HC Deb 25 July 1946 vol 426 cc349-52

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 30, at end, insert: Provided that regulations tinder this Subsection providing for the forfeiture of benefit for any of the following matters, that is to say—

  1. (i) for failure to comply with the requirements of Subsection (4) of the said Section twenty-five;
  2. (ii) for failure to comply with the requirements of regulations under that Section relating to medical examination or treatment;
  3. (iii) for obstruction of or misconduct in connection with medical examination or treatment;

Mr. Lindgren

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

During the Report stage of the Bill, certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen quite rightly called attention to the fact that under these disqualifications, whilst power was given by the regulations, there was no maximum penalty. It was felt that the maximum penalty should be stated. Arrangements were made, and this Amendment does fix the maximum penalty at six weeks' disqualification.

Mr. Peake

This Amendment also is welcome to myself and my hon. Friends. In fact, it limits the time for which benefit may be forfeited for certain specific offences. The offences arc set out in the Amendment. They are, first, for failure to comply with the requirements of Clause 25, which is the Clause imposing upon a claimant on the fund the duty of doing everything in his power to promote his own recovery. Secondly, there is forfeiture for failure to comply with the requirements of regulations relating to medical examination or treatment. Thirdly, there is forfeiture for obstruction of, or misconduct in connection with, medical examination or treatment. In all those cases the Minister is, wisely I think, limiting the duration of forfeiture to the period of six weeks. However, I would draw the attention of the Minister to the effect of this Amendment. If he will look at Clause 32, Subsection (2) of which contains this power of forfeiture, after dealing with the power of forfeiture, the Clause goes on to provide that: Regulations may provide … for suspending proceedings on the claim or payment of benefit … in the case of any such failure, obstruction or misconduct. It, therefore, appears that while forfeiture of benefit is limited to a period of six weeks, there may be an absolutely indefinite suspension of the payment of benefit in these cases, and it seems to me that the suspension of payment is just as harsh a penalty upon the offending person as is forfeiture, because it means that there can in fact be suspension without any time limit. Therefore, although the Minister's Amendment goes a long way towards mitigating the harshness of the forfeiture Clause, it would appear that there remains a power of absolutely indefinite suspension. In that respect I must admit that the Minister's Amendment does not go as far as I and my hon. Friends would have wished.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I would like to say a few words in support of my right hon. Friend. I welcome the human side of this Amendment, in that it puts a strict time limit on the forfeiture of benefit. That is the kind of Amendment we expect from another place. I join with my right hon. Friend in saying that I am very concerned about the suspension of benefit. I do not know whether it is too late to deal with it, and I do not think the Minister himself would exercise this power badly, indeed, it may be necessary to have this power occasionally. But I say frankly, as an ordinary Conservative Member representing vast quantities of working men, that I feel I must raise my voice in protest against this suspension provision, which I very much dislike.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention, even at this stage, to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). The concession contained in the Amendment made in another place is, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, a concession which was urged upon him in the Standing Committee. It goes half way, but it still leaves open the question of the indefinite suspension of payment, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Now that the case made by a considerable number of Members of the Opposition in the Standing Committee has been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman so far as one category is concerned, I hope he will not overlook the other half of the case. The matter is a very substantial one, and may affect the interests of a great many injured men. Even at this stage of the Bill, I would, with very great respect, say to the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is so important that his Department ought to look into it.

Mr. Lindgren

May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the hon. Member, to the distinct difference between suspension and disqualification? Disqualification means that benefit is not payable. The Clause does allow for suspension of benefit—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Indefinitely.

Mr. Lindgren

No, not indefinitely, only until such time as the questions required to be answered are answered. And quite frankly, this House ought not to agree to the payment of benefit unless there were satisfactory proof, or satisfactory answers to the questions that were required to be answered. As soon as those matters are satisfactorily cleared up, although the benefit has been suspended, it is paid as from the date on which the applicant became entitled to it. So, if we have an argument with a man and information is required on certain matters, the benefit is suspended until he satisfactorily replies to those inquiries. As soon as a satisfactory reply has been given, the benefit is paid as from the date on which he became entitled to it. Disqualification is a penalty for an offence. Suspension is not an offence: it means delayed payment. That is what is to be covered by Regulation.

Mr. Peake

But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that suspension will never be indefinite in character?

Mr. Lindgren

Most certainly, Sir.