to accept them if the Committee so desires. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason for excluding married women from voluntary insurance in this country. It is generally agreed that from the point of view of the State it is not a financial proposition. As this Clause is really concerned with bringing into existence a special class of voluntary contributors who will be insured for pension purposes only, no special case seems to exist for their inclusion in this clause. As a matter of fact, there is very little benefit in extending it to married women, and, if the Committee really wishes to see a married woman out of insurance rights, I shall be quite prepared to agree with the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do so, because it is undesirable to make a distinction between the position of a married woman in this country and a married woman who goes to one of our Dominions.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I have the same doubt in my mind.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
May I ask, Sir, if you are not going to call on my Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have not done so.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
May I respectfully submit that it contains a point of substance and is very important for a large class of persons.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Other hon. Members make the same plea for Amendments which are passed over. I cannot make a distinction in favour of the hon. Member's Amendment.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I only raise the point because I understood specifically that you, Sir, were going to call this Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not know how the hon. Member came to that conclusion.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I was so informed, and I submit that, if the Amendment be not called, a great deal of injustice may be done.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert the words: (2) The Minister may make a special order modifying in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section in their application to any person who has served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force services or as a master or seaman and who, if he had returned to Great Britain at the expiration of his service, would have been entitled to become a voluntary contributor. The provisions of sections ninety-four and ninety-five of the Insurance Act (which relate to the procedure for the making of special orders) shall apply in the case of special orders made under this sub-section. The men who are dealt with in this Amendment have always required special provisions in legislation of this kind to meet the special circumstances in which they work, and in the Consolidating Insurance Act of 1924 no fewer than eight Sections are devoted to persons of this class. The conditions of their employment in various parts of the world make it almost impossible for them, in many cases, to comply with the ordinary provisions of the Acts, and, in their interests, modifications have been required in order 2389 to meet varying situations affecting them which could not be foreseen when the legislation was enacted. Under the original Insurance Act it was found necessary to take special powers to deal with their case, and the Act of 1925 made a similar provision. I suggest that, in order to meet the special circumstances of the men in the services and in the Mercantile Marine, and so forth, in connection with this Measure, the Minister should be empowered to make, by special Order, the necessary regulations dealing with their case. Unless the Committee wish me to do so, I do not propose to go into details on this point, but anybody who is familiar with the administration of these schemes will realise that such power must be left to the Minister to protect the interest of these men who might otherwise be deprived of the full benefits of the Measure.

§ Mr. HARRIS
This is another case of doing the right thing in the wrong way. Everybody wants to protect the interests of the Navy, Army, and Air Force, but here we have one of those Clauses that Government Departments seem thoroughly to enjoy. It is, no doubt, partly due to lack of skill on the part of the draftsman to devise words to meet such a case, but here is one of those instances that everybody sees growing as part of our legislation, vesting in the Minister powers to make special Orders, to modify in such manner as he thinks fit the' provisions of a paragraph in an Act of Parliament. I suggest that he might use a little more ingenuity in devising Clauses of this kind. The feeling of the House was expressed a few days ago on this glorification of Government Departments and vesting in the hands of Ministers the power to draft Acts of Parliament on their own, without the consent of this House, and I say that when we arrive at the Report stage we should see some greater ingenuity used. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to change the Clause at this stage, but over the week-end, when he will no doubt have plenty of time to think, and to think wisely, I hope that he will consult his officials and get them to find him some words to meet the point.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The real point here is the special Order, and that has to be laid on the Table of both Houses for 30 days. However, if human in- 2390 genuity can devise a better way of dealing with this problem, I shall be very glad to know of it, but you cannot have the authority of a special Bill, and so long as that authority is subject to this House, it seems to me that democratic principles are satisfied.

§ Mr. MOSES
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in this connection any consideration is being given to dock-yard men who may be transferred to foreign service from the yards at Devonport, Porstmouth, and Chatham to serve in Gibraltar, Bermuda, and other dock-yards. Will the Minister have the same power to deal with approved members who may serve in these yards?

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
When all is said and done, these Regulations have to be drafted some time, and why cannot they be drafted in sufficient time to be inserted as part of the Bill, instead of waiting until a future period and then doing it by special Order?

§ Mr. KELLY
I want to refer to the case of Plymouth—

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I have an Amendment to the proposed Amendment on that point—in line 3, after the word "Services," to insert "or otherwise in the service of the Crown"—and perhaps it will be convenient for the hon. Member to support that.

