HC Deb 13 December 1954 vol 535 cc1509-13

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

Mr. R. Williams

It would be quite wrong for me to refer to the Amendment on the Order Paper, and I do not propose to do so. But the Committee should not part with this Clause without very carefully scrutinising its effect, and considering the cases which it covers, and the circumstances in which these cases are covered by the Clause.

The Clause is in many respects very convenient for persons who are receiving benefits, but the increased benefits can be paid only if certain conditions are fulfilled. I propose for a short time to indicate what appear to be those conditions, and if the Minister agrees with me, the Committee will have a better idea about the range of cases which are covered.

First, it should be noted that the Clause opens with an exception: Except in such cases as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister … Those cases are excepted from the provisions of the Clause. It is important for the Committee to have an idea as to which cases are included before we can fairly see which are likely to be excluded under these regulation-making powers which are vested in the Minister.

We are not here dealing with a Clause which is merely convenient for those who happen to be receiving benefit, but we are also impliedly saying to the Minister that he has the power to exclude other cases. That may be a very formidable power indeed, because it may result in many people who think they ought to have benefits under this Clause not having them at all.

It will save the time of the Committee if, instead of specifying the cases by categories, one indicates what conditions must be satisfied before anyone could receive a benefit under this Clause. The basic condition is that the person must have been injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and must be in receipt of a benefit. Beyond that he must be in receipt of a benefit under an award. Then it must appear that he is receiving less money than he would, in fact, be receiving under the Bill.

If he satisfies all those conditions, then the Clause provides most satisfactorily and clearly that the benefit shall, without any claim being made, become payable as from that day at the higher weekly rate. The important point is that this supplementation, with which this Clause is dealing, shall apply automatically when the conditions to which I have referred are completely fulfilled. That is the effect of the Clause.

Behind all that is the Fund itself out of which these additional payments will be made, because quite obviously additional payments could not be made if that Fund were short of the money available. Added to the conditions which apply to the men making claims one must consider the conditions which must apply so far as the Minister is concerned if he is to pay the money.

9.45 p.m.

Provided that he finds that all his questions are sufficiently answered, it seems to me that such persons as I have referred to should benefit under this Clause. The supplementation which the Minister can make along lines which, if not identical, are so closely related to this Clause that they could easily be adjusted by some adjustment in another place at a later stage—

The Chairman

There the hon. Gentleman is going a little too wide of the Question.

Mr. Williams

I take it that the only point at which I have gone a little too wide is in suggesting that the Minister may do something in another place. I withdraw that suggestion, and say that, within the terms of the Clause, the Minister may make certain explanations to us this evening. He may explain how it is that, with all these regulation- making powers which he has; with all these supplementation powers; with all the funds he has available to implement those powers, people who can satisfy all the conditions—to which I referred when I was, in my submission, entirely in order—but who happen to have sustained their injury before 5th July, 1948, should not be included here. If the Minister gives procedural reasons—

The Chairman

If the Minister tries to answer that, he will be out of order. He can deal only with what is in the Clause.

Mr. Williams

With respect, Sir Charles, my submission is that if the Minister admits all the conditions to which I have referred, which, if they are complied with should carry a supplementation here, he may very well, without going outside the terms of the Clause at all, explain why it is that these categories to which I have referred should be excluded as exceptions under the prescribed regulations which he is to make. If he does that he will be giving a clear picture of the effect of the Clause, and in my submission he can do so without being out of order.

What he should not do—and what I for one would not suggest that he should be invited to do—is to attempt to use this occasion to bring in a supplementation to the workmen's compensation cases. That would be quite wrong. If in every respect those cases were to comply with the conditions, the Minister might invite harsh criticism, but he could say, "I am sorry, but I cannot discuss those cases."

However, without discussing the workmen's compensation cases in terms—they are a very deserving class of case and there are about 30,000 of them in the mining industry alone—the Minister could give a clear explanation about why they are not specifically excluded by his regulation-making powers; or why he does not feel that with a little ingenuity they could be in this Clause.

Were he to refer to those cases, and the great hardship which they suffer, and the need for supplementation; were he to say there are provisions in this Clause, looked at in a very liberal way, which would enable him to make some provision for them, I can assure the Com- mittee that he would not be spoken of in such harsh terms as he will be if he says nothing; or that that is something entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and that he cannot make any observations at all. It will then be said that these people are being sent empty away, and the Minister would, I think rightly, be subject to bitter criticism. Let us have his explanation—entirely in order, of course—in relation to the deserving cases to which I have referred.

Mr. Peake

The hon. Member very nearly got out of order once or twice, but he asked for a short explanation of the Clause, and I should like to give it to him. It provides that Except in such cases as may be prescribed by regulations —and it is very doubtful whether it will be necessary to make any exceptions to the rule; these words are put in out of an abundance of caution—the awards in force shall have effect at the higher rates without any necessity for any claim being made.

The Clause also provides that awards made after a day has been appointed, and before that day, are to be at the new rate for any part of the period to which they relate which falls on or after the appointed day. Subsection (4) deals with special transitional powers needed to introduce the new scheme of disablement gratuties.

Mr. J. Griffiths

We are obliged for the Minister's explanation. Perhaps he will turn to the principal Act, to which, in a sense, this Bill is an addendum and not an amendment. There he will see that the Minister has power to make the provisions of that Act available to those who were entitled to benefit before the Act came into operation in 1946. This Bill will continue that power of the principal Act of 1946, and it will increase the benefits. Has the Minister, under this or any other Clause, power to make regulations which will extend these new benefits to persons who were provided for in the principal Act and can be provided for again? Section 82 of the principal Act says: Regulations may provide for conferring on persons who (a) are or have been on or after the appointed day entitled in respect of any injury or disease to weekly payments by way of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, or under any contracting out scheme duly certified thereunder … and certain benefits are made payable to them. My hon. Friend has asked if that overriding provision is continued in this Bill. Would it be possible for the Minister to provide that some arrangement should be made out of the Industrial Injuries Fund for a supplement in respect of those who are entitled not only to the benefits prescribed here but to any benefits under the old Acts?

Mr. Peake

I can put the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest by saying that I am advised that the increase in the unemployability supplement and the constant attendance allowance will extend to those cases which are covered by Section 82 of the principal Act.

Mr. J. Griffiths

It is true that those specific benefits are mentioned in Section 82, but subsection (1, a) makes it possible for the Minister to apply benefits to those who were entitled to benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Acts before the appointed day. Is it possible for him, under the Bill and the 1946 Act put together, to consider any scheme—without further legislation—by which these benefits could be made available to those who were entitled to the benefits when the 1946 Act came into operation?

Mr. Peake

No. I am advised that this Bill will have the effect only of extending the unemployability supplement and the constant attendance allowance in the class of case mentioned in Section 82.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.