Clause 5.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO BENEFIT UNDER INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.) (Hansard, 16 February 1966)

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
I must apologise for not being present when Clauses 1, 2 and 3 were being discussed. My primary interest is in Clause 5(4). Clause 5 appears to be very reasonable. The general objective seems to be to get the conditions for sickness benefit into line with the conditions 1426 for industrial injuries benefit. This would appear to involve certain marginal changes. On the other hand, it would seem that on the first day of injury under the new arrangement benefits will not be paid, whereas under the previous regulations they were paid.
The Minister has already mentioned anomalies. I often wonder at the number of anomalies which hon. Members must have to bring to the attention of the Committee. She and her colleagues always manage to find time to deal sympathetically and carefully with cases which are referred to them, and I wonder how they have had the time to bring in a Bill of such complexity. There are far too many anomalies requiring discretion on the part of the Ministry. If we did not have provisions such as subsection 4 of this Clause many of these anomalies would not arise.
On at least four occasions since I became a Member of Parliament I have had cases in which a time limit was involved. In two of those cases the Ministry used discretion and, in the special circumstances, awarded benefit which otherwise would not be paid. In the other two cases, on the other hand, it was not possible to make payment.
9.30 p.m.
I will mention two of the cases briefly. One was of a man who had served a considerable number of years in the Australian Army. He returned to this country and after an interval of 18 months he was not thought to be entitled to benefit. It later transpired that his payments in Australia entitled him to benefit here. He found, however, that a time limit was involved. Only when the Minister was prepared to use discretion was the money paid.
The other case is of a constituent from Cathcart who was in Germany for three years. Apparently, he now finds that he is entitled to benefit under a scheme provided by the Ministry. On the other hand, because of the time limit, it appears that he is not entitled to payment, although I hope that in this case, too, the Minister will exercise discretion.
Bearing in mind these cases and others which have been brought to my attention, and others which hon. Members meet from time to time, it is particularly unfortunate that unless there is a very good reason, we should in subsection (4) 1427 again be introducing a time limit. The Clause states that Unless…regulations otherwise provide, no sum shall be paid to any person on account of injury benefit in respect of any day more than six months earlier than the date on which the claim for the benefit is made. This appears to me to be the introduction of another time limit. If it is, it is unfortunate. There may be an extremely good reasons for it. If there is, I would appreciate getting it.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for the way he has put his questions. It is not my intention to imply any resentment at the time occupied by the debate, since the discussion has been valuable. The hon. Member for Cathcart has done better than Mr. Pickwick when he went to Dingley Dell and unearthed the paving stone from Old Dick's house on which he made his mark.
In simple language, the first answer to the hon. Member is that in some of these cases, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) will agree, we cannot have an open-ended provision which does not limit the period within which claims can be made, because this would have the effect of removing any limitation upon claims. As the hon. Member has rightly said, Ministers of both parties have exercised their discretion in dealing with cases.
The more complicated the legislation becomes, the more difficult it is to avoid anomalies. If I may add a comment without sounding pompous, I believe that, irrespective of party politics, the time is coming when we might look deeply into the entire problem of social security and social welfare in the hope that we can, without party polemics, discover a more simple answer to these great problems.
I turn now to my brief. The subsection introduces a bar upon the payment of injury benefit for any day more than six months before the date of the claim, whereas previously there was no limit. This is the same as the limitation for sickness benefit imposed by Section 49(4) of the National Insurance Act.
This power is similar to that contained in the National Insurance Act, and is 1428 taken to vary these conditions by regulations. It is intended to use this power, should the sickness benefit condition at any time be changed, to keep the injury benefit limit in line. I hope that, because of the time, the Committee will consider that an adequate answer to the question.

§ Sir K. Joseph
This is an important Clause. The right hon. Lady, on Second Reading, gave us a figure by which to measure its importance. I, personally, was staggered by the fact that according to the right hon. Lady no fewer than 600,000 cases a year will lose under this Clause injury benefit for a day; but, as the right hon. Lady went on to explain, there are offsetting advantages under the Clause.
What we should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, if he can—and it may be very difficult—is whether, in general, some people, because of this Clause, will lose benefit for industrial injury altogether. I think that the answer to that is "No." I think all we are dealing with is the day on which the injury occurred. I think that we can all commend the purpose of the Clause—harmonising the industrial injury and the sickness conditions; but will the Parliamentary Secretary reassure us that there is no single industrial injury case which he thinks will lose benefit under this Clause?

§ Mr. Harold Davies
I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. It was well worth probing.
This Clause brings industrial injury provisions, on days of incapacity for which a person is entitled to injury benefit, into line with those in the National Insurance Act, determining such days for sickness benefit by repealing the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act on waiting days, linking of days of incapacity and provision for the day of the accident, and substituting National Insurance Act rules. It also introduces the provision, as in the National Insurance Act, preventing the payment of injury benefit, unless regulations otherwise prescribe, for more than six months prior to the claim.
These changes arise because payment of earnings-related sickness benefit with the injury benefit makes it difficult to have different rules applicable to similar 1429 elements of the same claim and payment. They will also remove existing complexities which frequently cause errors. The Clause also extends the maximum period for which a higher rate of death benefit for widows may be prescribed from 13 to 26 weeks after death. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman now feels I have given him an adequate answer.

§ Sir T. Brinton
I hope this is not a foolish question, but could the Joint Parliamentary Secretary explain to me what the difference is between subsection (1, a), by which we are removing the provision of the Industrial Injuries Act, and subsection (2, b), which appears to me to say exactly the same thing? We are talking about 12 days of incapacity in both cases. Is there any difference between these two paragraphs, or have I misread them?

§ Mr. Davies
Subsection (l, a), repeals the provision of Section 11(1) of the Industrial Injuries Act which secures that two periods of incapacity within the injury benefit period link for waiting days purposes—the injury benefit period has a maximum of 26 weeks. Under the National Insurance Act the link is limited to 13 weeks.
The hon. Member went on to subsection (2, b). The hon. Gentleman says that they appear to mean exactly the same, but subsection (2, b) introduces the National Insurance Act rules for waiting days; that is, they will be payable only when there are 12 days of interruption of employment in the period of interruption of employment and falling within 13 weeks of the first day of incapacity.
This will enable the injury benefit waiting days to be paid immediately where there is a previous linked spell of unemployment or sickness of 12 days or more; whereas hitherto the claimant has had to wait until 12 days of the injury benefit period have been completed. On the other hand, in the very few instances where there are two spells of incapacity due to the relevant accident within the injury benefit period separated by more than 13 weeks, these will no longer be linked for waiting days purposes.
I would recommend hon. Members to read that in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning. If any hon. Member understands it at the first attempt, he 1430 is a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster will accept that explanation, until he reads it tomorrow in HANSARD.

§ Sir T. Brinton
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am glad that he is having as much difficulty as I am, because they seem to me to have very much the same meaning.

§ Miss Herbison
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no objection if I try to give an explanation of it in a few sentences.
Section 5(1) is repealing the Act as it applies to industrial injuries at present. Subsection (2) is now applying to industrial injuries the same rules as apply to National Insurance. It is important that the rules should be exactly the same since the £2 15s. is to be placed on the top of the earnings-related sickness benefit.
That is the simple explanation. The first subsection repeals certain existing provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act and the second subsection applies the National Insurance rules to industrial injuries.