§ 40 and 41. Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of National Insurance (1) why disability pension drawn in respect of an unemployed man's dependants is deducted from unemployment benefit;
(2) why Mr. Broadbent, 5, Palace Hill, Scarborough, an unemployed registered disabled man, is only drawing 46s. a week whereas a non-disabled man would draw 49s. 6d. a week.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsAny dependency allowance which is payable under the National Insurance Act to a disability pensioner is, under the National Insurance (Overlapping Benefits) Provisional Regulations, 1948, adjusted by the amount of any similar dependency allowance which is payable with his disability pension. This is based on the principle that double payment should not be made for the same dependant. These regulations are at present being considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. SpearmanDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it is an anomaly that disabled Service men should receive less than non-disabled Service men?
§ Mr. GriffithsThis principle was laid down in the Beveridge Report, and has been accepted as the principle upon which the scheme works. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that these overlapping regulations work both ways. On the one hand, they make possible a duplication of benefits, and, on the other, they lay down that, for dependency, only one benefit shall be paid.
§ Mr. Quintin HoggCannot the Minister see to it that, without going outside the principles of no duplication, the larger of the two possible benefits is, in fact, always the one paid?
§ Mr. GriffithsThat is, in fact, provided for.
§ 42. Mr. John McKayasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is 1372 aware that prior to 5th July, 1948, an ex-Service man receiving a disablement pension with an allowance for his wife, received full National Insurance sickness benefit without any deduction and that now under the new Insurance Act his benefits are reduced by the amount of his wife's allowance in connection with his disability pension; and if he is prepared to consider amending the present Act so that such deductions from full sickness benefits will be abolished.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsI would refer my hon. Friend to the reply just given to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). The matter will come up for review when I receive the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I would, however, point out that as no dependency allowances were payable with sickness benefit before 5th July, no disability pensioner can be adversely affected by this adjustment.
§ Mr. McKayIs not the Minister aware that, while that is so, civilians, nevertheless, do get an increase of 16s. 0d., and that, arising out of this, many of these disabled men are, on occasions losing practically £2 or £3 a week in wages due to their disability? Does he not think that, taking those things into consideration, there should be some arrangement whereby those paying the same contribution draw the same benefit?
§ Mr. GriffithsI have already indicated that these regulations are being considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but the whole basis of the Act is that dependency shall only be met once out of these funds.
§ Mr. ChetwyndWill my right hon. Friend also consult the Minister of Pensions in these matters?
§ Mr. DribergCan my right hon. Friend say how often the National Insurance Advisory Committee report to him on these and other matters?
§ Mr. GriffithsVery often. All the regulations are placed before them. When they make their report, I have to publish it—I will publish a report on this—and, at the same time, I have to indicate whether I accept it or not. They meet very often, and give an excellent service to ourselves and the people concerned.