SECOND SCHBDULE.—(Minor Amendments.) (Hansard, 30 January 1930)

§ Mr. SPEAKER
This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

§ Miss BONDFIELD
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There is a discrepancy between the Old Age Pensions Act in regard to contributions and the Unemployment Insurance 1354 Act, and by this Amendment it is hoped that the provision will be made perfectly clear.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
May I point out that the Old Age Pensions Act of 1925 repealed Section 5 of the 1920 Act, because we found that those contributions were payable on behalf of old age pensioners over 70 who continued to be employed. That was the reason why the 1925 Act repealed that Section. On reflection, the Minister granted regulations under which it was pointed out to employers that in 1355 future they would have to pay for all employés over 55 years of age, but the Huddersfield Corporation's solicitor did not see eye to eye with the regulation, and on legal grounds contested the facts as stated in the regulation of the Ministry of Labour, with the result that there was a long and wordy controversy between the solicitor and the Ministry. It was a very interesting correspondence, and, if hon. Members will get into touch with the Huddersfield Corporation, they will find it is a very interesting story. It throws a flood of light on the kind of things done behind the back of the House of Commons by Departments. This controversy went on for some months, and then, feeling doubt about it, the Ministry of Labour let it drop actually for thirteen months, and nothing more was said. Suddenly, the Huddersfield Corporation received a letter from the Ministry of Labour demanding payment of arrears, backed by the assertion that the Attorney-General held that the solicitor's law was wrong. There was a change of Government within a month, and, although for (more than eighteen months the Ministry of Labour had been contending that the law of the Huddersfield Corporation's solicitor was wrong, they slipped into their original Bill words to give effect to the error which he had been pointing out. Now, in 1929, the Ministry of Labour wrote to the Huddersfield Corporation in these terms: In the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is at present before Parliament, amongst other suggested amending enactments, is the following: ' Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925: Section 5, Sub-section 5, shall, so far as it relates to persons of the age of 65 years or upwards, to be deemed to have ceased, as from the 2nd day of January, 1928, to take effect.' The letter of the Ministry of Labour went on: In the circumstances, I am instructed to take no further action until the Bill has become law. I think the House will agree that it was worth calling attention to these facts, and I want to make my protest against that kind of thing being done by a Department. It is not right that it should be done by regulations made behind the back of Parliament when there are actual flaws or doubts. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there was 1356 never any legal decision upon it. There was only the ipse dixit of the Attorney-General as against the legal opinion of the solicitor of the Huddersfield Corporation and of counsel instructed by him, who also disagreed with the Attorney-General. Yet, when the thing is put right in the Bill, the Ministry of Labour come along with a letter which contains a threat to the Corporation—which had only exercised what I presume to be their legal rights—that when this Bill became law these further steps would be taken. I think on this occasion we might have had a more adequate explanation.

