CLAUSE 3.—(Transitional provisions.) (Hansard, 28 February 1940)

§ Mr. Elliot
I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert: (3) Regulations may be made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee 2178 under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1936 to 1939, with respect to the administration of sickness payments, and such regulations may, in particular, make provision as to the bodies by or through which such payments are to be administered, as to the keeping of accounts of sums expended on such, payments and the determination of the amounts chargeable in respect of expenses of such bodies as aforesaid' in connection with 2179 the administration of such payments, and as to the audit of such accounts and expenses, and regulations so made may apply any of the provisions of the said Acts, with or without. modifications. The Bill provides for insured women receiving sickness payments during the transitional period, but it does not include provision for the administration of these payments. The question was raised while we were discussing sickness payments on the last Clause as to who was to administer them. Regulations will be made for the administration of these payments, including such matters as the bodies by or through which the payments are to be made, the keeping and auditing of accounts and the payment of expenses of administration. Hon. Members, especially those connected with the administration of approved societies, will be glad to know that we do propose that these payments shall be made through approved societies. That was a point which the approved societies put to us, and I am able to announce that that is the way in which these payments will be administered.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what allowance for administration will be given to approved societies? He knows that the allowance at present is about 4s. 6d. per annum.

§ Mr. Elliot
We shall be in negotiation with the approved societies on these points, and I am sure that we shall be better able to reach a satisfactory conclusion if I do not announce a figure on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to say that it is our intention to work through the approved societies and that these points will be settled with them.

§ Mr. Buchanan
But not without taking any notice of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will still consult us?

§ Mr. Stephen
Can the Minister say whether any appeal will be open to the individuals concerned in these cases? Will he take care that the individual shall have an appeal if he is not satisfied with the decision which has been come to?

§ Mr. Elliot
I will consider the point raised by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I have one or two points which I think I can put to the 2180 Minister upon this Clause. There is one question which is causing concern to many women. Under the Measure they have to disclose to their employers that they have become 60 and are entitled to a pension. Women are rather more tender about making such disclosures than are men, and for industrial reasons they fear that it may affect them both as regards wages and conditions of employment. I hope that between now and a later stage of the Bill the Minister will devise some means whereby women may not find it compulsory to disclose to their employers that they have attained the age of 60, and may voluntarily continue to pay their contributions through their employers and recover them from the Ministry at the end of the year or some other suitable period. Women now look younger than they have ever looked in the past, even when they become 65, and it is rather important—

§ The Temporary-Chairman (Major Milner)
I do not think the hon. Member is in Order in raising this point. This Clause relates to transitional provisions.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I hope, however, that the Minister will consider the point.

Mr. White
The Minister is, taking power to make regulations under the principal Act and proposes to take some direct responsibility for the regulations made. The power which he takes in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Clause will also apply to any regulations which may be made under the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. I am anxious to know where we are, because so many people now seem to be making regulations. Will the Minister have direct responsibility for any regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee?

§ Mr. Lawson
I should like to underline the point which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has just put forward. Whatever may be said in this House, whatever promises may be given in regard to provisions of this kind, we cannot forget our experience of the Bill setting up the Unemployment Assistance Board, where everything was done by regulation. What the right hon. 2181 Gentleman is doing is taking to himself the power to legislate on even more definite lines than are in the Bill itself. For all effective purposes the regulations are the real legislation. Already we have had experience of such procedure. When this Bill comes to be applied, it will be discovered that the real legislation was not in the Bill which the House passed into an Act but in the regulations themselves. Parliament never gets really excited on these matters until we come to the regulations. I wish to emphasise what the hon. Member for East Birkenhead has said, and I ask the Minister to tell us how these regulations will be made and what we shall have to discuss when they come before the House, as I assume they will. It is important that their presentation to Parliament should not be a mere formality but that they should be presented in such a manner as will give the House an opportunity of discussing them, so that we may know what we are doing.

Mr. White
If I may add one word to what I said, I take it the regulations will come up on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman himself?