§ Mr. KELLY
There is a class of man known as the agreement man, who is employed by the Admiralty and the War Department, and occasionally he is sent out from the home establishments to other parts of the world. Judging by the language of this proposal of the Minister, it only allows for the Order, when drafted, to deal with these men as having the opportunity to become voluntary contributors. It is bad enough when you send a man in your service away from the country to a dockyard abroad, that you should deprive him of his insurance; yet the utmost you can do for him when he returns is to make him a voluntary contributor. I would ask the Minister to give further consideration to this point, and I hope that before the Report stage he may be able to see that these men shall retain their insurance during the whole time that they are away from this country.

§ Dr. BURGIN
We must be very careful about conferring powers on a, Minister to amend as he likes a Section or a Sub-section of an Act of Parliament. As I understand it, the whole necessity for some form of delegation of a number of ministerial actions is admitted but there are two things which have to be very carefully watched. The first is the reign of Parliament, and the second is the reign of law. I cannot imagine this Committee, when its attention is called to the fact, voluntarily consenting to add to the number of Measures in which there is a provision enabling the Minister to do something beyond the control of Parliament altogether. Here is an Amendment moved by the Minister of Health solemnly suggesting that, after Parliament has made an Act containing a Section in specific words, he, the Minister, should be able by special Order to modify that Section in such a way as he thinks fit. Is it to be Parliament or the Minister who is to govern Widows' Pensions Insurance? At this hour of the night, although we are dealing with an Amendment which is perhaps not of very great consequence to the country as a whole, I do urge the Committee to be watchful and jealous of the powers of Parliament in a way in which the whole tendency of modern thought desires express care to be exercised. I ask the Committee not lightly to pass words which give power to a Minister to remove a difficulty by amending the wording of an Act of Parliament.
This is a point of great substance. There is a Committee sitting to determine to what extent safeguards should be introduced for this purpose. With the knowledge that that Committee has already commenced its labours we have the example of a Minister of the Crown tabling an Amendment in which he asks to take power unto himself to modify in such way as he thinks proper the provisions of a paragraph or a Subsection. I call attention to the extreme importance of this provision in as much as it affects the Army, Navy and Air Force services and masters and seamen, a very large and wide class, and in the interests of all those inarticulate people I ask this Committee to be careful that they do not pass from the reign of Parliamentary powers to a minister beyond control in a manner such as the right hon. Gentle- 2392 man is asking. It is a serious point. It is an Amendment that ought not to be moved from the Government benches, and it is quite contrary to modern conceptions of Government. It is a suggestion that a Minister should have power to modify something that this House, the sovereign legislative power of the country, itself has determined, and that a department should have power to overrule Parliament. I ask the Committee to consider the matter very seriously before they confer such a power on the Minister.

§ Sir K. WOOD
It may shorten the proceedings if the Committee will look at the suggestion which follows in the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and myself. We have often during the last four or five years heard in this House the speech that has just been made, and everyone of us is anxious as far as we can to maintain the supremacy of Parliament. I myself had very strong views on that subject before I entered a Government department. I must say I learned a little there. There is great difficulty, especially in schemes of this kind, in dealing with to changing conditions and the particular people affected and in putting everything that is desired in an Act of Parliament. The suggestion which I have made, in order to maintain Parliamentary power, and to meet the views of people like the Lord Chief Justice—who at one time, when he was Attorney General, did a great deal for the Departments and their authority—is that the right hon. Gentleman should get his Orders sanctioned by the House. I do not know whether there are any difficulties in the suggestion, but if the right hon. Gentlemen were able to accept our Amendment it would legitimately meet the desire which everybody has to maintain the supremacy of this House. By our Amendment the right hon. Gentleman's Order would not come into effect until it had been sanctioned by the House, ft would not merely be a matter of laying the Order on the Table of the House for 30 days, and then automatically passing, but it would mean an affirmative resolution by the House. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment, it would satisfy the quite proper desire of the House to maintain its authority. When one deals with these things from day to day, one appreciates 2393 the considerable difficulty of embodying every scheme in an Act of Parliament—such, for instance, as the scheme which dealt with seamen under the National Health Insurance Act. It would have been impossible to put that in the Act of Parliament. With a practical knowledge of the difficulties, one appreciates things of that kind. If you sit on a lofty eminence apart, you think you can deal with them simply; but when you deal with them from day to day you find that there is another side of the matter.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I would like the Committee to realise the reason this power is sought. If paragraph (c) of the sub-section stands as it is now, certain people will be ruled out from the advantages of the scheme. The proposal is to try to keep them in. They are people like merchant seamen, who may go out of the country and lose their rights. We want to keep them in. As circumstances change, regulations may have to be made, and there must be some power somewhere to make the necessary regulations. We are asking for a very modest thing. Under the Act of 1911, it was necessary to take powers to vary the rates of contribution—a terrific power in the hands of the Minister. We are not asking for that. What we are asking is a very small matter affecting a relatively small number of people, and one would like to do it as expeditiously as possible. If my Amendment be accepted, it will be necessary for the Order to be laid on the Table of the House for 30 days, and if hon. Members are so anxious about their rights, they have the full opportunity to raise the Order on the floor of the House.

