CLAUSE 3 (Supplementary and administrative provisions.) (Hansard, 4 May 1944)

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson)
I think it was at this point, when we were last in Committee on this Bill, that I moved to report Progress. It would perhaps be convenient, therefore, if I rose at this stage to give the Committee the result of the inquiry which I undertook should be given on the subject matter of Amendments that had appeared on the Paper, for the first time, on the last occasion we discussed this question. The matter raised by the Amendment concerns the Parliamentary procedure to be followed in regard to certain subsidiary instruments for which the Bill makes provision. There have been, for some time, Amendments on the Paper the effect of which would be to make subject to an affirmative Resolution, instruments which, under the Bill, would not be subject to an affirmative Resolution, and there is also on the Paper this Amendment which we are now discussing, which would extend the Amendments that are subject to negative Resolution. I want to make it clear to the Committee that, without prejudice to the further consideration of a general character, which, as I have previously explained, the Government contemplate should be given by this House to the whole question of the relation of Parliament to subordinate legislation, the Government are perfectly willing, for the purpose of this Bill, to accept the proposal that the procedure by way of negative Resolution should be extended in the manner suggested. They could not agree to an extension of procedure by way of affirmative Resolution. I am, therefore, prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment which has just been put and also the consequential Amendment which appears on the Paper.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
I am glad to hear the words of the Chancellor that the whole question of consideration of delegated legislation is being fully considered. I would like to add that it seems to me, that the extent of the control retained by Parliament must, in each case, depend on the extent to which the power of Parliament is delegated. I would like to add that this Amendment and the next Amendment on the Order Paper were considered, on the last occasion, together, and together they provided for an affirmative Resolution. The one which the Chancellor of the 1486 Exchequer has now accepted provides for a negative Resolution. I welcome the Chancellor's acceptance of the first and, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the second Amendment which was under discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman
That Amendment has not actually been moved.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to add: (7) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made thereunder, any provision made by or under any enactment shall, in so far as it relates to the apportionment of the cost of a pension between two or more authorities, or to the manner in which a pension is to be paid, or to the proof of title to sums payable on account of a pension, or in so far as it prohibits or restricts the assignment or charging of a pension or its application towards the payment of debts, have effect in relation to any increase payable under this Act as it has effect in relation to the pension in respect of which the increase is payable; but save as aforesaid any such increase shall not be treated as part of the pension for the purposes of any such provision as aforesaid. This Amendment is to secure that certain rights of the pensioner and of the pension authority attach to the increase in the same way as they attach to the original pension. As the Committee is aware, a great many Acts already deal with these things and it is convenient that these things should be brought together under one Sub-section, and that the various Acts dealing with them should be brought into relation with the new Act.

§ Sir J. Anderson
When Clause 3 was previously under discussion, a Debate arose on an Amendment moved, I think, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) the purpose of which was to secure special treatment by way of disregard for certain allowances payable in respect of war casualties. Owing to circumstances, of which the Committee is familiar, the business of the Com- 1487 mittee was interrupted in the course of the Debate on my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment and it was resumed after the interruption in conditions which did not—perhaps owing to my not having risen at the appropriate moment—secure a prolongation of that particular Debate. I think I owe it, therefore, to the Committee to say what the view of the Government would have been, had the Debate at that time been continued, in regard to the question raised by the Amendment.
When, in framing this Bill, I came to consider how other income of a pensioner affected by the Bill should be taken into account, I naturally looked, first, at such special items of income as war allowances which had been, on previous occasions, made the subject of special treatment. I found, as the result of investigation, that in the assessment for example of supplementary pensions, Assistance Board grants, and Service dependants' allowances, disablement pensions are made subject to disregard to the extent of £1 a week and no more. There is no question of a disregard exceeding £1 a week. I then had to consider other cases, such as workmen's compensation allowances and civil injury allowances and it seemed clear to me that they should be treated in the same way. Then there was the case of casual earnings by a pensioner which it is not desirable to discourage in war-time. It seemed to me that there was a case there, for a disregard and, in the end, I came to the conclusion that the simplest way to deal with the whole matter was to have a general and unqualified disregard of £1 a week.
It will be seen and realised by hon. Members that that disregard does, in effect, ensure that a pensioner who has a war pension of £1 a week or more, and no other income, gets £1 of that pension left out of account precisely in accordance with the decisions taken by Parliament in connection with the other matters to which I have referred. I can perfectly well understand the feeling that it would be desirable to mark out in a special way for this purpose, allowances of that sort which do, in fact, present special features. But I think that it will be clear to hon. Members, if they examine the matter, that a specific disregard, such as was asked for in the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend, cannot really be 1488 reconciled with a general disregard. The general disregard mops up the other and the two cannot be fitted in together. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment and those other hon. Members who supported him, will accept my explanation, and when I have made it clear that there was no purpose in my mind to go back on any special consideration, which this House might have been willing to give in other cases to the special allowances, that they will be content to agree 'to the Clause as it stands.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
As one of those who supported the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), I would like to add a few words. I admit it seems to me that a distinction can be drawn between disability and workmen's compensation pensions, but I would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his clear explanation of his reasons for adopting this general disregard, and for his explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the provisions of Clause I and Clause 2 in the Schedule. While I feel that disability pensions deserve different treatment, I must say that I, myself, am satisfied by the arguments the Chancellor has put forward in support of the Clause as it stands.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)
I think we should be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very clear exposition and the reasons he has given for not distinguishing between these different pensions, but I must say that, while I am satisfied with the explanation, I am not at all satisfied with the amount of the disregard—£50 a year. I hope that the evident readiness and good humour with which the Committee now accepts the Chancellor's explanation, will not harden his heart or sterilise his arteries when we come, later on, to discuss whether the disregard should be £50 or more.

§ Sir William Allen (Armagh)
I should like to refer to something which bears particularly on this point. When supporting my hon. and gallant Friend on the last occasion I raised the case of the disability pension of a soldier who was wounded in 1918, and a Royal Irish Constabulary pension in respect of 28 years' service. I think it would be reasonable to extend what has been granted to the long-service 1489 pensioner, in addition to his pension for disability, to the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary pension for 28 years' service. This pension has been curtailed by so much, and I think the pension ought to be disregarded. I would like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor to take that point into consideration.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I confess I find it very difficult to associate with the Measure which provides for supplementing a particular pension, a proposal that that pension should be disregarded. I do not understand how that can possibly be done. The long-service Royal Irish Constabulary pension which my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) has in mind, comes within the category of pensions to which additions will be made by this Bill. They differ in that respect from disability pensions for war service which are not touched by this Bill, and, therefore, the disregard of disability pensions, in common with other allowances which are not supplemented by this Bill, is a reasonable and logical course to take. Where you have a pension which itself is subject to supplement under this Bill, I really cannot see the point raised by my hon. Friend.

§ Sir W. Allen
Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that, when a Service pension is reduced, because of a disability pension, to £1 7s. 6d., this Bill ought to make provision to disregard the disability pension, so that a man with 28 years' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary should receive his pension in full, in addition to his disability pension?

§ Sir J. Anderson
Surely, the pensioners in whom my hon. and gallant Friend is interested are almost entirely pensioners at low rates who will get the fullest benefit under this Bill without any question of disregard arising in regard to it.