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
There is another aspect of this problem to which I hope the Minister will give attention. After our experience of the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board, we are bound to feel concerned about regulations. I am not as much concerned about them on this Clause as I shall be later, but even on this Clause the position ought to be made clear. Under the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board we have found that varying interpretations have been put upon regulations, which has resulted in variations ranging from 3s. to 6s. in payments made throughout the country. There have also been varying interpretations put upon the needs of particular households. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to have the regulations framed in such a way as to bring about uniformity of interpretation as far as possible throughout the country.

§ Mr. Buchanan
Does my hon. Friend mean uniformity which will bring all up to the highest?

§ Mr. Smith
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) knows me well enough to know what I have in mind. In my Second Reading speech I made it clear. I hope the regulations will be drawn up so as to bring about uniformity of interpretation throughout the country.

§ Mr. Elliot
I sympathise with the desire of the Committee to be clear on this point. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) wishes to be assured that the regulations will come forward with the full authority of the Minister. I can give that assurance. The Amendment merely authorises the making of regulations to deal with certain matters of administration which are set out in the words on the Paper. They come under the principal Act. There is nothing new here. This is under the old National Health Insurance Act, where is set out, in Section 160, the constitution of the Joint Committee and the fact that I am not merely a member of that committee, but am the chairman of it. Anything that is brought before the House comes with the full authority of the Minister, who is chairman of the Joint Committee.
As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) said, these are not regulations of the importance of those to which we shall come later. Both the Committee and the Minister will be very alive to what is done there, because those later regulations will be of the most vital importance to the ordinary citizen in his everyday life. In this case we are dealing merely with regulations as to who is to administer certain payments. That can properly be done by bringing regulations before this House, and by giving the Minister power to make such regulations under the old-established Insurance Act. These regulations can be laid on the Table of the House, and are not like the others, which are subject to an affirmative Resolution. The main regulations, under which the lives of the citizens will be affected, will be the subject of further discussion.

Mr. J. J. Davidson
Did the right hon. Gentleman mean or intend to say, in the assurance which he has just given, that any regulations that he may issue during the transitional period for the avoiding of hardship would involve no greater 2183 hardship, or any reduction of the present status of the people concerned?

§ Mr. Elliot
I am afraid that the point does not arise upon the Amendment we are now discussing. I gave the Committee an assurance that the bodies referred to in the Amendment will deal with the narrow point, and that the Minister will have explicit authority to make regulations allowing the approved societies to administer these sickness payments.

§ Mr. Stephen
I would like to be clear on this matter. Under Clause 3, the Minister may make regulations for the avoidance of hardship. I take it that they will lay down a scheme relating to the income of the persons concerned. Subsequently, regulations will be made, not by the Minister, but by the Joint Committee responsible for administration, and that they will be applying the regulations which were previously made by the Minister under the first Sub-section of the Clause. Am I right in supposing that those regulations will be more a matter of arranging how the persons shall make their appeal? Is that the position? How a person will come out, under this Clause for the avoidance of hardship, will depend upon the regulations made by the Minister rather than on the regulations made by the Joint Committee. These will have nothing really to do, but the regulations made by the Minister will be the determining regulations as to what the person will get if hardship is to be avoided.

§ Mr. Elliot
If I got the hon. Gentleman's argument aright, I would say that I think that that is roughly the case. These regulations are administering regulations.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert: or under the enactments relating to unemployment insurance in force in Northern Ireland. This Amendment relates to Northern Ireland. The Committee may be aware that reciprocal arrangements at present exist between Great Britain and Northern Ireland relating to benefit payable in either of these two countries by virtue of contributions paid in the other part 2184 of the Kingdom. The Parliament of Northern Ireland will be passing legislation similar to the Bill, and it will be necessary to extend the reciprocal arrangement to cover the payment of contributions and benefits. Accordingly, this Amendment and that which follows are necessary, with a view to that occurring.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies
I do not want to pursue this point unduly, but did I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will make reciprocal arrangements in this connection, or that it is expected that they will?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
The latter.

§ Sir W. Allen
I notice that in Part III of the Bill it does not extend to Northern Ireland "save as otherwise expressly provided," and I presume that as Northern Ireland would follow suit, Part II of the Bill would also come in for similar special consideration.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
There is no intention to legislate for Northern Ireland. What we are doing is to legislate for Great Britain, in order that we may maintain that reciprocal arrangement with Northern Ireland by paying the benefits here, in respect of contributions paid in Northern Ireland; and that will occur if and when Northern Ireland has the same proposals as we are laying before the Committee to-night. There is no suggestion that we are legislating for Northern Ireland, or that we are taking on any more than we expect Northern Ireland will be willing to pass.

