§ 2.28 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sorensen.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [THE LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Amendments as to benefit tinder Old Cases Act]:
§
LORD SORENSEN moved to add to the clause:
( ) In section 14(1) of the Old Cases Act, in the definition of pneumoconiosis ', after the word 'treated' there shall be inserted the words for the purposes of any scheme under section 2 or 5 of this Act'; and in section 14(2) of that Act for the words 'an allowance under the said section 2 or 5' there shall be substituted the words any such scheme'.
§ The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in the debate last week, referred to the fact that "old cases" constitute a very complicated question; and this is indeed so. As a matter of fact, the complications have been so intense that they have confused even the experts; and this takes some doing. In June of this year the Old Cases Act tidied up the "old cases" provisions in a way which I am sure was welcomed by all those concerned with workmen's compensation and industrial injuries matters. In the process, however, there was a slight error of drafting which could work to the disadvantage of certain claimants. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act 1967 provided that schemes in respect of "old cases" be extended, so that where the extent of disablement from pneumoconiosis or pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis would, if the man's physical condition were otherwise normal, be equal to 50 per cent. disablement, then the effects of emphysema and chronic bronchitis could be treated as if they were the 573 effects of the pneumoconiosis. This applies both to life and to death benefit claims. Unfortunately, the word "allowance" was used when this provision came up to be consolidated, and since a lump sum is payable by way of benefit in death cases, in line with the Workmen's Compensation provisions, and not a continuing pension or allowance, death cases are excluded. The Amendment remedies this. Very few widows are likely to be affected, but it is clearly wrong that a subsequent drafting error should deprive any widow of the benefit which Parliament intended she should have when the Amendment Act was passed. I there-
§ Amendment moved—
§
fore beg to move.
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Sorensen.)
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I am sure we are indebted to the vigilance of the Ministry for having spotted this slight error. Of all the parts of legislation that had to be dealt with in the Ministry of National Insurance (as it was), I remember that by far the most complicated and difficult was this particular area. Therefore we shall certainly not hold it against the Ministry in any way that there was a slight oversight in this matter. I am glad that it has been put right.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Supplementary schemes—setoff of overpayments]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNOn Second Reading I asked whether an explanation could be given of the meaning of this clause. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give it now. If he is not, perhaps he will write to me and explain it. Perhaps this way of legislating is an extraordinary one, but this again is a very complicated field. I do not suppose that many of your Lordships would be wiser if you were given the explanation, but I might be.
§ LORD SORENSENMay I assure the noble Lord that I was about to write 574 to him on this matter, and he will have all the information very shortly.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ 2.33 p.m.
§ Clause 5 [Temporary power to increase family allowances by order]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI think I ought to say a word about this clause. It is really very unfortunate, I think, that we are having to pass legislation of the character of that in Clause 5 without any knowledge whatsoever of the type of scheme that is to be proposed, and which is to be proposed, as we understand it, in the course of next week and set out later in an Order subject to a Negative Resolution Procedure, an Order which will probably be brought into effect before the House has any chance of negativing it. This is, I think, the effect, because if this provision is to be subject to a Negative Resolution, the House will probably not resume in time for a Prayer to be made against it. In any case, it would be a very tight run thing. It seems to me that it is not a very happy way of legislating, particularly when, as I understand it, a great deal of money indeed is involved.
It was the noble Lord himself who, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, gave me an indication of the kind of sums involved. There has been some indication that this Order may affect third and fourth and subsequent children. As I understand it, for every shilling of increase there is upwards of £4¼ million involved for all third children; and about £2¾ million, for every shilling of increase for the fourth and subsequent children. So if it is confined to only third and subsequent children, the amount of money is very considerable indeed; and to proceed by an Order subject to Negative Resolution procedure really is not a satisfactory way, when the House may not have an opportunity of considering the Order but only the bare statement that is to be made next week. I think it would be quite wrong if a protest on this matter were not made.
In view of the fact that the Report, on which, no doubt, the measure which the Government are going to introduce was based, was made some weeks ago, it is 575 very difficult to see why a decision could not have been reached in time for the whole of this matter to be considered in the context of the National insurance Bill, and indeed of the Order with which we are now dealing. I feel bound to make that protest at this point, although, of course, we would not oppose this particular clause at this stage.
§ LORD SORENSENMay I assure the noble Lord that I fully appreciate his concern on this matter, but mine is "not to reason why". I will see that his admonitions are passed on to the right quarter, and I hope they will be fully considered.
§ Clause 5 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
§ Schedule 4 [Further Amendments of Insurance Act]:
§ On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI asked, again on Second Reading, whether I could have an explanation of paragraphs l and 4 of this Schedule, which do not perhaps cover a great number of people. The sickness benefit provision, however, certainly covers a very great number—millions in a year. Paragraph4—on child's special allowance, alternative condition of entitlement—is the other paragraph I referred to. I beg your Lordships' pardon: I mean paragraph 3, dealing with retirement pensions of certain widows. I asked about this. Again, if the noble Lord would prefer to write to me I should be glad if he would do so, so that we can perhaps pursue this matter at a later time. It is not one's intention to amend this Schedule, but it is unfortunate that there is no explanation of these particular measures, small as they are, in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill or in the White Paper that accompanied the Bill.
§ LORD SORENSENMay I assure the noble Lord again that these matters are well borne in mind, and I will see that he gets all the information he is asking for.
§ Schedule 4 agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedules agreed to.
576§ House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.
§ Then, Standing Order No. 41 having being suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), the Report received: Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.