NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS). (Hansard, 2 September 1939)

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to national health insurance as respects the period of the present emergency, and to amend the law relating to widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions as respects that period and as respects provisions against double pensions. The main object of this Bill is to secure that persons insured under the scheme of National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions do not suffer any loss of rights under those schemes by reason of joining the Armed Forces of the Crown or entering upon war occupations. The Insurance Acts do not run outside the United Kingdom at present, whereas persons entering upon war occupations might find themselves working outside the United Kingdom. For that and other reasons, it 273 is desirable to make certain that their rights are preserved. The Bill provides, in effect, that on return to civil life all such persons will find themselves in the same position as if they had been continuously in insurable employment throughout their period of service or war occupation. There is a further provision in the Bill dealing with the adjustment of Health Insurance benefits and Contributory Pensions to payments which are made in respect of war injuries or pensions paid in respect of death due to war. In effect, the Bill merely secures that double payments from public funds are not made in respect of the same event, and the approved societies are safeguarded against having to make payments for which no financial provision is made in the scheme of National Health Insurance.
There are further provisions to the effect that insured persons will be able to secure payment of benefits or pension although the records affecting their title may not be available when the claim arises, due to the possible destruction of records as a result of the war. Therefore, a provision is made in the Bill which, to put it in a few phrases, enables the Minister to carry on, make payments, and afterwards look into it and see whether he was right in doing so. I think those three sets of provisions are all provisions which the House as a whole will agree it is desirable to make.

§ Mr. David Grenfell
This Bill is not believed by hon. Members on this side of the House to be controversial. The hurried introduction of the Bill has prevented us from making a full examination of its details. We accept it in good faith because we observe that the purpose is to give safeguards and protection to people who, in emergency conditions, will have to change their occupations or change their position in life. In the first instance, it is provided that men who may take up an occupation abroad and who at present would be disqualified from participation in the National Health Insurance scheme and Contributory Pensions are to be given entry into the insurance schemes. Contributions will be made payable on their behalf by their employers for whom they work abroad, and they will not be required themselves to make any contribution. That is a very valuable provision for the workpeople 274 who are called upon to undertake national work from time to time. Secondly, there is a provision by which workpeople will be required to make the ordinary contributions of 3d. and 2 ½ d. to maintain their insurance benefits. That is not new, but it does apply to a very large number of people who will take up employment for war purposes in this country. On the last two Bills, I shared the apprehensions of hon. Members on this side regarding the full effect of those two pieces of legislation. I see nothing that would lead us to suspect any breakdown in the administration of the proposals of this Bill, and I am required, on behalf of hon. Members on this side not to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall examine it again before the final stages are taken to-morrow.

§ Mr. Foot
As the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has said, this is a Bill which, as far as its main purposes are concerned, we all welcome. There are three points on which I think some further explanation is needed. First, in Clause 6, Sub-section (2), there is provision for the sort of scheme which we discussed on the last Bill but one, regarding personal injuries in case of war, and under which scheme the decision is to be made by the Minister of Pensions as to whether the injury does or does not come within the scheme. In this case also, the decision of the Minister is to be final. It seems to me that there should be some appeal from the Minister in this matter, which will be of great importance to the people concerned, and my hon. Friends and I propose to move an Amendment tomorrow to the effect that it should be possible to appeal from the Minister in these cases to the pensions appeal tribunal already set up under the Act of 1919. Secondly, I think some information should be given to the House as to the scale of war pensions which is envisaged. The Bill states that where a dependant's war pension is less than the pension under the Contributory Pensions Act, the amount shall be made up. One would suppose from those words that the scale of pensions intended is less than the present scale under the Contributory Pensions Act. If not, it is difficult to see what those words mean and we ought to have some assurance on that point. My third point is this. In Clause 14, Sub-section (3), there is a provision 275 against drawing an old age pension and also a dependant's allowance under this Act. In particular, I call attention to the words not being a pension in respect of the service of the pensioner's son or stepson in the late War. The existing law as regards people who lost sons or stepsons in the late War, is that they can draw their pensions under the Contributory Pensions Act and also dependant's allowance in respect of the son or stepson lost in the War. In that case, at present, we allow two pensions to be drawn. As I read this Clause the same terms are not proposed in this case. In this case it is proposed that, if a man or woman gets a dependant's pension in respect of a son or stepson lost in a coming war, the old age pension of that person will be scaled down in accordance with the terms set out in the Bill. Some explanation ought to be given of this new departure. Why is it proposed to give worse terms in the case of old age pensioners who lose sons or stepsons in a coming war, than was given to old age pensioners who lost sons or stepsons in the late War? We shall put down an Amendment on this point to-morrow and I hope that some explanation will be forthcoming.

§ Mr. E. Smith
Arising out of our experiences in these matters I feel it necessary that some observations should be made on this Bill. It may be said that individuals should be aware of their responsibilities but thousands, nay millions of our people, may become involved in a situation in which it will be impossible for them to remember that they are responsible for taking steps to maintain their insurance rights. Clause 10 of the Bill states: Regulations of the Minister may authorise the payment, during the period of the present emergency and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, of any benefit under the Insurance Acts without the question being determined whether the statutory conditions governing the right to that benefit have been complied with. This will be very important to millions of men and women affected by this legislation. It is essential that they should have adequate safeguards, and should be made aware of their own responsibilities. I would make this plea to the Minister, that no individual should be left with any 276 excuse for not being aware of his or her responsibility. I would ask, in the first place, for an assurance that these regulations will be in language as clear and simple as possible.

§ Sir Henry Morris-Jones
On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is necessary at this hour to draw the blinds. It deprives us of air in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)
I think it is a thing we must put up with.

§ Mr. E. Smith
I was appealing to the Minister to frame these regulations as clearly and simply as possible. I would also ask that notification should be given to individuals of their responsibility with regard to the statutory obligations involved in these regulations. I suggest that these notices should be sent out in the same way as Income Tax notices are sent out at present. Under the Income Tax administration, a first notice is sent out, which is very often followed by a second and then by a third and final notice. Those of us who have had experience in connection with approved societies know how serious this issue is to all concerned, and in this matter I am making an appeal on behalf of the poor people of this country who may be living under conditions in which they will not remember their individual responsibility. Just as several notices are sent out in regard to Income Tax, so I suggest that at least two notices should be sent to the individuals concerned in this matter, reminding them of the necessity of taking steps to maintain their insurance and pension rights. Approved societies should be instructed to issue notices and then if the individuals so notified do not carry out their responsibility, a second notice should be issued giving them sufficient time to fulfil their obligations under the regulations and maintain their insurance and pension rights.

§ Mr. Elliot
These are points which will obviously arise on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I assure the hon. Members that I have taken a careful note of them.