§ Mr. Buchanan
Possibly the Minister of Health will be able to answer a question. I take it that a person granted a pension at 60, whether spinster or widow, will retain the right of going to a Colony and of retaining the present pension?

§ Mr. Elliot
This point really does not arise on the Amendment.

§ Mr. McEntee
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether an arrangement has been made so as to make this matter reciprocal between ourselves and Northern Ireland? If they adopt the Act in Northern Ireland and somebody pays 2185 contributions there, that person will receive benefit if he comes to this country. I would like to know whether an arrangement has been come to so that in similar circumstances a woman in this country who reaches the stage where she becomes entitled to benefit and goes to Northern Ireland can receive the benefit as she would have done if she had remained here?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
If our anticipations are fulfilled people will receive benefit in those circumstances. That, of course, is primarily a matter for Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. McEntee
Surely, the Minister will agree that if he is making a concession to Northern Ireland—and I regard it as a concession—before making that concession he should have an assurance from Northern Ireland that if a Bill is introduced to the Northern Ireland Parliament they will make similar arrangements for persons going from here to Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Buchanan
As I understand the Amendment moved by the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland, if Northern Ireland adopts proposals similar to these, you will take in National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance. There is reciprocal treatment for people who move from Northern Ireland across here. Under unemployment insurance a person with 30 stamps who moves from Northern Ireland to England and who satisfies certain conditions can qualify for benefit. The same applies to health insurance, and as I understand it when this Amendment is accepted a person will only be able to receive benefit if Northern Ireland passes legislation of a similar kind. I would like to know what constitutes similar legislation. Is it to be a Bill the same as this, or will the Minister of Health say it is a reciprocal arrangement if the Northern Ireland Government pass a different Bill, at least with regard to Part I? For the moment I am not discussing Part II.
I must confess that I read with great interest and with a sense of admiration the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he condemned the household means test. That is to his credit. My point is this: Supposing the Northern Ireland Government decide not to have a Part I exactly the same as the Part I in this Bill with 2186 regard to each item; in other words, a single person now in receipt of national health insurance benefit will be worse off under this section of the Act than she would have been under the Poor Law assistance. That is admitted. Supposing the Northern Ireland Government take a different view, would this reciprocal arrangement still apply? I think we are entitled to know exactly what is meant by "reciprocal." If it is said that Northern Ireland must pass the same sort of thing it is an unanswerable case against the Northern Ireland Government because of the liberty they are going to have in passing the same Act that we are passing.
The other point I desire to raise is this: With regard to the question of social legislation, has the time not now come when the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Health, might open negotiations with the other section of Ireland with a view to having reciprocal legislation which might do something towards increasing friendship between North and South and between Ireland and this country?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I have listened to the points raised by the hon. Member but they do not really arise on this Amendment because this Amendment is confined to the transitional provisions which are to be enacted in this Clause. The points which the hon. Member raised relate to the other provisions of Part I to which this Amendment does not apply. The question as to what constitutes similarity no doubt will be considered, but on the limited scope of Clause 3 no such general question will become material. Accordingly on this Amendment there is no room for considering the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Buchanan
I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, and I will raise my points later on.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the end, to insert: (4) On the application of the body charged with the administration of any special 2187 scheme made under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, the Minister of Labour may by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme in such manner as may be necessary to secure that during the transitional period women who immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act were persons to whom the scheme applied shall, after attaining the age of 60 and before they attain the age of 65, be entitled to benefits under the scheme not less favourable than those provided with respect to insured contributors by the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section. The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with a provision under the special schemes for persons employed in the banking industry and the insurance industry. The general position under the schemes is safeguarded and people covered by those schemes are brought in by Clause 2 which we have already passed. Without this special Sub-section, however, the transitional provisions that occur in Clause 3 would not apply to these special schemes. The object of this Amendment, therefore, is to ensure that the persons in the special schemes are not only on the same footing so far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned but that they are not on a less favourable footing so far as the transitional provisions are concerned.