§ Major WOOD
If you gave time.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
Are we to be in the position, every time one small section of an Order has to be modified, to waste Parliament's time by resolutions in both Houses? I suggest that it is not reasonable, and I submit that the procedure of laying Orders on the Table of both Houses is a strong protection if Members of these Houses chose to take advantage of it. A precedent like this might easily make the ordinary business of the House of Commons almost impossible. I must ask the Committee to take the reasonable view. I am only asking for a reasonable thing for a 2394 number of people who will be disadvantaged if the Clause stands as it is.

§ Sir H. SAMUEL
I sympathise in the main with the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman but the great difference in the Government of this country in our day is that Parliament is choked in business. We need a great many laws for the benefit of the people, and a great deal of fresh legislation is necessary at the present time, and yet we cannot get it because Parliament has no time to deal with those matters. If Parliament insists upon including every little detail in Bills, the situation will be far worse. It is really essential that Parliament should be ready to leave to Ministers and to Government departments comparatively small matters of detail—with the safeguard that Orders shall be laid upon the Table of this House, so that if something really wrong is being done which arouses a strong feeling of opposition, special measures may be taken to put it right. The power of the Minister should not be absolute and uncontrolled, but the suggestion that we must have a Motion before the House and take up Parliamentary time before any of these regulations can be made is really one that would make the congestion of business here greater than before.
It is the actual wording that worries me. It is a verbal point, but it does seem a little bit offensive to the majesty of Parliament that the Minister may make a special order modifying in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of a section of this Act. I do not know whether this is a term of art, but it does not seem to be a very desirable expression. If the Minister had proposed to ask Parliament to enact something in these words, "The Minister may make a special order adapting in such manner as may be necessary the provisions of paragraph so and so, so as to apply them to any person who has served in the Army, Navy or so forth," I think the feelings of the House would be mollified, and perhaps this Clause would go through without difficulty. Perhaps he will consider some such form of words.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I do not know, but I should imagine that this is the ordinary form of words, but if I can allay the suspicions of hon. Members, then 2395 I shall be glad before the Report stage to couch the Amendment in the most charming language.

§ Sir K. WOOD
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, my right hon. Friend and myself do not desire to press our Amendment. We have had some experience in these matters. It is very easy to make statements about the supremacy of Parliament, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that it is much more difficult when it comes to practical affairs. I have had no difficulty in raising questions I wished to bring up when an Order was laid on the table of the House, and, if anyone is vigilant, I have no doubt he can find opportunity to discuss any point on which the right hon. Gentleman goes wrong, but I hope ho will not go wrong.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "Services," to insert the words: "or otherwise in the service of the Crown." At an earlier stage I desired to move an Amendment which would have covered the point to which I now desire to call the attention of the Committee. This part of the Clause, unfortunately, will not do all that I desire to be done for the dock-yardmen who are sent to Bermuda and other places.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
May I point out that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member will not bring these men within Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1)?