§ Sir K. WOOD
Anyone who has listened to the hon. Member who has just spoken will agree that it is right that this matter should not be passed over without 6ome comment from this House. The Huddersfield Corporation have on several occasions communicated with Members of this House concerning this very extraordinary case. This matter began as long ago as 1927, and I think it is some credit to the Huddersfield Corporation that they have been able to maintain their position for that considerable period. It is perfectly true that some of these events happened during the time of the last Government, but the sequel is very extraordinary, especially coming from the party opposite, who have been so free in their criticisms of what their predecessors have done. In 1927 the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health issued a leaflet for the information of the employers, giving particulars of employers' contributions payable on or after the 2nd January, 1928, for employed persons of 65 years and upwards, and in paragraph? of that leaflet were stated the contributions payable by the employer, notwithstanding that the employed person might be over 70, or in the enjoyment of an old age pension. The Huddersfield Corporation had several people who were over 7(and in receipt of old age pensions, and, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said, they took a very strong line. They were keeping on these employés for a few hours each week in order to give them a little extra money, in view of the long period for which they had served the Corporation, and I think that that may be generally regarded from the point of view of the Huddersfield Corporation, as an act of charity.
1357 The Town Clerk of the Huddersfield Corporation advised that the statement in the leaflet issued by the two Departments, so far as it related to the liability of an employer to pay contributions under the particular Section, had not been repealed, and he communicated his contention to the Minister of Labour; and he received a reply that the Minister of Labour was advised that that particular Section must be regarded as repealed by the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act so far as people over 65 were concerned. It is fair to say that the Town Clerk of Huddersfield immediately communicated with the Minister of Labour of that time, disagreeing with this contention, and he received a reply from the Department of my right hon. Friend who was Minister at that time. They agreed that the point raised by the solicitor to the Huddersfield Corporation was one of considerable difficulty, and the Secretary to the Ministry, in the course of his communication, went on to say that, unless and until the matter was otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Minister of Labour was bound to act upon the advice that he had received. It is curious, as the hon. Member for Leith has said, that the Huddersfield Corporation heard nothing further in the matter until February, 1929; in other words, a full year had passed without the Minister of Labour attempting to move in the matter. On the 22nd February, for the reasons I have already stated, the solicitor to the Ministry of Labour wrote to the Town Clerk of Huddersfield stating that the Minister of Labour felt obliged to enforce payment by the Corporation of contributions in respect of these old people.
12 m.
In other words, it was insisted that contributions should be paid in respect of the old people whom they employed purely as an act of charity. The solicitor went on to say he had been instructed to take proceedings by way of Attorney-General's information. The Council took counsel's opinion and were definitely advised that Section 5 (5) of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1358 was not repealed and the view of the Corporation was the correct one. There was further correspondence and on December 17th, 1929, the Town Clerk received the letter which has been quoted from the solicitor stating that in the circumstances he was instructed to take no further proceedings until the Bill had become law. The clear inference was that the Ministry contemplated proceedings as soon as the Bill become law. It was a retrospective proposal to impose a penalty for failing to stamp as from January 2nd, 1928—for unpaid contributions. The Corporation took strong exception to this course. It is no wonder that this Amendment occupied a day and a half in the other place. Lord Sumner and others took the strongest exception to the course that had been taken. This House will agree that we are not unduly prolonging proceedings in calling attention to this in order to point the moral that we do not desire to see this state of affairs repeated. I hope that other hon. Members will associate themselves with this protest. No doubt the learned Attorney-General may desire to say something in confirmation of what I have said. I hope that I have said nothing with which he disagrees. [Interruption.] I have no desire to join issue with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will wait until they have finished. I am content to wait until I get silence. Once again, in this particular case, the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leith, has done a service to the House of Commons by calling attention to this important matter. It may well be that he will be rebuked by the Prime Minister, who expects him to do what he tells him to do. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leith, is showing some courage, and I feel that certainly in this connection he has the support of every hon. Gentleman sitting near him.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), congratulated the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on having shown some courage, but this was only to be expected of the hon. Member for Leith, for he was born in my Division. Anyone who really is careful as to the legislation of this country 1359 must realise that a great service has been rendered by the hon. Member in bringing this matter forward to-night. I have no intention other than to ask one comparatively small question on this matter. A most extraordinary position has arisen between Huddersfield and the Ministry of Labour and it has continued to exist for a considerable number of years. That position relates to a series of very complicated questions, and I gather that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, the matter is likely to be put right. An injustice has been done to the individual and to the Corporation, and every time this thing happens there is the liability of a fine of £10, which sum accrues to the Ministry of Labour. The point I wish to raise is a comparatively simple one. [Interruption.] I hope that it is sufficiently simple for hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand. I think that we are entitled to have an answer. It has been admitted that this mistake has been allowed to continue, and it has been admitted in another place that this Amendment will probably remedy it. Will the Minister or the Attorney-General explain how this mistake arose, and may we have the right hon. Lady's definite assurance that the matter will once for all be put right?

§ Sir JOHN POWER
This is retrospective legislation in its worst form. It does not happen to be unconstitutional in this country, but it is unconstitutional in America. It has been condemned by Lord Cook. [HON. MEMBERS: "Arthur Cook."] There is no doubt whatever that this is a class of legislation absolutely repulsive to the British people. It turns into breakers of the law people who are entirely innocent. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister of Labour of how it was dared to put such a Clause in a Bill and bring it before the House and, what is more, to get it through. We are indebted greatly to another place. If anyone questions the usefulness of the other place, here is an instance of its usefulness. I cannot understand how anyone can agree to such a mean and repugnant Clause. Is it merely to snatch a few odd ten pounds that they are going to do such a thing, or is it merely a question of vengeance on the part of the Ministry of Labour? 1360 The question ought not to be allowed to drop without a reply being given either from the Attorney-General or the Minister of Labour. We ought not to part with the Bill until we have received an explanation of this piece of vindictive legislation.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
The Minister of Labour may be too tired to reply, but we might have a reply from the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary. It is discourteous to the House not to give a reply.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

§ Miss BONDFIELD
I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon an alteration to a previous Clause.

§ Major ELLIOT
This is rather a revelation. Apparently a Clause of this Bill has been smuggled through without our attention having been called to it, and this Amendment might conceal some deep laid plot. The right hon. Lady has asked us to agree with this Amendment. She has been rather "sniffy" with regard to some of the things which the Lords have done. [Interruption.] That is quite a parliamentary expression and is the language which has been used to describe that attitude by all authors since the days of Jane Austen. Upon what is it consequential?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
The words "assisting in" occur in a Clause in the Bill, and their insertion here is consequential.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
Surely this has to do with Section 14 of the Act of 1922?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
It is consequential on an alteration in the Bill.

§ Mr. BROWN
But it relate to a section of the Act of 1922.

§ Major ELLIOT
We are told that this is an Amendment to a Clause. To what Clause? What does it mean? We should be quite willing to listen to the explanation of the Minister.

§ Mr. MILLS
Have you no faith in the Lords?

§ Major ELLIOT
We are entitled to find out what we are asked to pass. I have a suspicion that the Government themselves do not know what this means. This is an Amendment to a Clause in a Bill, and there is a dispute between the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) as to what Bill it is.

§ Mr. BROWN
The section is Section 14 of the Act of 1922, and it reads as follows:— In Sub-section (1) after the words 'a person not in receipt of benefit' there shall be inserted the words 'or in receipt of less than the full amount of benefit to which he was entitled,' after the words 'had been in receipt of benefit' there shall be inserted the words 'or in receipt of the full amount of benefit to which he was entitled,' and after the words 'by that person for benefit,' there shall be inserted the words 'or for the full amount of benefit.'

§ Major ELLIOT
The position obviously is very much clearer. With the help of the hon. Member for Leith the House is now able to grasp the point before it. I understand that the insertion of these words will have the effect of broadening the categories of persons who are to be brought in and that if we omit these words we may limit the number of persons who may receive benefit. That is the position, I gather from the very rapid but succinct summary of the Act given by the hon. Member for Leith. That is quite clear. The House is now perfectly seized with the problem with which we are dealing. But what we are not completely clear about is where these words go in and where they come from. It is not to be supposed that the right hon. Lady is less familiar with the provisions or less equipped with the relevant sections than the hon. Member for Leith, because she has the resources of a vast Department and the hon. Member for Leith fights these battles single-handed. He gains his remarkable knowledge only from single-handed research in the Library of this House and other places. 1362 It is a source of admiration to me and to other Members of this House.
We still have to point out to the Minister what is the effect of this Amendment. It is consequential on some Amendment or other made at an earlier date. We should like it to be made clear by the Government whether we have been able to grasp all the possibilities. What is the effect of moving these words from one part of the Sub-section to another?

§ Mr. SKELTON
Turning to page 17, to which we were referred, it is perfectly clear that the amendment now proposed has no connection with the subsection there quoted. It must refer to something entirely different. We are asked to insert the Amendment after the word "having". That word does not appear at all. So far as I can sec it, this is an Amendment to another part of the Section of the 1922 Act which is not referred to in the Bill at all, the nature of which we do not know, and the effect of which in the original form we do not know. Of the effect of the added words we have not the slightest idea at all. The right, hon Lady says that this is only a consequential Amendment to a Section or Clause, but it is clearly dealing with a topic of which the Section gives no indication at all. This is not treating the House with frankness or courtesy.

§ Sir K. WOOD
Are we going to have some reply'? I think it would save time.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
If we are not going to have a reply —

§ Sir K. WOOD
I thought the right hon. Lady was going to reply. May I say to her that a reply would save a little time, because otherwise she would have to take the risk of this Amendment herself. This attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite may involve a Division, whereas a few minutes' explanation would probably satisfy us.

§ Miss BONDFIELD
My hesitation was due to the fact that I have not the right to speak again except with the consent of the House. I am sorry that there should have arisen any doubt as to the question of courtesy. If hon. Members turn to Clause 2, Sub-section (2) of the Bill they will find there that we have 1363 made provision for the non-resident housekeeper who is taking care, or assisting to take care, of the children of a person who pays her the equivalent of 9s. per week for doing so. In the proviso dealing with that matter we have to make this consequential Amendment—inserting the words "or assisting in "—and that is all that the Amendment does. I hope I have made it clear.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
We have, on the Paper of Lords' Amendments, an Amendment which proposes to insert certain words "in page 17, line 3, at end." When we refer to the latest copies of the Bill which we possess, we find that there is nothing whatever about the word "having," referred to in the Amendment, and that the words proposed here do not seem to make sense at all when inserted at that point. Then the Minister refers us to Clause 2, Sub-section (2) of the Bill, but it is difficult to see how an Amendment, which is almost the last one on the Paper, can be referred back to Clause 2.

§ Sir BASIL PETO
Now that we have reached the Amendments dealing with the Schedule to the Bill we are suddenly told that we must jump back to one of the main Clauses of the Bill. I understood that we had dealt with the body of the Bill during the afternoon and I wish to know if it is in order that on an Amendment dealing with the Schedule we should be told to go back to Clause 2.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
In line 3 of page 17 the word "having" does not occur and I do not understand how this Amendment can be made to read into this part of the Schedule. There must be some mistake or printer's error and we should have some explanation of it.

§ Miss BONDFIELD
I must ask leave to speak again. It never occurred to me that hon. Members were making the mistake which obviously they are making. If they turn again to page 17, they will see the words "Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922." That is line 3. The words of the Amendment on the Paper read straight on from that.

An HON. MEMBER
Why did not you tell us that sooner?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The bon. Member cannot speak a second time without leave of the House.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON
Hon. Members opposite laughed at us when we asked for an explanation, but, if the right hon. Lady had been a little more accurate, she could have seen that the last word in line 3 was "—cont." She has added her words in the wrong place.