§ Mr. Stephen
I notice that the Amendment says that the Minister "may by order vary." I wonder whether the word "may" will have the same force as "shall." It might mean that the Minister of Labour would not do this and there would then be persons in the schemes who until the Minister of Labour took action would be put into a worse position. I take it that the Government do not intend that these people shall be put into a worse position, but that they are moving this Amendment so that the rights of these people shall be safeguarded adequately. I suggest to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that instead of "may" the word should be "shall" so that it will be obligatory on the Minister of Labour that immediate steps should be taken on the passage of this Bill to secure the rights of these people. I myself am experienced, for example, in connection with people in the insurance scheme and I think at certain times there has been a tendency for them to get a little out of parallel. I hope that no 2188 mistake will be made on this occasion, and I desire to know from the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether it would not be better to make the alteration which I have suggested even if he has already intended that "may" has the effect of "shall." If that is his intention, would it not be better draftsmanship to say "shall," so that there may be no question about it afterwards? Although I am a lawyer myself, I do not want additional work to be made for lawyers as a result of this Measure.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I think that the mere fact of our putting forward this Sub-section indicates the Government's intention to act under it. With regard to the substitution of "shall" for "may," I do not think it would be at all good draftsmanship. Look at what follows. The Minister may by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme in such manner as may be necessary. Accordingly, whether you put in "may" or "shall," the Minister must determine in what manner it is necessary to proceed, and that discretion is necessarily permissive. It appears that the use of "shall" would conflict with what follows.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am completely dissatisfied with that explanation. The hon. and learned Member says that because the term "may be necessary" is used, there is nothing to make it obligatory upon the Minister of Labour to take action. But if it is made obligatory, by the substitution of "shall," the Minister will have a job given to him, and afterwards he may decide what may be necessary in order that he shall carry out the duty imposed upon him by this House. It is all very well to say that the Government intend to do this, and that the fact that they are moving this Amendment shows that they do; but the fact that it was not originally in the Bill shows that it was only an afterthought on the Government's part. If the Minister of Labour becomes very busy with the National Service work that is handed on to him, it may well be thought that the interests of these people can wait. I do not suppose any Ministry is busier than the Ministry of Labour; but I cannot see why the Government should 2189 not make it plain that this duty is obligatory. I am sure that the Minister of Labour, who is here himself, would not object to having it made obligatory. I am sure he would welcome it, because he would know then what this House wanted him to do.

§ Mr. A. Jenkins
May not this be the position if the word "may" is left in the Bill? If the Minister of Labour were, for some reason or other, to fail to act in accordance with the intention of this House, would not the women concerned be deprived of the protection that the Clause attempts to give them? If that be so—and it seems to me that it must be so—in the interests of the women concerned, the word "may" should be altered to "shall." I should like to know from the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether the fear that I have expressed is not well-founded.

§ Mr. McEntee
Surely the Minister is not right in his interpretation of "shall." In the Sub-section reference is made to the body responsible to the Minister for special schemes, and then it is laid down that the Minister may by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme in such manner as may be necessary. to provide for the people concerned certain benefits which they are now getting, and to see that those benefits are not in any way diminished. Under the Subsection, as it stands, the Minister, it is true, may do so; but equally he may not. I take it that if the Sub-section is to remain in its present form, it will be necessary to have some court of appeal to which the people concerned may appeal against the Minister's decisions. The Minister's duties will prevent him giving his individual attention to all cases that come forward. Suppose two or more societies applied to the Minister to vary conditions now existing, for the purpose of guaranteeing benefits. One set of applications may be considered by one official, and another set of applications by a different official in the same Department; and these two officials might easily come to different conclusions on cases in respect of which the circumstances were exactly similar. Each, after writing his letters, will bring them to the Minister to sign. The Minister will not have time to go into the 2190 merits of every individual application, and it may well happen that two diametrically opposite decisions may be arrived at for similar cases. If the intention is to do a certain thing, why on earth should we not insert the word "shall," so that the officials of the Ministry will have an instruction which is definite and which will secure equality of treatment for all concerned?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
There are two points which have been made by hon. Members. The first is that perhaps the Minister might not move at all. The second is that, if he did move, he might not give equal justice all round. The second point cannot possibly be met by inserting "shall" because there is no more guarantee that equality of treatment will be carried out if the Minister is instructed than if he is merely empowered. The remedy is that somebody raises the matter in the House, and it is put right. On the other point, I would remind the Committee that it has been a very long-standing subject of debate in this House whether "may" or "shall" shall be used. In innumerable cases, and more especially in the Section of the Unemployment Insurance Act which deals with these schemes, the word "may" has been used. If you now start varying it, and putting in the word "shall," you rather throw a doubt on what has always been understood about the meaning of the word "may" in these Sections. [An Hon. Member: "By the courts?"] There have been several cases where the courts have interpreted "may" as being the same as "shall."(Hon. Members: "And others where they have not."] Where a Department is told that it may do something, and there is an obvious need that that should be done, I know of no case where the Department has failed to act, on the ground that "may" does not mean "shall." It would be very unfortunate, not only from the aspect of throwing doubt upon the principal section of the Scheme, but of throwing doubt upon innumerable other sections, if we should now decide to change the traditional word "may" into "shall." It would, I can assure the Committee, throw a great number of existing provisions into something like confusion.

