NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1957 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 17 February 1965)

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the payment of unemployment benefit to persons whose ambit of employment is permanently or temporarily restricted by disease, disablement or other physical incapacity; to amend the National Insurance Act 1957; and for purposes in connection therewith. I rise to ask the leave of the House to introduce a modest Amendment to Section 4 of the National Insurance Act, 1957, which was a very controversial section, long debated. The Bill I seek to introduce is a modest one, related only to registered disabled people, totally blind and registered blind, and people under a great physical incapacity. It does not seek to raise the other controversy.

The late Alfred Lord Tennyson, in an observation not made in another place, but high over Temple Bar, spoke of A land of settled government, A land of just and old renown, Where Freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent. That has never been my experience in the courts. On the contrary, my experience is that freedom, welfare and social justice gradually narrow down from precedent to precedent. That has been the lamentable case here.

I ought to say, in fairness to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Section 4 of the 1957 Act is selected because it is the ruling Statute. It is fair to them, because they have enough on their plates already, to say that the roots of the evil have previously been seen in previous regulations, and some decisions which led to the problem have been taken earlier. There were a series of cases before the National Industrial Commissioners on unemployment benefit, raised on the case of employment on Christmas Eve and whether the National Insurance officer could allocate accumulated holiday pay after periods of unemployment.

Then there came the disastrous case in 1955 quoted as Case No. 13 of 1955, and the number seems appropriate. In that case a registered blind worker was 1195 employed at an institute for the blind. He was employed for five days a week on making bedding. There was at that time a reduction in the demand for bedding, possibly due to social reasons and practices which it might be indelicate and irrelevant for me to pursue, but the result was that this worker was not always employed for five days but much more frequently for only four.

By Thursday night, there being no work left, work ceased. The management said that there was a five-day agreement. It was always anxious to keep a five-day agreement and the only reason for the lack of one day was the lack of work—one would have thought that that was unemployment. The Commissioners decided the ambit of employment had been reduced to four days and, therefore, no pay was payable for the other day.

Unhappily, the matter moved to Oldham, in a case which I took before the Commisisoners, in which a man, long on sick benefit and seriously ill, was found three days' work a week in an institution working five days. The benevolent manager, anxious to help, said that he could not have this man in employment unless there was someone there capable of watching and helping him. The manager was able to provide only three days' work a week for this man. Sick benefit was lost because the man was employed. Unemployment benefit was received until the National Insurance officer intervened—again, with great respect, may I say that the initiative comes from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, whose officers receive their wages, like manna from a benevolent service, in line with the mutations of the moon.

The Commissioners decided that the ambit of this man's work had been reduced to three days and that he was not entitled to unemployment benefit because work was not available. The result of that was, of course, a further serious injury to a man suffering from ill-health. A great deal of worry and a great deal of expense was caused with no public benefit to anyone. I say that nowhere, 1196 in all the debates and discussions which took place here and in Standing Committees of the House on Section 4 of the Bill of 1957, did anyone express the view that this result should accrue.

It is true that judges in their infinite wisdom—I agree entirely with them—say, "We shall not pursue the motives of Parliament, because those motives are inscrutable." But, one may think, should not the Ministry, through its officers, institute legislation of this kind, which has never had a real and effective voice in its favour from Parliament? I referred to precedents. It would not be fair if I did not quote the justice of Portia, who said something quite different which may be regarded as a precedent: And many an error, by the same example, Will rush into the state: it cannot be. The Bill which I seek to introduce is a one-Clause Bill. It would be, as I said, limited to people gravely ill or disabled. It would merely say that we shall not talk about the limitation of the ambit of work if it is due, or mainly due, to the disablement, to the disability, so as to enable people to be found periods of work suitable to their disability and have a little benefit for the unemployment which results from their disability. I am sure that it would be the will of the whole House that effect should be given to such a Bill.