HC Deb 13 May 1963 vol 677 cc1088-96

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon)

I beg to move, That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) {Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved. This Order amends and consolidates the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Order, 1948, made under Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. The scheme was approved in 1948 by the then Minister of National Insurance under the power given him in Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946.

It was set up at the request of both sides of the coal mining industry. It provides supplementary benefits for colliery workers and their dependants who are in receipt of benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act for colliery accidents or for diseases. It is a contributory scheme, and the cost of benefits and administration is met by contributions from the National Coal Board and the colliery workers. The supplements to injury and disablement benefits are expressed in the scheme as a proportion of those benefits and are increased automatically when industrial injury rates are increased, as under the National Insurance Act of this year. The supplements to death benefits are expressed as sums and can be increased only by an amending order.

This Order proposes to raise the rates of supplementary pensions for a widow who has children or is aged 40 or more from 35s. to 41s. a week and for childless widows under 40 from 10s. 6d. to 12s. 3d. a week. These increases are broadly proportionate to those made under the National Insurance Act, 1963. To pay for the increased benefits which the scheme will provide it is proposed to increase employers' and employees' contributions from 5¼d. to 5½d. These are the major Amendments proposed, and the Order also consolidates the scheme in its amended form.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor (Mansfield)

I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the clear but brief explanation of the Order. Before it is passed I should like to make one or two comments.

First, it is the only supplementary scheme which has been taken advantage of by any industry under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. During the past nearly 15 years, the National Committee, comprised of both sides of the industry, has done a very good job, and the benefits which have been given to injured and disease-ridden miners have been of great advantage and have been greatly appreciated in the coalfields. This is a very useful Order which draws attention to a number of things. It enlarges the ambit of the provisions, and I will come to that in a moment. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, while it increases the contributions by a very small amount, it also increases the benefits. It has something to say about the investment of the funds, which is not unimportant.

May I put it on record that I am very pleased to note that the ambit has been widened in this Order to bring in what we should describe in the mining industry as a new designation—the accident site observer. I do not want to go into all the details of what is laid down in the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, but, briefly, it is the case that numbers of men either regularly employed by the National Coal Board or check weighers or stint measurers, as some of them are called, are now brought within the ambit of the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme, and that is a very useful improvement indeed.

I am quite certain that the miners in the coal fields will not object to the increase of a farthing per week in the contribution that they will be called upon to pay. The increased benefits that are laid down in the Order, rising to a maximum of 6s. per week, will mean so much to the injured man and those suffering from various kinds of disease which are characteristic of the mining industry. Not only will the short-term cases benefit by the increase in payments, but the long-term disabled cases will also greatly appreciate this increase in the supplementary benefit. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, most of the benefits of the colliery workers' supplementary scheme are automatically linked to the increases which take place in the benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act.

I believe that I am right in saying that industrial injuries benefit cases of 100 per cent, disablement will receive a maximum of 6s. under the Order. The exception where the benefits of the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme are not automatically linked to the Industrial Injuries Scheme are those for death. This is one of the reasons, and perhaps the main reason, why the Order is before us tonight because it applies to the widows. As the hon. Gentleman has said, without an Order of this kind they cannot receive an increase in the benefits under the Colliery Workers Scheme because, as distinct from the other beneficiaries, they are not automatically linked to the increases under the Industrial Injuries Act.

The National Committee, which I have observed is comprised of both sides of the industry, has agreed to these proposals and the Minister has accepted them in bringing forward this Order. The important thing to notice in the Order is that the increases shall be given in respect of all widows' benefits. There is no distinction. There is no making fish of one and flesh of the other. The widow under 40 years of age receiving 20s., like the widow over 40 years of age, or having a dependant child or children will get the proportionate increase from 10s. 6d. to 12s. 3d.

The main reason I mention this is that the 20s. widow since 1948 under the Industrial Injuries Act has been, and still is, at a decided disadvantage. For the 20s. widow under the Industrial Injuries Act there has been no increase since 1948.

I am pleased to note that the National Committee, by the proposals which have been agreed to by the Minister, has exhibited magnanimity by not leaving out the 20s. widows. I reiterate what I said in Committee on the National Insurance Bill in February. Favourable consideration should also be given to the 20s. industrial injuries widow under 40 years of age, just like the one who is to receive the proportionate increase under the colliery workers supplementary scheme. The Minister should not appear to be less generous and magnanimous than the National Committee.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I appreciate that this Order has had the support of both sides of the industry, the National Coal Board and the miners' organisations, but one has to look at the way in which that has arisen. Section 83 provides for these supplementary schemes. I can hardly think that that Section was intended to provide permanently for anything which ought to be carried on the Industrial Injuries Fund. I think it significant that only in the mining industry has there been such a supplementary scheme.

The conclusion I draw is that as the scheme is so badly needed and has gone on for so long with so many amandments it is high time that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend had a look at the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act to see whether they ought to be amended to carry some of the burden which both sides of the industry think it right should be carried. To turn it into actual terms, this Order is about widows and children and it is among widows and children that one finds the difficult, tangled but rather hard cases.