Mr. Davidson
I do not think that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has put up a very good case in his special pleading for this particular Clause. It may be that he has not participated very often in the discussions of this House, and as he listens more to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is an adept at explaining the little intricacies in a very round about way, he may improve. To say that some of the courts agree that "may" means "shall," and that some of the courts do not agree that "may" means "shall" is hardly a reasonable case to put forward. One ought to be very definite with regard to this matter. The Amendment asks the Members here, in view of the failures of the court, one way or another to make absolutely certain themselves that they use the right word. I do not think that there is any right hon. or hon. Member who would disagree that when it is laid down in a Clause that the Minister "may" do a certain thing, it also means that he may not do it. If we state that the Minister "shall" do it, it means that the Minister must take a certain line of action. The Solicitor-General for Scotland forgets that before the Minister can move at all the Amendment states: On the application of the body charged with the administration of any special scheme, and it is only on the application of that body that the Minister of Labour may vary or amend certain provisions. We on this side of the Committee have had experience of outside organisations. Even the Unemployment Assistance Board have acted and have incorporated regulations in such a manner that hon. Members have had to come to the House with protests to the Minister in order to force the Minister to take some action. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland says that the application must be made by one of these bodies, and that if they make application the Minister then may only do a certain thing, it means that, if there is dissatisfaction with that body, and they do not make representations to the Minister of Labour, nothing is done. Hon. Members have therefore to come to the House and question the Minister, or make statements, or put the case, all of which could be clearly avoided if the correct wording was used in this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has 2192 begged the whole question and has failed to recognise all the bodies to which the administration may be allotted so that an application may not get to the Minister at all. If they make an application it is left to the discretion of the Minister himself as to whether he will try to bring the applications up to the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection. The Clause is very badly worded. I am only a layman, but I am sure that the legal fraternity both in this House and in the country could make this Clause unintelligible. Neither the Solicitor-General for Scotland nor the right hon. Gentleman should appeal to hon. Members that because of certain enumerable cases in which the word "may" Is used, it should be used on this occasion. That is not an argument, but merely an appeal to a silly kind of sentiment. The Solicitor-General for Scotland will agree that in enumerable cases, as he has suggested, it is debatable and its meaning can be questioned, and it causes trouble, discussion, and legal proceedings. Therefore, why not take this opportunity of putting in clearly that the Minister himself shall take this action, and show that the Government really intend to leave no loopholes that will prevent these people from being assisted?

§ Mr. S. O. Davies
I should like to put a direct question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and it would satisfy me if I could receive a definite answer. Assume that an application had been made to the Minister of Labour by the body charged with the administration of these several schemes that they should be covered by the first part of this Bill. Would not the Minister then be entitled, as far as this Clause is concerned, to say, "No"? There is nothing in the Bill that makes it obligatory upon him to vary or alter the provisions. I want an answer to the question, Would not the Minister of Labour be entitled, as far as the phrasing of this Clause is concerned, apart from any other kind of consideration, to say, "I cannot be compelled to do what you ask me to do because there is no compulsion and no definite strict obligation placed upon me. The word is may and not shall." I would like an answer to that question.

