HC Deb 25 July 1946 vol 426 cc348-9

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 40, leave out Subsection (1) and insert: (1)Except where regulations otherwise provide a person shall be disqualified for receiving any benefit, and an increase of benefit shall not be payable in respect of any person as the beneficiary's wife or husband, for any period during which that person—

  1. (a) is absent from Great Britain; or
  2. (b) is undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment or detention in legal custody;
and regulations may provide for the suspension of payment to or in respect of any person during any such period as aforesaid of benefit which is excepted from the operation of the foregoing provisions of this Subsection or which is payable otherwise than in respect of that period

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Here again, the effect of this Amendment is to bring the Industrial Injuries Bill into line with the National Insurance Bill.

945 p.m.

Mr. Peake

This matter is not quite so simple as the right hon. Gentleman has made out. Under the Bill as it originally stood, dependants of a beneficiary could be disqualified by regulations from the receipt of allowances where the wife or husband was permanently or temporarily resident outside Great Britain. There had to be residence outside Great Britain before disqualification arose. The Amendment from another place provides a rather more severe test for dependent relatives. In fact, it provides that there may be disqualification for the dependent's allowance for any period during which the husband or wife is absent from Great Britain; that is to say, if the husband or wife of the beneficiary under this Bill, somebody who has met with an industrial accident, goes abroad for a fortnight to spend a holiday at Ostend, or somewhere else on the Continent, the dependent's allowance cannot be drawn during that period. I think myself that is a sensible provision. However, the House should appreciate that it goes very much farther than the original provision in the Bill, where the test of residence was applied.

It is clear, under the Amendment, that if the husband or wife of a beneficiary goes overseas, even on a temporary visit, no dependant's allowance will be drawn. What is the position as regards other adult dependants? It would clearly be wrong to disqualify a husband or wife, in these circumstances, while permitting an uncle, an aunt, a niece or a nephew to continue to draw the dependant's allowance. This Amendment is limited to the case of the husband or wife. I would like an assurance from the Minister, that so far as other adult dependants are concerned a similar test will be applied. I think it can be applied by means of regulations to be made under Clause 18 (1, c). Would the Minister give me an assurance to that effect?

Mr. J. Griffiths

Yes, I will do so at once. We can do it under Clause 18. Clearly we ought to apply the same test to both.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry. ]