CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments in Section 1 of 20 Geo. 5. c. 10.) (Hansard, 30 April 1931)

§ Major McKENZIE WOOD
I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word "if" to the word "he" in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the word "when."
When the Second Reading was being taken, I put a point before the Minister and promised to bring it up again in the form of an Amendment in Committee. I have put down two Amendments which raise the point. The Act of 1929 provided that pensions were payable to widows whose husbands were in insurable occupations at some time during the last three years of their lives, but the Courts have held that, where men were ill for the last three years of their lives, they may have had no occupation at all. The result has been that a number of widows who were intended to receive pensions have been denied them, and this Bill is meant to put that right. The point I raised on Second Reading was that there are many men who have more than one normal occupation, and I instanced the special case of a man who might be a salmon fisher in the summer time, and in the winter worked at something else which might not be insurable. I said there was a great danger that, if a man in respect of whom a pension was claimed by his widow became ill in the winter 1885 time, the widow might not get a pension, whereas had the illness started in the summer she would. In other words, a man might have two normal occupations, and it was desirable that it should be made quite clear that that was so. If the two Amendments are taken together the Bill will read: shall if when he became incapable of work or ceased to be employed, his normal occupation or, in the case of a man having more than one normal occupation, any one of his normal occupations. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that the Amendments, if passed in that form, will cover the cases I have in view, because I am very much afraid that even now it may be alleged that if a man who is a salmon fisher in the summer time becomes ill in the winter, when engaged as a shopkeeper or a hawker, or something of that kind, he would not be in insurable occupation at the time he became ill. I take it that the insurable occupation is dormant, and I am informed that, according to the decisions already given, a man's occupation may be dormant and may be carried on in that form for a few months. If I have an assurance that the Amendment will cover cases of that kind, it would satisfy me and would remove the danger which I fear.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence)
My right hon. Friend asked me to say that he accepts the Amendment. The object has been clearly explained. I have only to add that we were informed by our advisers that the original words of the Act would be so construed as to meet the case the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. The Amendment makes it, abundantly clear that a man who is in the position described is a man of two occupations, one of which is insurable, and in virtue of the insurable occupation he will receive the benefit of the widows' pension.

§ Sir KINGSLEY WOOD
I wish to address a question to the Attorney-General, and I am very much obliged to him for his courtesy in being present. Members of the Committee will recollect the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health when he introduced this Measure in which he stated that a considerable portion of the Bill was due to a mistake in the original drafting of the main Act. There have been several letters in the "Times" during the last few months from the referees, principally from Sir Benjamin Cohen, one of the principal referees and a very able and distinguished man, condemning in very rigorous terms indeed the drafting of the original Measure. The occasion for the main part of this Clause is an attempt to put right the mistake in the drafting of the original Act. Sir Benjamin Cohen, I believe, took up a very strong line as regards the exact interpretation of the original proposal. The matter was referred to the Divisional Court in the hope that some definite and expressed opinion would be given by the Court which would allow the Act to be properly interpret ed by the referees and by the Minister. No doubt for good and sufficient reasons, the judgment of the High Court was not of such a character as to be particularly helpful from the point of view of the administrators of the Measure, and, consequently, the Minister of Health had to bring in the present Bill.
I hold strongly the view, and I think it is the view also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that one of the duties of the Attorney-General is to assist the House in connection with the drafting of Bills. I could give many reasons why we expect that of the Attorney-General. We expect assistance from him, and I know that he will be very glad indeed to give it. I address my question to the Attorney-General with more confidence because I recollect that when he started off upon his new career, he went to the City of London and expressed his determination to put on to the Statute Book, not only laws which were understood by 1887 the legal profession, but laws which would be understood by common men like the First Commissioner of Works and myself. He was so full of zeal on that occasion—it was at a dinner party in the City—and so interested in his new office, that he said he was going to attend to that matter. I am not asking him to go as far as that, but to assure the House, as far as he is able—we all err, and no one can say what interpretation judges may adopt—that the proposed amendment of the law will carry out the intentions of the House and the Minister, and that we are not likely to have a repetition of the previous action. As the Chief Law Officer of the Crown, can the hon. and learned Gentleman assure us, now that we have gone to the trouble and expense of further proceedings in this House, that what is embodied in this Clause of the Bill carries out the intention and desire of the House of Commons?

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt)
Of course, I am glad to be here to expound the law as best I can, even to such common people as the First Commissioner of Works and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I am afraid that I had higher hopes in regard to drafting than I have been able to bring about. To be candid, it seems to me that the necessary method we pursue in this House is very much against the possibility of getting Bills through in simple language easily understood by the people. The complication of the subject, too, is such that it is very difficult. I sometimes think that the chief point in codifying Measures afterwards is, that; having got your Bills, you may try to remove obscurities and imperfections. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I can advise the House that this matter has now been put right, and though I certainly do not give a guarantee—that is impossible—having looked into it, I think the matter is now in order.

§ Captain CAZALET
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many cases have been turned down by her Department because of the misinterpretation of the Act or the rendering by the court of a certain decision in regard to this matter, and how many individuals will be affected by the alteration in the law?

§ Miss LAWRENCE
About 5,000 cases are in suspense at the present time, and Members of the House have no doubt had cases brought forcibly to their attention. In addition, there are about 5,000 cases which have been awarded by the Minister, and we are given to understand that there has been since that time a certain balance. There will not be more than 10,000 cases altogether, speaking very generally.

§ Captain CAZALET
Will the pension be retrospective?

§ Miss LAWRENCE
Oh, yes, that is expressly provided for in the Bill.