§ Mr. Stephen
I have been looking at this a little further, and I want to ask another question in connection with this part of the Bill. I notice that the Amendment begins with: On the application of the body charged with the administration of any special scheme. If those who are responsible for the banking scheme or the insurance scheme do not make any application, are their members from 60 to 65 not to have the advantages, if there are advantages, under Part I of the Bill? That question is very pertinent and important. The whole question as to what is to be the position of the women in the banking and insurance industry is being determined, I take it, under this Amendment, and possibly the people responsible for the conduct of the banking or insurance scheme may think that the disadvantages, as far as their workers are concerned, will be sufficiently great that they will not want to have them applied. It might mean a lot of work to them in connection with this scheme, and they may not want to apply it. When these schemes were agreed upon the one principle upon which the House went was that the workers in no respect should be worse off than under the general scheme. I want the Solicitor-General for Scotland to tell me whether the Government first consulted the representatives of banking and insurance companies as to what their views were on this new legislation, and, if they have had no such consultation, whether they think it sufficient to simply leave the workers in these industries at the mercy of those administering these respective schemes.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
The body referred to in the Amendment is a representative body, and, accordingly, as the Amendment proposes to confer benefits on the constituents of that representative body, it does not seem necessary to compel them to act in the interests of their own constituents. On the other question as to the Minister carrying out this matter, there is a very clear direction in the Amendment as to what the Minister has to do. It is perfectly true that you cannot compel a Minister to do things by taking him to the courts in the Strand, but you can compel him to do his duty by requiring him to answer in 2194 the House of Commons the criticism of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Ede
With the Government Whips on.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
It is the force of the criticism and not the force of numbers which counts. Surely the better scheme is that the Minister responsible to Parliament should be responsible to Parliament, and should not be haled to the courts.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies
I thought I was voicing the demand of the nation that it should be made obligatory upon him; I had no idea that I was taking the Minister to the Strand.

Mr. Davidson
Surely the Solicitor-General will agree that the purpose of the Amendment is to see that these people do not lose anything in accordance with the provisions of the previous Sub-section. Why then say that we must come here and question the Minister of Labour? Surely we want to avoid that, and an unnecessary waste of Parliamentary time.

§ Mr. H. Beaumont
I want to clear up one matter which is confusing me. The Government say that it is undesirable to compel a Minister to act in the interests of his constituents. That is perhaps a very sound argument, but I suggest that it is much more desirable that a clear direction should be given to the Minister as to what his duties are In the third line of this Amendment there is the little word "may," and I want to ask why not substitute "shall" for that word? It seems to me that if these people "shall be entitled to benefits," it is equally the duty of the Minister of Labour that he shall do so and so. I submit that the word "shall" in that connection makes it desirable that the word "may" in line three shall be altered to "shall."

§ Mr. Tomlinson
It seems to me that the Minister is taking the very powers and duties which we suggested should be left to the people who are already in charge of this money, and that he is setting up by this Clause a body which shall be answerable for the spending of the money. If the case I put on the previous Amendment is to be met by these regulations, it seems to me that the individual 2195 who will receive benefit is going to receive it from some other source than the one from which he is receiving it at the present time. An insurance society will no longer be responsible to the member for the payment of benefit for which he has contracted, and the new body which is set up by this Amendment is to make payment to people who are already provided for in existing legislation.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
We are not setting up any new body. The body to which the Amendment refers is already charged with the administration of this scheme, and they will, of course, administer the extra money.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
Granted that this is a special scheme, it is because it is a special scheme, and this extra machinery is required, that I am objecting to it. The answer given bears out my point, that these people are already provided for in the national insurance Acts. The people who will be dealt with by this new machinery are being dealt with already, but there is to be a transition period. This is duplicate machinery to deal with the same people. It is intended to provide for people who in the transition period will be passing from National Health insurance in a period of five years, and in order that no hardship shall arise a new body is to be set up to deal with these people. It would have been much simpler to leave these people under the Acts which cover them and allow them to draw the benefits for which they have contracted. They would not be receiving these benefits if they had not contracted for them.