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman. He has an Amendment enabling him to modify in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) in their application to any person who has served in the Navy, Army or Air Force Services, and I desire to add: or otherwise in the service of the Crown"; that is to say, in one of these services, or otherwise in the service of the Crown. The position is perfectly clear as the Minister will see if he looks at the matter more closely. As he knows, there are a number of Crown servants, namely, dock-yardmen, who, in the course of their employment, are sent to various parts of 2396 the world, and who, it is perfectly true, may become voluntary contributors under the regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary read out just now, when we were discussing another part of this Bill. But there is no reason on earth why the Crown should not continue to pay its proper contributions in respect of these men, so that, when they return to this country, they may find themselves in insurance, and so that their widows, whether the men die in Bermuda or Devonport, may have their pensions. That is the object I had in view, and I see no objection to the Minister having exactly the same power in these cases as he has in regard to the Army, Navy and Air Forces. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, all this part of the Bill does is to enable the person to pay contributions himself. That is some sort of advantage, but not a complete advantage. If what I proposed to add prevailed, it would be the right of dockyardmen and others in the service of the Crown to have the employer's part of the contribution paid by the Government. I do not see why that which is being legislated for the Navy, Army and Air Forces should not apply to these men.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I hope the hon. Member will not persist in this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The people with whom he wishes to deal in this Amendment are not on the same footing as those to whom we are referring. We are dealing with those who are compulsorily insured; the dockyard workers when they go abroad are not compulsorily insured.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
the right hon. Gentleman will realise that I am in a difficulty, because, if my Amendment had been called, they would have been. Naturally, this comes at a later stage.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member there, but I must point out that it is not right to bring these people in here, because they are different in the character of their insurance, and it would be, in effect, giving them a preference over other insured workers.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how? I do not want to be in the slightest degree obstructive; I only want to be sure that everybody in the service of the Crown may be 2397 covered. It cannot injure the Minister if he has not to make any Regulations. I hope the additional provision will be carried, which will bring these people in on the same footing as members of the Navy, Army and Air Force under the powers which the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

§ Mr. BECKETT
I do not want to press this point too far, and I quite appreciate the difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has put forward, but, as it happens, I have had two cases brought to my notice, since I have been a Member of this House, of dockyard workers who have paid insurance contributions for many years, and who have been moved to work in other parts of the world, not because they wanted to go, but because they were necessary men, and were detailed for that work, in almost the same way as a soldier or a sailor might be, except, of course, that they had the right to leave their employment and throw themselves out of work if they wanted to do so; but chat is not a very wholesome preference. I quite realise that at this stage it may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), to the proposed Amendment because I do not think that it would make sense of the Bill.
My only object, in addressing the Committee, is to point out the extraordinary hardship entailed upon a man working in a dockyard or other Government occupation, who has paid insurance contributions for a number of years, and who then has to go abroad on the country's business and loses the benefit for which he has paid during all that time. I think the number of cases in which it occurs is very small, and I should think that the extra amount of money required, if this idea were adopted, would make no serious difference to the national exchequer; but my object in intervening is to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, to whom this point has perhaps not occurred, would be good enough to make himself very closely acquainted with the matter and ascertain whether there is the real hardship which the two cases which have been brought to my notice make me believe does exist in a certain number of cases; and, if he finds that it 2398 does, I would ask him to give it serious consideration, and see whether, if the hardship is great, he can possibly do something at a later stage of the Bill to meet the point, which I quite appreciate he is not able to meet on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport.

§ Mr. KELLY
May I ask a question upon that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] This is a serious matter, because, according to an answer to a question which was given only to-day, there are no fewer than 119 of these men under agreement at Hong Kong, and 39 at Singapore. This is a much bigger matter than seems to be appreciated by hon. Members of this Committee. The loss of their insurance by these men is something which affects their families, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to this point.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Are we not going to have any sort of declaration by the Minister as to his intention? I should be obliged if he would answer.

§ Mr. MOSES
I should like to press the Minister of Health for some guarantee with regard to this matter. For a good many years it has been a very considerable grievance to men who have gone out from the dockyards since 1911. Many of them were insured, and they have lost their insurance benefits. Now we find that many widows who have come home from Gibraltar and Bermuda have no claim at all to widows' pensions, and it seems that by this Bill that is going to be perpetuated. I do ask the Minister to give us some assurance that this point is going to be considered.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I will promise consideration before Report, but I do not want to hold out high hopes of inclusion. In order to meet the point, I prefer to alter the wording in the sense suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and make it read, The Minister may make a Special Order adapting in such matter as he thinks necessary the Provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section so as to make it applicable to any person,—

§ Sir H. SAMUEL
That is not the same point.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I was on the original point.

§ Sir H. SAMUEL
The hon. member would like an answer on the other point.

§ The CHAIRMAN
We have not disposed of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

§ Sir H. SAMUEL
Those observations were not really directed to my hon. Friend's Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
My right hon. Friend knows, of course, that this matter is one which largely interests dockyard Members, and dockyard Members opposite have expressed their interest in it. What we seek to insure is that when a dockyard man is sent on the service of the Crown abroad, to Gibraltar or Malta or Bermuda, the insurance shall continue to be paid by the Government, which is his employer, and that the Government shall make regulations in the same way that they make regulations for the Navy, Army or Air Force, and I wish the Minister to have, in respect of all servants of the Crown, the same powers, for better or for worse, as he has with regard to the Navy, Army or Air Force, so that, if these persons are brought in, the regulations shall apply to them.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
This is a very serious proposition, that I am to take power by special order to enforce a contribution upon the Crown. The people the hon. Member has in mind when they go abroad cease to be compulsorily insured persons. They become voluntarily insured persons and, as such, have to pay a double contribution. The hon. Member is asking me to take power by special order to levy a contribution upon the Crown. As I understand his case, it is that he desires, when these people are sent on foreign service, that the Crown should continue to pay their contributions. [Interruption.] Then I do not understand the Amendment.

