HC Deb 30 May 1951 vol 488 cc227-33

Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section fifty-nine of the principal Act shall be repealed and the following paragraph substituted therefor:— (a) for excepting a woman, if she so elects or if she does not elect otherwise (as may be provided by the regulations)—

  1. (i) from insurance during any period during which she is married to an insured contributor and is a non-employed person;
  2. (ii) from liability to pay contributions as an insured person for any period during which she is married to an insured contributor, and is not excepted from insurance."—[Mr. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause is designed to remedy a gap which there appears to be in the National Insurance scheme. Hon. Members will recollect that in the 1946 Act it was the aim of Parliament that all persons should be eligible for insurance and in due course benefit under the Act. Section 1 of the Act states: …every person who on or after the appointed day, being over a school leaving age and under pensionable age, is in Great Britain…shall become insured under this Act and thereafter continue throughout his life to be so insured. It appears that there are certain cases of married women who are excluded from this insurance. If they are married and their husbands are not within the jurisdiction and therefore cannot be insured contributors, it would appear that these married women are, under the regulations and under the Act, ineligible for insurance and benefit. I am quite sure that neither the Minister nor any other hon. Member would like that to happen.

I think that the best way I can explain the position is to give an instance of a constituent of mine who is in this category. She is a Mrs. Edgar. She has a husband who has for many years been working in Central America and therefore cannot be an insured contributor. Shortly before the appointed day, she went to her local office of the Ministry of National Insurance and asked whether she could contribute as a non-employed person, as she is a married woman looking after her family. She was told that she could contribute the 3s. 8d. per week. From the appointed day in 1948 until 12th April of this year she made her contributions in the full and confident belief that she was eligible under the Act.

On 12th April, the headquarters of the Ministry of National Insurance wrote to her son-in-law drawing his attention to the fact that this woman did not come within the operation of the National Insurance Act, and that persons in such circumstances were excluded. The position, therefore, is that persons who have been allowed to contribute for two and a half years find that their contributions are invalid. They have no hope of getting benefit, and of course the Ministry quite rightly say that, as the contributions are invalid, they will refund them on application being made.

As this seems to be an unsatisfactory position, I have tried in the new Clause to alter it by amending Section 59 of the original Act of 1946, in which, in defining the power to make regulations dealing with married women, the Act merely talks about excepting a person from insurance throughout any period during which she is married and is a non-employed person. It would appear that, in order to bring this category of married women under the Act, the Section should read: from insurance during any period during which she is married to an insured contributor and is a non-employed person. I think that if that alteration were made it would enable the Minister to make the necessary regulations to bring in this class of married women. I feel confident that the number of persons who are at the moment excluded by this unfortunate circumstance is not very large, but the mere fact that they are few in number should not deter Parliament from righting this wrong.

Viscountess Davidson (Hemel Hempstead)

I beg to second the Motion.

I am certain that it is not the intention of the Minister or of the Government to leave cases such as this outside the National Insurance Act. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for this new Clause to receive the Government's support.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries) rose—

Mr. Speaker

I thought that the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) could be discussed with this Clause, as they both deal with the same point, although one is in a more modified form.

Mr. Macpherson

I should like to support this new Clause. The right hon. Lady is aware that I have an almost similar case in my own constituency. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, the number of cases involved is probably extremely small. The fact, however, that there is only a small amount of injustice being done does not warrant the continuance of the injustice if it can be avoided.

4.0 p.m.

What it means, in effect, is that where a wife who is very much younger than her husband is now looking after her husband and is unable to undertake any outside work on that account, she is completely debarred from participating in the insurance scheme. The only way in which she could participate would be for her to go out to work. If her husband is very much older than she is, he probably needs to be looked after by her. Therefore, she will be debarred from going out to work and becoming an insured person until she becomes a widow and is relieved of that responsibility. By then, of course, it will be very late in life for her to start going out to work and she will have to work for some considerable time before she becomes entitled in her own right to a retirement pension.

It seems that there is a clear case for allowing a person in this category to start making contributions as soon as possible. The new Clause in my name would allow contributions which have already been made, as indicated in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend and as has happened in a case in my constituency, to count even though they have already been refunded. That being so, I suggest that it would be wise to accept this suggestion.

Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I should like to make one point in support of the new Clause. We all agree that elderly women are having a pretty difficult time even though, at this period in our history, there is more employment available for them than at any other period except during the war years. I feel that the right hon. Lady is sympathetic to this very real problem of the elderly women. Therefore, I hope she will be able to accept the new Clause.