§ Mr. Woodburn
There is a fear on this side of the Committee, and among many who are coming under this scheme, that they will be worse off in many ways under the Bill than they would have been if the Bill had not been passed. I take it from what the Minister has said that the Government are very anxious that nobody should be worse off, and we would like in the discussion on this Clause to have some guarantee from him that the changes that will be made will prevent a 2196 woman who has passed 60, and has not reached 65, from suffering by the passing of the Measure. As far as I understand this Clause, if a woman is 60 now, she benefits until she is 65, but if she becomes ill and has to go on public assistance, a sum of 7s. 6d. or, at least 6s., will be excluded from any consideration. If a woman of 60 is disabled for life she carries on drawing the 6s. a week and if she goes before a public assistance committee, her position is unaltered. In other words, she still draws the scales, plus 6s., but if she ceases to be entitled to the 6s. disablement benefit or any benefit under the National Health Insurance scheme and goes on the pensions scheme, and requires additional benefit, she can never receive more than the maximum under national health insurance, minus 6s. or 7s. 6d. Whatever has been done, or whatever change may take place, a woman will be worse off after this Bill is passed than she would have been, in these circumstances, had the Bill not been passed.
May I put one or two questions? If a woman is 56 now she will be insured under this Measure until she is 61. By that time, this provision will have come to an end and, therefore, four years afterwards she will have no claim on the National Health Insurance Fund. If she is 57, she will go on at 62, and if she is 59 she will go on at 64, and so on. But this will be a transition period of five years and at the end of that time all the advantages there are under this Clause will cease to exist. I am sorry to say there is a suspicion in the country that there are provisions in this Bill which provide a gentle way of reducing certain benefits that now accrue to old age pensioners. We want an assurance that that is not the case, and an assurance from the Minister that he is prepared to put in alterations which will guarantee that no woman will be worse off after the passing of the Bill.

§ The Chairman
Before the Minister replies, I should say I am in some little doubt as to whether the hon. Member has addressed himself to this Clause at all or not. I must reserve the rights of the Chair. This Clause deals with the transitional period and the hon. Member was talking about something outside that period.

§ Mr. A. Jenkins
This applies to the few people: who come within the transition period.

§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) put a point which arises out of the useful discussion we had earlier. The point put by hon. Members is something like this: At present, a local authority disregards a certain payment which a woman may have if that payment is made in respect of sickness. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it may not be possible, for a woman receiving that payment, to define that she is receiving it in respect of sickness and, therefore, the body before which she goes—the Assistance Board—might not be willing to disregard that, with the result that the insured person might be worse off in going for supplementation, than she would have been, by going for supplementation to the public assistance authority. That is a point to which I shall certainly direct my attention. I do not think I can go further at the moment, and I do not think the Committee will expect me to do so. I am glad that the point has been brought to my notice and I will gladly look into it before the next stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I would like to raise one other point. Is not this the situation? A person aged 59 would get her pension, under sickness benefit and 7s. 6d. would be disregarded, leaving her with a net amount of 2s. 6d. She would go to the public assistance committee, who would give her, on the average, 8s. So she would have, during the period of sickness, 18s. A woman now 61, gets 10s. old age pension and is entitled to go to the Assistance Board for a supplementary pension. The first thing is to make her up to the scale rate, us. The Board will have to consider whether they will exercise their discretion on account of her sickness, and I think that in their most generous mood the Board would not give her more than 2s. or 3s. Actually she will be 6s. a week worse off. Both the Minister and the hon. Lady have stated that it is not the intention of the Government that anyone should be worse off as a result of this Bill and I hope they will bear that in mind. There is another point: Under this Clause you 2198 define this new payment you propose to give during the transition period. It is described as sickness payment. Has the Minister described it as sickness payment, in order that it shall be included at its full value when the person concerned makes application for supplemental pension, or will it be regarded for supplementary pension purposes, as National Health Insurance payment?

§ Mr. Elliot
The first point mentioned by the hon. Member really arises on a later stage of the Bill. As to the second point the payment is called a sickness payment because it is not disablement benefit or sickness benefit with which we were dealing before. It is given a special name because it is a special thing. It is because he or she has been rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement.