HC Deb 12 July 1950 vol 477 cc1491-500

9.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor)

I beg to move, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved. Briefly I would remind the House that the Industrial Injuries Act gives the right to any representative body of insured persons and their employers to submit to the Minister for approval a scheme for supplementing their benefits under the Act, provided that no part of the fund required for the scheme is derived from moneys provided by Parliament. The only such scheme in operation at present is the colliery workers' scheme which came into operation on 2nd August, 1948.

Under the scheme injury benefit, disablement benefit and death benefit, which are paid under the Industrial Injuries Act as a result of accidents at work or industrial diseases, are supplemented from a special fund formed by contributions from the National Coal Board and the colliery workers. The scheme itself is administered by a national committee representing both sides of the industry. The Board and my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance act as paying agents.

As a result of experience of the working of the scheme during the past nearly two years some slight amendments have been thought desirable and it is for these that I am asking the approval of the House tonight. The amendments relate to four matters which I will briefly put before the House. First, when industrial disablement pensioners have to go into hospital as a result of their accident or disease their disablement benefit is increased under the Act to the 100 per cent rate whilst they are in hospital. It is now proposed that in those circumstances the colliery workers' supplement should also be raised in proportion. This, I may say was the original intention of the national committee responsible for the scheme, and the amendment will achieve that intention.

Secondly, at present the scheme provides for payment of the supplementary benefits to be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister as agent, except when the beneficiary is in insurable employment or during short spells of unemployment when payment is made by the National Coal Board. The amending Order which is before the House tonight provides more elasticity in the accounting procedure and enables any supplementary benefit payable by the Minister to be paid by the Board and vice versa. I would emphasise at this point that the money paid comes from the scheme's own fund and not from the Industrial Injuries Fund.

Thirdly, while the beneficiary is in insurable employment, his supplementary benefit, after the first three months, may depend upon his pre-accident earnings. Hitherto the minimum rate for the purpose of the scheme has been £5 15s a week for underground workers and £5 a week for surface workers. Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the Order now before the House adds a list of rates for juvenile workers and females. Fourthly, the last Amendment in the First Schedule slightly extends the classes of securities in which the National Committee may invest money forming part of the fund established by the scheme. The preceding Amendment in the same Schedule will enable the national committee to retain any security notwithstanding that since the investment was made it has ceased to be an authorised security.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the additional cost of the Amendments of this Order is estimated at less than £10,000 a year and can be met out of the existing rates of contribution under the scheme without extra cost to the industry.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South)

I do not think it is necessary that we should say much upon this Order tonight for, as the hon. Member has explained, it is only an amending Order dealing with four specific points. I do not think it should be necessary for us to debate it at any length. We debated the original Order bringing in the scheme on a night, two years ago, which was almost equally hot and in a debate in which some heat was engendered. I do not think it will be necessary to engender it again this evening.

There are a few points, however, to which I desire to draw the attention of the House and which I desire to make. The first point is with regard to the form of this Order. I suggest that it is not at all easy for any one picking up this Order, with its long list of amendments set out in the First Schedule and long list of additional provisions set out in the Second Schedule, to see precisely what is the effect of this amending Order, or at least to determine that without a very great expenditure of time. On more than one occasion recently the Attorney-General has stressed in this House the need for consolidating our Statute law. I think there is, too, a great need for the consolidation of regulations where those regulations create a scheme which is intended to be permanent in its operation.

I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if further amendments have to be made to the scheme, opportunity should be taken to consolidate all the Orders relating to the scheme in one Order so that a person can take it, study it, and find it all there. This scheme, after all, affects a large number of people who are not lawyers and who will find it even more difficult than will lawyers to work out these different Orders. If that cannot be done, however, if it is impossible to have a consolidating regulation of that sort, I suggest that at least we might adopt the practice which has been adopted in some Bills of setting out in a Third Schedule the whole scheme as amended. That is a very convenient practice for every one and I am sure it would facilitate the work of hon. Members if it could be followed in relation to Orders of this character. That is the first point I wish to make; I do not think it is an unimportant point and I hope that when the hon. Gentleman replies or when the right hon. Lady speaks, if she is to speak on this—that he will say that full consideration will be given to that point and an endeavour made to meet it in the future.

This, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is the only scheme so far made under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act. That section was included in the Act largely as a result of pressure from this side of the House. Members may remember that a new Clause was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peak e) largely to the effect of Section 83. I mention that because I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are not opposed to proper contributory supplementary schemes. Indeed, we recognize the necessity for them. It is, I think, somewhat sad to think back over these last two years and recall that, in spite of what was said in 1948 when this particular scheme was being introduced, no further scheme for any other industry has been approved by the Minister of National Insurance.

Of course, the risks of injury and accident vary in every industry. I am sure we all hope that the risks in the mining industry will continuously grow less. However, when an injury is suffered—when a leg is lost—the need may be the same irrespective of the industry in which the man was engaged. When a death occurs in an industry the need of the widow may be the same whether the man was employed in the coal mines, on the railways, or in any other industry: and the need for supplementary schemes was recognised when the Act was passed.

This Amendment which the Order makes, so far as it increases benefits, is, I recognise, very limited, but all the same desirable. I should like to make it clear that we do not object at all to that Amendment, but it must be recognised that one result of this supplementary scheme is to create some disparity in respect of payment for injuries. The scheme itself results in considerably increased injury benefits for those who suffer some loss in that industry. A railway man losing a leg while shunting will get less than the surface worker at the mines because of the supplementary scheme.

I mention that because I think it does emphasise the desirability of further supplementary schemes, and I do hope that when the right hon. Lady replies—if she does reply—she will be able to tell us that what was said by the Government in 1948, as to this being the first scheme to be introduced, will be carried out, and that we shall soon have an opportunity of considering proper contributory schemes for supplementary benefits in relation to other nationalised industries in addition to this relating to the coal industry

Mr. Murray (Durham, North-West)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is the trade unions who put forward schemes, and that it is the Minister who puts them into operation? He said that the Minister is responsible for other schemes

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I will deal with that point. I was very careful not to attack—I do not want to attack—the trade unions and I made no attack on the Minister. What I am seeking to emphasise is the desirability of other supplementary schemes, which we considered were desirable when the Act was Passed.

It may be—I do not know—that the hon. Gentleman may know more than I do, and that more of these schemes have been proposed by both sides of other industries. Of course, they cannot come before this House until they have received the approval of the Minister. It may be—I do not know—that the Minister has on some occasions not given approval but whether the Minister has given approval or not, all I am suggesting is that, although no statutory power is conferred upon the Minister of initiating such schemes, at least the Minister might perhaps give a hint that such schemes would be favourably regarded.

10.11 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister, to the National Coal Board and to the Miners' Union upon being the first to have a special scheme for augmenting disability pensions, and also upon the modest improvements in the scheme which are contained in this Order. Reference to the table of wages indicates that the scheme continues to include a wage test, and this I very deeply regret, not oil any political ground—that is not what is in my mind—but because a very genuine attempt was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), in which I was associated with him, to try to remove from the method of paying compensation for industrial injuries any test by means.

The objection to such a test is that it places a handicap or an inhibition upon the disabled person encouraging him to consider whether it is really worth while doing his best and working as hard as he can, because the more he does the less he gets. Since incentive to overcome a handicap is tremendously important—even more important with handicapped people than with others—I think it is a mistake in any disability scheme to have a scaling off which has the effect of making a person think twice before he goes out and overcomes the tremendous difficulties of getting a job and staying in the job with his disability. Because the scheme does not amend that but rather confirms it, I regret it.

I have only one other point. I am glad that the Minister is taking wider powers of investment for the National Committee. It would indeed be unfortunate for the Miners' Disability Fund were they compelled to invest in Government securities alone. I am glad that they are able to buy preference stock and ordinary stock, and that a test of profitability is not merely allowable but advised, so that the men who manage this National Committee may choose good stocks in private companies which have paid dividends for 10 years or more. I am glad that they should have the wise common sense to regard such investments as good ones for such funds.

For my part I support this Order. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Further schemes of this kind, which will continue to raise levels of compensations that are paid to persons who are disabled in industry, and thus raise levels generally in this field, will always receive my warm support, and, so far as I at any rate am concerned, a warm welcome.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

The Parliamentary Secretary has explained this Order very clearly, and I am sure the whole House welcomed it. The point I wish to make is a special one. I am very conscious of the fact that it is very difficult to criticise in any way an Order which has been so fully agreed between the parties, but, all the same, I think this is a point that might be worth while bearing in mind for any future amendments to this particular Order, and also as regards future Orders of this type.

It may be that I am wrong in my interpretation of this Order, and, if so, I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. In the case of an accident to a child or a young person, the courts, in awarding damages, generally take into account the expectation of life of that person. I understand that under this Order the benefit to be paid to a juvenile who is injured is to be related to his earnings at the time of the injury. Is it then the case that if a juvenile is so injured as to carry an injury through life, or possibly be disabled through life, he is always to receive benefit related to his earnings as a juvenile? If that is so, it seems to me that that is a defect in the scheme.

He has, after all, been injured in the course of working in the mines, just like anybody of adult age, and it seems to me that it is wrong that a miner who is a juvenile should be less well treated merely because the injury happened to occur before he reached adult age. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with this point, and, indeed, I hope that it will be considered in the future. I feel that it is more than likely that Members of this House will at some time receive representations from those who may have received injuries when they were being paid as juveniles, and yet have to carry that injury through life, and who, nevertheless, will only receive benefit in relation to their juvenile pay. I hope that I have made this point plain. It does seem to me to be one of considerable substance, and I hope that it will receive the consideration of the Minister.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod (Enfield, West)

It is, I think, an interesting commentary on the declining bitterness in this field that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), put forward a very similar thesis to the one which he advanced on the main Regulations when they were adopted two years ago, when he was threatened, if I remember rightly, with being thrown into the river for what he said. I think that the House will agree with what he put forward tonight—that the essential factor is not the craft that the person is employed in, or the industry, but the need of the family. It is that which we must have in mind when we consider these Regulations.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary two brief questions? The first has been covered already, but I should like to know what other schemes, if any, are in train and are before his Ministry for approval. Secondly, he mentioned the figure of £10,000 as the cost of these amendments. May I ask him: £10,000 in relation to what sum? In other words, since this scheme came in we are paying roughly five-sixths of the cost as taxpayers. May we know what the cost of the scheme so far has been?

10.20 p.m.

Mr. B. Taylor

May I express gratitude on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself for the great welcome that has been given to this Order which makes decided improvements so far as the disabled are concerned. Two main points were suggested—important points—by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first was in regard to the consolidation of these Orders and the form in which they are presented. All I can say on that is that this point has been mentioned on many occasions in this House, and due note will no doubt be taken of it. On the other point, regarding the disadvantage to other workers in other industries which have not supplementary schemes, that is a responsibility, as I pointed out in my speech, resting upon the shoulders of the insured persons and their employers.

May I say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that she will welcome any industrial workers and their employers submitting supplementary schemes for her approval under the Industrial Injuries Act? It is the case that at least 50 per cent. of the accidents that take place occur in the mining industry. That is the reason, I believe, why the National Coal Board and the colliery workers, represented by the National Union of Mineworkers, were so quick in taking advantage of Section 83 of the Industrial Injuries Act to bring forward a supplementary scheme.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Can we be told whether or not the Minister has refused to approve a scheme?

Mr. Speaker

I would point out that we are discussing only what is contained in this Order and not what might have happened in the case of other industries.

Mr. Taylor

As far as I know, no other schemes have been submitted. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) raised an important point. I think he was confusing the supplementary scheme with the Act itself. The main point of the Act is to get away from the old Workman's Compensation Act, where compensation payments were related to earnings. Under this Act compensation payments to juveniles and adults are related to the degree of disability, which is assessed by the medical hoards. The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) made the same point as the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, by asking whether any other supplementary schemes have been submitted. As I have said, so far as I know none have been submitted. In conclusion, I would repeat that we will welcome any supplementary scheme that may be presented.

Mr. N. Macpherson

Surely the purpose of the supplementary payment is to bring the total payment up to a certain level. That being so, the basic payment forms only part of the payment. This Order relates payments specifically to earnings, and in that way differs from industrial insurance.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has already spoken.

Mr. Macpherson

I was only asking a question.

Mr. Taylor

The answer is that under the supplementary scheme we are discussing during the first three months, there is entitlement to supplementary payment. After that period of time, the supplementary payments have relation to pre-accident and post-accident earnings.

Mr. Iain MacLeod

Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Taylor

I have not the full assessment of the costs, but I will try to find out and let the hon. Member know.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, he approved.

    c1500
  1. NATIONAL INSURANCE (SEASONAL WORKERS) 25 words