Dr. Summerskill

First, I should reassure those hon. Members who have spoken, and indeed those who have not spoken. The position of married women in the insurance scheme was very carefully considered in 1946. It had been very carefully considered by Members of the Coalition Government. During the Committee stage I said in relation to some other Clause that, on the whole, the married woman did get a square deal; that those who were insured in their husband's right were very generously treated—taking married women as a category. We must always bear in mind that we have to administer an Insurance Fund. Although we may feel that an individual has a grievance—and I agree that the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has focused our attention on a hard case—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that we must not legislate on one hard case.

The reason married women insured in their husband's right were excluded from the scheme was that it was assumed—and this assumption was supported by the National Insurance Advisory Committee—that if married women who were insured in their husband's right and were not in employment before the scheme were then all allowed to come into the scheme, those who stood to gain substantially would come in and the others would remain outside. I emphasise that if I accepted this new Clause it would bring into compulsory insurance women under 60 who are married to men over 65, and women living in this country who are married to uninsured men who are living abroad.

Some of these women were excluded under the old scheme because their husbands earned an income which was above that prescribed in the Act. Others were excluded because their husbands were in excepted employment. On the whole, this category of woman could not be regarded as the most needy in the community. I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will agree—taking the category as a whole. There are exceptional cases. I am asked to take all these women who were excluded, because this is a compulsory measure, register them compulsorily and insist that they observe the regulations in regard to contributions from National Insurance.

There is no substantial evidence that these women want to be registered or that they want to make this contribution. I do not think that I should be acting in a responsible manner if, because the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton know of a hard case or two, I introduced a provision which was directly opposed to the principle which governs the insurance of married women and which is fundamental to the scheme. Further, it is not correct to say that these women are completely excluded from insurance. If they care to take employment for 52 weeks only, they can become insured. They can then continue their insurance as non-employed persons.

I have already said that there is no real evidence which has convinced me that this new Clause should be accepted. Let us consider the actuarial aspect, which should be of concern to the whole House. All of us as contributors and as representatives of contributors should be concerned with the Fund. The value of the pension which would accrue to these women would amount to £28 million, and their contribution would be only £5 million. I ask hon. Members to consider that point carefully.

There is another question. Many of our constituents, and many of the constituents of the hon. Members who have supported this new Clause, might object to this compulsory insurance. They would be called upon to pay arrears of contributions which would amount to about £30 for each woman. Is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton satisfied that the married women in his constituency would welcome that expense? I do not think so. On the other hand, I have endeavoured in this interim scheme to try to increase certain benefits. I have not in any way tried to alter the principle of the scheme. If hon. Members feel very strongly that the whole position of married women should be looked at and the principle which governs their participation in the scheme should be altered, then they should wait for the general review of the scheme.

Mr. Turton

It appears that this question is confused by two different problems. First, there is the problem of the wife with the husband who is working abroad and who, in many cases, is young and frequently in not very good circumstances. Then there is the problem of the young wife married to the old man who may well at one time have been insured but who is not now. Would the right hon. Lady divorce the two problems and submit the problem of the wife of the husband working abroad to the National Insurance Advisory Committee to see whether some remedial action can be taken to deal with it?

Dr. Summerskill

I will consider that suggestion, and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Iain MacLeod (Enfield, West)

I find the argument a little more closely balanced than the right hon. Lady appeared to find it in rejecting this new Clause. I did not know, because it does not appear clear from the Clause, the sort of case which my hon. Friends had in mind when they put this new Clause on the Order Paper. As I understand the position, a married woman who was not already gainfully employed on 5th July, 1948, cannot become insured unless she is employed either in class 1 or class 2. In other words, it is not open to her to become a non-employed contributor paying her 3s. 8d. under class 3.

The right hon. Lady has made a very important point about the actuarial basis of the scheme, but the figures are not as one-sided as they would appear. The figure of £5 million which she gave is for contributions from the women, but one would normally have to put on the other side the State contribution. On the whole, it might be best to leave the examination of the problem in relation to married women until the periodic review in 1953 or 1954, but the right hon. Lady based so much of her case on the point that the women would have to pay back contributions that I must get quite clear on the point.

I agree that, if this were made compulsory, the payment would obviously not be welcome and that £30 would be far beyond the means of many women. I cannot see why this proposition should necessarily be made compulsory. Married women have an option, alone among the participants under the Act. They can opt, as they wish, in or out of insurance if they are in class I or class 2. It might be worth looking at the proposition to see whether regulations might be made by which those women who were prepared to pay the back contributions could have the option of so doing. Can the right hon. Lady clear up the point why it should be necessary to make this proposal compulsory and whether there might not be a case for making it optional?

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. Gentleman knows a good deal about insurance schemes. I think he would agree with me that an insurance scheme can be effective only when it is compulsory. No insurance fund should be burdened with what might be regarded as bad cases, nor should we encourage only those who stand to gain a lot to come in.

Mr. Turton

In the hope that this matter is being referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.