§ Sir K. WOOD
It is clear the position is this. What the hon. Member is seeking to do he obviously cannot do in this paragraph. What he is endeavouring to do is to move an Amendment which really follows another Amendment which he desired to move. That was not called, and he is now moving an Amendment seeking to do what he intended to do in his first Amendment. That is obviously a thing you cannot do at this stage. I suggest that he should put his Amend- 2400 ment down on Report and we shall then see it. I do not think anyone could expect the right hon. Gentleman, in a Clause which allows him to make a special Order modifying a particular Section of an Act, to bring about a contribution from the Crown of some extra sum of money in respect of these men. There is a good deal, no doubt, to be said for them, but obviously a course like that cannot be taken when we are dealing with a modification of a special Order of this character. I hope the hon. Member, now that he has made his statement, may put it down quite plainly on Report.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. I had put down an Amendment to bring in servants of the Crown, and I wanted a regulation to be made for that. Unfortunately the first part has never been moved, and, therefore, the second part has not the force that I hoped it would have. In these circumstances, and on the understanding that the Minister has courteously made that he will consider the position between now and Report, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) raised a point as to the wording of the Amendment, and I said that I would see if before the Report stage I could find a form of words which would allay suspicion. Perhaps it would meet the wishes of the Committee if we made the Amendment read: The Minister may make a special order adapting in such manner as he thinks necessary the provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section to any person who has served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force services or as a master or seaman and who, if he had returned to Great Britain at the expiration of his service, would have been entitled to become a voluntary contributor. The provisions of sections ninety-four and ninety-five of the Insurance Act (which relate to the procedure for the making of special orders) shall apply in the case of special orders made under this sub-section.

§ Sir K. WOOD
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he would be well advised to put this Amendment down on Report, when he will have an opportunity 2401 of carefully considering it. I do not like to agree to a modification made so late at night. He would be well advised to leave it as it is.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I am quite prepared to move the Amendment as it is and raise the matter on Report.

Marquess of HARTINGTON
I am not satisfied with the colloquing that is going on between the Front Benches. The Minister has drafted a Clause to deal with certain hard cases which may at some time or other arise.

§ Mr. BECKETT
May I ask what we are discussing.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment on the Paper.

§ Sir H. SAMUEL
There was considerable debate on this Amendment, and several Members in different parts of the House took exception to the terms of it, and, in order to facilitate business I suggested a slightly different form of words which would conciliate their opposition, and, instead of inserting a provision that the Minister may modify as he thinks fit a particular Clause, I suggested that, so far as he thinks necessary, he may adapt the Clause. The Government are quite ready to accept it. Why not accept it and get on with the business.

Marquess of HARTINGTON
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Committee will be quite satisfied if the word "adapting" were substituted for the word "modifying". That may be entirely satisfactory to him, but it is very far from satisfactory to me. It still allows the Minister to make a special Order and asks the Committee to give him powers that he does not fully understand and leaves extensive powers in his hands. It still leaves the only resource the House has, the power of objecting to an Order while it is lying on the table. The powers that the back bench Member has of objecting to Orders on the table are very limited indeed. Without time being found by the Government, the powers of the Private 2402 Member are very small. What we have seen ought to be enough to convince back bench Members that they cannot rely on the Front Bench. Ministers are all alike. Until we are really governed by commissars, I suppose no one will do more than my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has done to strengthen the power of bureaucracy. One after another Members on all sides who have become infected with the departmental views have shown that they are not to be relied upon. They all regard it as intolerable that any Member of the House should interfere in any way with their proceedings. They think it is right that they should have power to make orders and govern the country exactly as they think fit, and it is time back bench Members protested against the constantly increasing powers that are given to the departments. They have drawn a very strong protest from a very eminent authority, and it is time the House of Commons asserted itself against this constant tendency to give increased powers to the departments to govern without the knowledge, consent or authority of Parliament.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
After the very rapid progress which has been made the time has come when we may perhaps give ourselves a little holiday from this Bill.