HC Deb 09 May 1951 vol 487 cc2101-5

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Judging from past experience, I am confident that a little time spent on this now may save a long time later. My hon. Friends from South Wales will remember that trouble started in the South Wales valleys many years ago and, later, spread throughout the country. It is very necessary to take every possible step to prevent a repetition of that now that so much good will has been created.

I have sat here throughout these proceedings and up to now I have not said a word, because I was so pleased with the changes that were made. I am confident, however, that many of the changes made will have to be watched carefully in the regulations. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends and the Committee will be tolerant even at this late hour in order that we can spend a little time on this matter. As I understand it, regulations will, first of all, be submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Then in the main they are finalised and put before the House, when they can be only accepted or rejected.

11.30 p.m.

There is a tremendous wealth of experience in this Committee which, in my view, ought to be brought to bear before the regulations are finalised. That brings me to the special plea which I want to make to the Minister. It is essential that the good will which has been developed in this Committee today shall reflect itself throughout the country, so that we may get the best results from the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it is more important than ever, that there should be the maximum of sympathetic administration, and that the regulations should be so drawn that they will conform to the atmosphere created in this Committee today.

I want to ask the Minister—and the Leader of the House will be interested in this—whether she will consider that the House should have an opportunity of spending three or four hours discussing the proposed regulations when they are drawn up, and before they are finalised. That would enable us to put forward suggestions with regard to the important principle of disregards which, I can assure the whole Committee, will be an important factor because of the effect of superannuation schemes upon this matter.

Then there will be the question of the different effects of various industries upon the physique of their employees. For instance, with regard to the industry from which I come, I cannot imagine many of the workers carrying on after they have reached the age of 65. They are as patriotic as any men in the country, but when a man has worked in an iron foundry and been subject to the dampness and dust for 50 years, it is asking a good deal to suggest that he should carry on for a longer period. But in spite of that, because of the atmosphere created throughout the country, they are prepared to give of their best; some of them will desire to carry on.

What I would ask is that the Minister should consider, when drawing up the regulations, that production of a medical certificate should be equivalent to a case of need, and that the person producing that certificate should be automatically entitled to benefit. Between now and the drawing up of the regulations, hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be going among their constituents. They will learn of a large number of ideas of this kind in their constituencies. It is important that they should be reflected in the House before the regulations are finally drawn, if we are to get the best from them. Will the Minister be prepared to consider that the House should have an opportunity to consider the regulations in the way I have suggested, before they are submitted in their final form?

Mr. Iain MacLeod

May I add a sentence or two in support of what has been said? When these regulations fall to be made, a preliminary draft will be submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and in due course a draft for affirmative Resolution will come before the House, having been approved, with or without modification, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. But the word "draft," in itself, is a misnomer, because the House has no more power to amend a draft regulation than it has to amend the regulations on which we sometimes, at peculiar hours of the night, put forward Prayers. I think that there is real substance in the point put forward by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). After all, if the Minister, on a matter like this, has very properly to consult the National Insurance Advisory Committee, I see no reason why she should not also consult this House upon matters on which there is a considerable fund of knowledge, and an immense fund of good will.

I do not pretend to offer a final method by which this can be done, but there is a possibility to which the right hon. Lady can turn her mind because I know she is receptive to suggestions. It is something she can turn over. Is it not possible, when these matters are put to the Advisory Committee, for a White Paper to be laid in the House, embodying the suggestions? Then, if, on a Thursday, sufficient pressure is brought to bear on the Leader of the House to agree that the matter is worthy of a half-day's consideration, we have a way by which opinion from both sides of the House might be collected and presented to the Minister before regulations are finally-made for the good of all the people we wish to serve.

Dr. Summerskill

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) ranged rather widely, and as you did not stop him, Sir Charles, I wondered if it would be in order for me to answer.

The Deputy-Chairman

I was about to stop the hon. Member when he concluded.

Dr. Summerskill

If I did as my hon. Friend suggests, we should have to ask the family doctor to decide whether a man or woman was fit for work. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that old age is a physiological, and not a pathological, condition. The doctor can examine a man and find his heart is normal, his blood pressure about average, his sight and hearing good, and yet that man will say, "I am sick to death of work." If a man says that, he should be allowed to retire. But that is subjective. There is no objective clinical diagnosis of old age; any lay person can diagnose senility, but old age is a different matter. In asking the family doctor, however nice and honest he is, there will be family pressure brought to bear and he may produce a certificate because he has known the man for many years. But in the next village, there will be another doctor who does not know the man, and he may very well decide differently.

So, we cannot ask the family doctor, and the alternative is a medical board. My hon. Friend knows about the industrial machine we operate, and it would be quite wrong to set up medical boards of doctors who cannot themselves be guided by certain symptoms. Then again, the old man or woman would have a grievance and say "I must appeal." As a result, we should have to set up medical appeal tribunals, and how much would that cost the nation? I know from personal knowledge that we have not the medical manpower. I am glad to have had the opportunity to mention this. There was an Amendment down about the matter, but it was withdrawn, and it is something which will go to many people throughout the country. Only the individual can say when he or she is sick of work. For most people, work is a habit. I have heard tonight that there are so many people wanting to get away from the hurly-burly of the factory and retire. But I think one acquires the habit of working and realises afterwards that one is only waiting for the inevitable. Then there is a desire to go back. So let us leave it to the old man or woman to decide what to do.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If a man retires at 65 as it has been decided that he is no longer fit to carry on, and he will not be penalised in any way, no one will be more delighted than I, if that is to be the position.

Dr. Summerskill

With regard to the regulations, it is suggested that I discuss these with the House before they are drafted. That is quite impracticable. I have been asked to expedite the business and that can only mean expediting the regulations as well. The House will have the right to pray against the Regulations——

Mr. Molson

Will it be by negative or affirmative Resolution?

Dr. Summerskill

The negative Resolution is sufficient. I ask the Committee, in view of the fact that I have been pressed to expedite the business, to let it go forward in the usual way.

Mr. Powell

I really think the right hon. Lady has exaggerated the unusualness of the step which was proposed. There is, in fact, a Bill of this Session under which regulations are to be made; and the draft regulations—not in the statutory sense of draft regulations but in the ordinary sense of a Parliamentary draft of regulations—have been presented to this House by the Minister concerned as a White Paper so that this is available for discussion while the Bill is going through the House. I would suggest to her that if she does wish to meet hon. Members on both sides in this matter she will find plenty of precedents.

Dr. Summerskill

I am prepared to consider the matter and I will inform the House accordingly on Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Molson

In view of the new policy announced by the Minister this evening I do not propose to move the new Clause standing in my name (Amendment of s. 20 of the principal Act). My hon. Friends and I will consider the matter further between now and the Report stage after we have seen the new Amendments which the right hon. Lady will be putting down.