HC Deb 25 July 1946 vol 426 cc212-4
12. Mr. Tom Smith

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the substitution of family allowances for other forms of children's allowances, as from the date when family allowances start to be payable, will have the effect of reducing the amount at present being drawn by men with two or more children in receipt of children's allowances both under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and also under the Unemployment Insurance Act; and what action he proposes to take.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths)

Yes, Sir: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that with a view to avoiding reduction in the cases to which he refers, an arrangement has been made with the British Employers' Confederation covering the position of men who are or may become entitled to weekly payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in respect of an accident occurring before 6th August, 1946, the date when family allowances begin to be payable. The Confederation has undertaken to recommend to employers and their insurers that if, at any time after 6th August, such a man, while entitled to workmen's compensation payments, also draws unemployment benefit because he is capable of work but unable to find suitable employment, payment of supplementary allowances for children under the Workmen's Compensation Acts should be made in respect of any period during which he draws unemployment benefit.

Mr. Smith

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the importance of the reply, to give the widest publicity to it, in the hope that employers outside the Confederation may carry out its terms?

Mr. Griffiths

Yes, Sir. I have met a deputation from the Trades Union Congress, and in cooperation with them we shall make it known to the workers. The Employers' Confederation are also going to bring it to the attention of all employers, and we shall do our best to give it the widest publicity.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks

Will the right hon. Gentleman cooperate more closely with the Minister of Health in regard to this matter, because the same policy does not seem to be pursued by that Department?

41. Mr. Messer

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Circular 114/46, which directs that family allowances under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, must be taken into account in cases where the tuberculosis allowance is paid under Memo. 266/T, is penalising families of tubercular patients; and if he will reconsider this matter with a view to its modification.

42. Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks

asked the Minister of Health why he is reducing the allowances of beneficiaries under the pulmonary tuberculosis scheme by the amount of the beneficiary's receipts under the Family Allowances Act, 1945; and when he informed Parliament of his intention to deprive this section of the community of the advantage which the Family Allowances Act would otherwise have granted it.

Mr. Bevan

The point raised by my hon. Friends has had my fullest consideration. The tuberculosis allowances for children are, however, substantially more generous than family allowances, and if the latter were not taken into account the result would be a double payment for the same child, and would be inconsistent with the principles recently confirmed by this House in the National Insurance Bill.

Mr. Messer

Does this mean that in point of fact additional income will be coming into the homes of the fortunate as against the homes of the unfortunate?

Mr. Bevan

That is a consequence of the principles to which I have referred. There could be a question about the adequacy of the allowance itself. There cannot be, under the principles we have accepted, any question of duplication.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks

Does the Minister realise that this is imposing a serious hardship upon a very struggling section of the community, and will he explain, if there is justification for them to have the tuberculosis scheme allowance, how that justification is reduced when they have benefited in income with the rest of the people?

Mr. Bevan

There is no additional hardship imposed. The question that has been put is whether there ought to be duplication. I have said that the House has determined that there should not be duplication. If there is inadequacy of allowance, that is an entirely different position.