§ 11.48 p.m
Sir J. MellonI beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 3rd December, 1945, entitled the Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Regulation's, 1943 (S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1655), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.I think it might be convenient to the House if I dealt also with the next Prayer, which relates to National Health Insurance, as they both concern the same Minister. Both the Regulations in question were made on 3rd December, but they were not presented to the House until 22nd January. Therefore, the primary purpose in moving the Prayer is to obtain an explanation with regard to the delay. 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance to explain one particular point arising from the last paragraph of the memorandum of explanation, which reads:It is a requirement (Treasury circular 13/44, paragraph 6) that printed copies of regulations shall be sent to the Select Commitiee at the same time that regulations are laid before Parliament. Were it not for this, the regulations could have been presented to Parliament in proof form, with manuscript completion, before Parliament rose.That is a Treasury circular, and therefore presumably it is not a statutory obligation. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Treasury have been asked to reconsider the terms of that circular, which appears to have been somewhat embarrassing. There is a further point I wish to raise with reference to Statutory Order No. 1644, to which the second Prayer relates. I asked a Question last week upon this Statutory Order. I asked the Minister of National Insurance:Why the National Health Insurance (Emergency Additional Benefits) Amendment Regulations, contained in Order No. 1644, were certified as urgent instead of being laid in the proper time so as to come into operation under the normal procedure?The Minister replied:The Regulations to which the hon. Member refers were required to be made urgently be- 336 cause owing to the. suspension valuations of approved societies during the emergency period, additional benefits and claims covering about 400,000 insured persons would otherwise have come to an end on 6th January, 1946. As the hon. Member will see the Regulations involve consultations with a number of authorities including the Ministers of Labour and Finance for Northern Ireland. By the date when the necessary provisions for making all Regulations were obtained there was not time before the 6th January to give the prescribed notice of the proposal to make the Regulations an.! it was accordingly necessary to make the Regulations to come into force at once as provisional Regulations.As I understand the position—I may have misunderstood it—it must have been known three years ago that the, additional benefits would come to an end on 6th January last unless steps were taken for an extension. Therefore I am afraid I cannot understand why, with such long notice, steps were not taken at a sufficiently early date to enable this Regulation to be made in the ordinary way instead of requiring certification by the Treasury that it was urgent. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain those two points in particular and the delay in general
§ Major Guy LloydI beg to second the ' Motion.
§ 11.53 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren)The explanation for the delay in laying the regulations is a simple one. It is unfortunate that the regulations, which had to be sent round, as Members will see from the signatures on them, to a number of persons to sign, were dated on the date on which they were first sent from the Ministry of National Insurance rather than on the date of the signature of the last person signing. In future we have arranged that the date of the regulation will, in fact, be the date upon which the last person signs. Therefore, it will obviate any possiblity of delay in that way for the future. At least, we hope it will. I think the House should be satisfied that will, in fact, get over the position. In so far as the last point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) is concerned, the point was overlooked arising from the consideration of the new Insurance Bill and the fact that, in connection with the additional benefits that are now applied within approved societies, the matter was under consideration. It should have been done 337 before, but—I hope the hon. Member will not come back at us for this—because of the heavy pressure upon the staff, it was overlooked, and we are sorry.
§ 11.54 P.m.
Mr. McKie (Galloway)1 am glad to hear the very candid admission which has been made regarding the oversight in the Department but I would like to say, in support of what my hon. Friend has just said, that I hope this will not become the rule. We on this side of the House have had considerable experience. In fact, the administration, speaking generally, is suffering now—
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not heard a single word so far.
Mr. McKieI am very sorry, Sir. I was saying that Members on the opposite side of the House are suffering, generally speaking, from sins of omission. I was particularly glad to hear this candid admission of failure on behalf of a Department to lay these Orders or regulations within the requisite time. I sincerely hope, with the hon. Member, that there will be considerable improvement in time to come. Unless there is improvement in this and all other Departments, the Executive of the day will find themselves in even more troubled waters in future than today. I am very glad to support what the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) said about this House being fully informed. I congratulate the Minister on being the first to have the courage to come down to the House and candidly admit that there has been a lack of informing the House in due time, and taking the House fully into the confidence of his Department. I congratulate him. [Laughter.] This is not a matter for laughter, and perhaps Members of the Executive, and hon. Members who support them, may have cause in the coming months to regret their mirth, frivolity and laughter on this occasion. I single out the Minister for praise in having the courage to come to the House and take the House fully, frankly and freely into his confidence and admit failure and defeat, because it is defeat. The House has not been treated with the full courtesy with which it might have been treated. We have not had one head of a Department which has been arraigned—and several Departments have been concerned—and I think
§ Mr. Pritt) (Hammersmith, Northrose—
§ Mr. PrittI was not apologising. wished to say that there were no heads among the people addressing us.
Mr. McKieIf all speakers, either on the Government or the Opposition Benches, needed to be heads of Departments in order to address this House, they ought to address you, Mr. Speaker, and I say that it ill befits the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to make apology for those on the Government Front Bench. The House, or Members on the Opposition side of the House, ought to have been treated with greater respect and courtesy, inasmuch as. we should have had one head of a Minis try present on the Treasury Bench to night to answer the very serious allegations which have been made. This is a general complaint, and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) made some very caustic criticisms and no- Minister was present to hear them. I do congratulate the Minister on having the courage to come down to the House and—
§ Mr. SpeakerI would remind the hon. Member that he has already said that-three times.
§ Sir J. MellorI beg to ask leave to with-draw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.