I noticed when the 1963 Act was under discussion that the question of the 20s. widow mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) was raised. An increase for such widows was turned down as something which should not be met out of the fund. Now it is to be met out of a supplementary scheme. I doubt whether that is the right way of doing it. I doubt whether the intention of Section 83 was that there should be these schemes as a kind of permanent supplement to the central Industrial Injuries Act and any Amendment of that Act which might follow.

Therefore, while one accepts the Order which has been agreed by both sides of the industry, it points to the need for looking at the case of these widows which is met in this way to see whether it is right that that case should be left to the contributions of miners on the one hand and the Coal Board and whatever coal owners remain on the other, or whether this is not a case in which the Treasury should carry its appropiate share.

Another point in connection with this Order which my hon. Friend indicated but which I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary mention, is that, although we have had many amendments of this scheme, this is the first time in which an appropriate change has been made about the investment of the Fund with which we are dealing. I notice that the Order before us gives powers to the National Committee, which acts as trustees of the Fund, to make investments including, for instance, ordinary shares. They correspond very closely to the powers which were given to ordinary trustees by the Trustee Investment Act passed a little time ago.

I recollect with some interest that when that Bill was in Committee I urged upon the Government the advisability of making a better use of the opportunities of investment provided by these funds, including this Industrial Injuries Fund. What has happened? Taking the figures as they were at that time—and there can have been little improvement in them since then—the National Debt Commissioners have contrived to lose very substantial sums by having to invest under statutory provisions in Government securities. The result, for instance, is that, taking stock bought since 31st March 1952 in the Industrial Injuries Fund, it will be found that it cost originally £203 million and that its market value at the end of March 1961 was £179 million. After all, £24 million is quite a lot, and it has been lost by reason of these statutory provisions. If they are to be waived in favour of more reasonable provisions appropriate to ordinary trustees—

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Could the hon. and learned Member tell us how he chose that date in March 1952?

Mr. Mitchison

It was about the time when the Tory Party took office, and I was anxious to find out for what degree of loss they were responsible.

Mr. Wells

Could the hon. and learned Member tell the House what was the corresponding loss at some convenient date under a Labour administration?

Mr. Mitchison

I cannot give it quite in that form, but if the hon. Member looks up the OFFICIAL REPORT for 3rd May, 1961, he will find that there was some loss, but a smaller one, in the preceding period. Does it matter? The point is that this provision has been regarded as insufficient for the protection of ordinary private funds, for the protection, for instance, of the funds of life insurance companies. Just as they invest in ordinary shares—and I should have thought that the hon. Member approved of this and that there was a feeling opposite that it was the right thing to do—is there any reason other than ideological prejudice why public funds held in connection with National Insurance and industrial injury enactments should not have the same advantages?

I tried this on the Government at the time and I. received no other answer than that it could not be done. It was Socialism. Why is it so dangerous when public funds are properly invested, and so dangerous when the funds in this scheme are to he invested in this way for the first time? What is the real objection? The plain answer is that Tory Governments have no particular objection to losing £24 million composed of the workers' pennies and the employers' pounds by way of contributions out of the Industrial Injuries Fund and a great deal more, incidentally, out of the National Insurance Reserve Fund, if they can be quite sure that they are ideologically pure.

It is all very well, but when it comes to a question of giving a little more to the 20s. widows, or providing for other widows and children who are the subject of this voluntary scheme, one feels that ideological prejudice might give way for once to a little common sense and human generosity. I still feel that it is most regrettable not that this change is being made but that there is no corresponding change in the Industrial Injuries Fund itself. Then the Treasury would be ablo, to make a contribution which it ought to make in these cases instead of leaving it to this voluntary scheme. Therefore, while so far as this Order goes one accepts it as a matter of agreement, I regret that this kind of liability has been left so long and is still being left to what, from this point of view, is a voluntary effort, and that the Government are avoiding in that way making contributions in these cases where I should have thought contributions were obviously appropriate since they are agreed by both sides of the industry.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

With the permission of the House, I will reply to one or two of the points that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has just made.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is learned enough to recognise the arrant nonsense in much of what he has just said. In fact, I could see from the smile on his face that he recognised it while he was saying it.

Mr. Mitchison rose—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me finish, I will give him another opportunity to speak. He knows very well by a selection of the dates during a long period of inflation—and, let us face it, there was galloping inflation in the time of the Labour administration; since then there has been inflation, but not quite so galloping—that funds invested in Government securities have immensely depleted in value.

Mr. Mitchison

I do not mind being told that I am talking arrant nonsense, but I do mind being told that I am laughing at anything but at the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. If I may pick up what he has just said, the point here is that these National Debt Commissioners are by Statute restricted from buying anything but Government stocks. The trustees of this scheme are allowed to invest in ordinary shares. Why should not the National Debt Commissioners be given the same privilege instead of losing all this money?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I do not think I will be drawn on that point because it goes very much wider than this Order. We are dealing with a trustee fund here and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, the law concerning trustee funds has only recently been altered, and quite properly altered, and in consequence this Order takes advantage of that alteration in the law in order to enable these funds to be invested more sensibly than they were invested in the past.

I think both sides of the House will agree that this is a very right and proper thing and will be thankful that Government in their wisdom some years ago saw the folly of these restrictions on trustee funds and, therefore, altered the law. I am sure that the House, the miners and their widows, who will benefit from the greater yield that these funds will produce, will be thankful to the Government for having done that.

question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

Forward to