New Clause No. 15.—(POWER OF INDUS- TRIAL ASSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO EXEMPT NORTHERN IRISH COLLECTING SOCIETIES FROM PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE ACTS 1923 TO 1958.) (Hansard, 12 July 1967)

§ Mr. Darling
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
With this I think that it will be convenient to discuss the Government Amendment No. 270.

§ Mr. Darling
That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which is the new Clause mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) when he said that he had been in touch with the Friendly Societies' Commissioner, or whoever it was, who said that he knew nothing about it.
Here again, we are trying to do good and being attacked for doing it. We 848 discovered—I do not know whether I ought to apologise for the fact that we discovered it at the last moment—that by making it clear that friendly societies registered in Northern Ireland could do business in this country and that friendly societies registered in this country could do business in Northern Ireland, which everybody accepted as being desirable, because, Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom, we did not want to put any obstacles in the way of business between the two—I ought not to say between the two countries, but between the Province of Northern Ireland and Great Britain—we were likely to create a dual obligation which could be serious.
What we are doing is to exempt a Northern Ireland society from any of the provisions of the Industrial Assurance Acts where we are satisfied that the legislation in Northern Ireland renders it unnecessary for a particular provision of those Acts to apply. So far as I know, there are no examples of a Northern Irish society carrying on, or planning to carry on, business in Britain, but if it did, it would have to make a £20,000 deposit here, unless we make this alteration, as well as make a deposit in Northern Ireland, and we think that to be unnecessary.
A Northern Ireland society might like to do business in Great Britain and if it were a company just starting up an extra £20,000 could be quite a burden for it. We do not want to do anything which would impose a dual burden as a result of registration in Northern Ireland rather than registration in this country, or the other way round, and I am sure that our attempt to do good, now that I have explained it, will be acceptable even to the hon. Member for the City of Chester.

§ Mr. Corfield
There is one matter which puzzles me. I do not know whether this is a matter of Celtic solidarity, but when we are dealing with Northern Ireland companies why does there have to be a publication in the Edinburgh Gazette? That seems very strange.

§ Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said about companies in Northern Ireland and about Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom, which seems a particularly appropriate 849 comment today when, in Northern Ireland, we are celebrating the Battle of the Boyne. It is unfortunate that this new Clause, which seems to be important, should have been introduced at the last minute, without warning. Because of the celebrations, none of my colleagues is with me in the House today and we have not had time to study the Clause and its effects and, if necessary, to put down Amendments to it.
What does the right hon. Gentleman think its effects are likely to be? Is it possible that societies registered in Northern Ireland will be able to expand their business in Britain for their benefit, and is it possible, under the Government's location of offices policy, for new companies to set up in Northern Ireland, perhaps to help to relieve the unemployment situation there, and carry out and expand a business in Britain as a whole? What research has gone into this matter and who initiated this Clause at this late date? How many societies are affected by it and what is their status?

§ Mr. Peyton
Even on a day like this, someone from this side of the House should say that to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying at the Dispatch Box that he was trying to do good and being attacked for doing so has moved at any rate some of my hon. Friends and certainly myself almost to tears.
I was so sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should feel so pained. I am bound to say that I thought that he must be wrong, because no one would possibly wish to attack him. Certainly, it was not within the bounds of my imagination that anyone would attack him for having chosen the anniversary of the Battle of Boyne and the triumph of King "Billy" as the day on which to introduce this new Clause.
There is no limit to human ingratitude. However, I am always ready to take advantage of any opportunity to offer a gesture of sympathy to right hon. Gentlemen who are members of this Administration. The opportunities are not always freely given and I had better seize this one.

§ Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)
The right hon. Gentleman was at pains to emphasise that he wished 850 to avoid the duality of responsibility, but he was not at all explicit. In fact, according to my recollection, he did not cover this point at all. He was not clear that there would not be a diminution of stringency regarding friendly societies based in Northern Ireland and operating in this country. I take the point that one should not increase the stringency of any provisions, but the converse to that is that there should be no diminution.

§ Mr. Temple
Even at this late stage, it is surprising to find fresh hares popping up. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will be most interested in this coursing analogy.
I am filled with a certain amount of alarm. I have been studying the Bill for many months and I believe that we shall study it on the Report stage for some time. There seems to be no limit to the number of new Clauses which can be found by the Government at this extremely late stage.
The Government admit that they only discovered this point a day or two ago. I have a letter from the Secretary of the British Insurance Association stating that he consulted the Secretary of the Industrial Life Offices' Association and that he was unaware yesterday of new Clause No. 15. He got going very quickly indeed and sent me a brief, which I received about 15 minutes before the Report stage started. The brief is entirely in agreement with the brief which the right hon. Gentleman has delivered to the House. There seems to be agreement behind the scenes on the advisability of a Clause of this nature.
Although the hare has only sprung up at this moment, it is obviously a pedigree animal, and, therefore, we can recommend the House to accept the new Clause. However, I will give a warning. If the Report stage is protracted, one cannot anticipate what may turn up as a starred Amendment before this stage is finished.

§ Sir J. Foster
There is a theoretical gap. If the Northern Ireland Legislature were to revoke one of the provisions, there would be a gap of four weeks.

§ Mr. Darling
That may be so. I should like to look at that; I cannot answer the point off the cuff.
851 I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) here, but I do not understand why he should be There are no Northern Ireland societies operating in Britain, but this is something that we would like to see developed. If we can establish any insurance offices in Ireland and do anything to persuade them to go there, the hon. Gentleman knows that we shall do our best. At the moment so far as I know there is none. But if any were to start up, we do not want them to start with the financial handicap that they would have to face if the Clause were not accepted.

§ Mr. McMaster
We are most grateful for this provision, but there is one point that troubles me. If, under subsection (2), an Order is made, what happens to the outstanding business which has been done?

§ Mr. Darling
The contract must be honoured. There are provisions for the insurance commissioner to make sure that the contracts are carried out.