Industrial Injuries (Hansard, 17 February 1958)

§ 7. Mr. Fernyhough
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware of the hardship caused to persons in receipt of an Industrial Injuries pension, who, when they have exhausted their right to unemployment benefit, have to seek help from the National Assistance Board, and that the Board only disregards 20s. of their benefits for industrial injuries; and, in view of this, if he will have discussions with the National Assistance Board with a view to the amount of disregard being increased.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I would refer the hon. Member to reply I gave on 18th November to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). I have no proposals to make for legislation to amend the provisions of the National Assistance Act, 1948, governing the disregards for assistance.

§ Mr. Fernyhough
Is the Minister aware that there has been no alteration in the determination of need figures for more than ten years? Is he aware further that the original £1 of disregard in the case of industrial injuries benefit is now 13s.? Does he realise that many men receiving industrial injury pension and getting hardship allowance find that after they have exhausted unemployment benefit they are in a far worse position than they would have been if they had not had the accident and that this is causing a great deal of bitterness?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Clearly this disregard would have to be considered jointly with other disregards fixed by the Act. The difficulty which, so far at any rate, has apparently deterred all Governments from tackling this matter is that increasing the disregards makes additional payments to people who are, in the nature 844 of things, less in need than the people who have no other income to disregard.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Now that the balance has altered between the payments which are made and the amount of disregard and it is quite a different balance, does not my right hon. Friend think, if the balance was considered correct in 1948, that it is rather odd that with the increase in benefits of all kinds there has not been further consideration of the disregards?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The matter has, of course, been most carefully considered from time to time by all Governments, but so far the view has been taken that it is better to use the funds available to help those most in need and who have no other income to disregard. I must not be held to the view that everything done in 1948 was necessarily perfect.

§ Miss Herbison
Were not most of these men casualties in heavy industry? In most areas there is just no light work suitable for them. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Section 62 of the 1946 National Insurance Act had not been deleted, in spite of protests from this side of the House, these men would not be in this serious position today?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The Section in question was allowed to live and have effect for precisely the time laid down by its sponsors in 1946. I agree that there are, in limited areas, employment problems in this connection which are not soluble by the methods proposed by her hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Fernyhough).

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the disregards were fixed by the National Insurance Act, 1948, when the work of the public assistance committees was taken over. They, too, had a disregards system, which has always been an essential feature of the administration of assistance in this country. Since the disregards were fixed in 1948 and their real value has fallen, does not the right hon. Gentleman think, since the quinquennial period of review is fast approaching, that this is a matter on which he might consult his National Advisory Council?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I am not sure that increases in the disregard have necessarily a priority claim where a review of the social services is concerned.

§ Mr. Fernyhough
On a point of order. I desire to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I will, if I am fortunate enough to catch the Chairman's eye, raise this matter later in the day.