HC Deb 13 June 1966 vol 729 cc1121-8

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Astor (Newbury)

I wish to draw attention to what is I think a serious deficiency in the Clause in respect of people who will be allowed to benefit under the new non-contributory arrangements. On Clause 2, the Minister referred to the fact that the long-term chronically sick would gain the extra 9s. provided by the Bill, but she omitted to say that chronically sick wives or seriously disabled wives of men who are in full-time employment are not at present eligible for benefit of any kind. This is a problem with which I know the right hon. Lady is concerned, because she has referred to it on a number of occasions and has promised to undertake to try to correct this anomaly. I had hoped that the Bill would provide a suitable opportunity to bring in benefits for this group of people.

On 22nd March, in referring to the policies carried out by the Government, the Minister said that they had dealt speedily with the needs of the old, the sick and the disabled. I hope that she will not rest there and that she will continue to try to help these disabled people. Previously, this was resisted on the ground of the contributory principle, but the Bill specifically supports non-contributory pensions, so I should have thought that that argument was no longer as valid as it was. War pension improvements and improvements in constant attendance allowances for people who are seriously disabled have recently been announced.

This problem, which is growing, is of comparatively recent origin. The medical profession has made great advances in prolonging the expectation of life of people who suffer from such diseases as respiratory poliomyelitis and multiple sclerosis. There have also been great improvements in the machinery available to people who need special breathing apparatus. Whereas, previously, they could be treated and looked after only in hospital, there is now portable equipment—the Ministry of Health has played its part in developing it as well as private enterprise—which has made it possible even for some people suffering seriously to live in their own homes. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is very desirable that, where possible, people suffering in this way should live with their families and be part of the family life for the benefit of both themselves and their family rather than have to stay as long-term patients in hospital.

It is possible to argue on financial grounds alone that the cost of maintaining a patient in hospital is about £40 or £50 a week, whereas at home the cost to the country is not anything of that order and frees a hospital bed. More important is the human aspect.

I had a constituent who contracted "polio" 12 years ago, when she was a young married woman with two children. She was able to talk her way out of hospital and return home. Although since then she has not drawn breath without the aid of mechanical apparatus, she takes part in the family life. She has kept the family united. When one goes into the home, one finds an atmosphere of friendliness. It is a well-run home which would have broken up if she had had to remain in hospital and she would probably have deteriorated mentally. The members of the family lead active and useful lives.

My constituent is not a unique example, but an outstanding example, of courage. She has the use of only a few muscles in her feet with which she can operate a dictating machine. She has taken a diploma at the London School of Journalism and is a staff reporter on the local evening newspaper.

Such people show courage. They are able to make a real contribution to life and to lead a life which is constructive and useful. Unless, however, we are able to help them to live in their homes, we make much more difficulty for them. Great strain is caused to the family which has someone permanently incapacitated and for whom a nurse or domestic help must be constantly available.

At present, a fully employed husband has to pay for some of this attendance. I know that local authorities do what they can, but some of the attendance and nursing care has to be provided by the husband. This imposes a financial strain on the family and a mental strain on the disabled person, who feels that she is depriving her children and husband of some of the luxuries of life or of a holiday away from home which they might otherwise have been able to afford.

I am sure that the Minister is concerned with this type of case, to which she has referred in the past. Hope springs eternal, and I hope that the right hon. Lady might be able to see her way to bringing this class of disabled person within the ambit of the Bill so that they may be eligible for these non-contributory benefits as of right.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) has pointed out, subsection (2) of the Clause provides that Where… the requirements and resources of any person fall to be aggregated with and to be treated as those of another person that other person only shall be entitled to benefit. Because it is important, as, I am sure, the whole Committee will agree, that people outside Parliament, especially those who may be disabled and need help from the Bill, should be enabled to understand what we are trying to do more easily, perhaps, than some other recent legislation has been understood, I make no apology for asking my right hon. Friend the Minister for a measure of clarification, with which I am sure she will be glad to help us.

I follow the hon. Member for Newbury in taking the Clause as referring to the position of a married couple. From Clause 8, however, I find that any person in full-time work is excluded from the benefit of the Bill. What worries me, therefore, is that a person who, under Clause 4, is aggregated, however disabled that person might be, with a person in full-time employment, is denied any benefit from the Bill.

This is a measure of social injustice which, now that we have a truly compassionate Minister and a Government who are determined to make great progress in this direction, I hoped that we might have taken the opportunity of the Bill to remedy. It is not a new problem. The chronic sick have been with us since the beginning of time, but I very much welcome the increasing public concern on this question.

The heart of the dilemma is that no Minister, of any Government, has ever been prepared to recognise that a woman working in her home should be regarded as fully employed. Goodness knows, that is an attitude which is quite unacceptable to any mother who is trying to bring up a large family. But we have never accepted as an insurance statistic the married woman working in her own home. When she works outside her home, she has an optional right to insurance, but only 1 million married women working outside their homes have taken up their full rights under National Insurance.

That means that if a mother who has decided—and who is to say that she has decided wrongly?—to stay at home and make that a full-time job, particularly while her children are small, is then struck down by a crippling, disabling disease for the rest of her life, the whole family are impoverished. It can destroy the living standards for the children and for the husband and affect the whole fabric of their lives, and yet, although it is her disablement that produces a situation of chronic poverty to a family, it seems, if I read the Bill aright, that this is a direction in which we are not able to promise any alleviation.

I know that in cases of this kind local authorities give all the help they can, but I am thinking of people who need more than the routine visit of the home help or the health visitor. I know of several individual cases, and had we made faster progress with the Bill, I would have wanted to speak at greater length. Most hon. Members will know of families in which the husband is out at work all day, struggling to keep a home together, doing the housework at night, looking after the children and trying to find someone whom he can pay to come in and help while he is at work, which to a person receiving a low wage is often difficult.

It means that money is spent in that way which should be spent on the children's food, or on other necessities for the family. The basic principle of the insurance status of the married woman is, I shall probably be told, far beyond the ambit of the Clause, or even of the Bill, but it seems to me to be at the heart of our wrong thinking in this matter.

I would like to know from my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is, I know, more than ready to help in every kind of difficult case, whether there is not a possibility of this situation being reconsidered. The number of people involved might not be very large. There are precedents in other countries for the payment of non-contributory disablement benefit. I would be sorry if I thought hat we were to remain indefinitely behind other countries which had found a solution, however small, to this difficult problem.

Dame Joan Vickers

I agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) has said, but I would like to raise a Further point concerning subsection (1) of the Clause, which states that Every person in Great Britain of or over the age of sixteen whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements … I should like to know from the Minister why, at present, the age of 16 is mentioned. I presume that it is because it is expected that the school-leaving age will be raised to 16.

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a case with which I am familiar. The family consists of a father, mother and four children, aged 6, 8, 12 and 15 years. The husband works as a labourer and earns £9 5s. a week, after deductions, and he has a rent of 25s. He has a son who, regrettably, is disabled, who is now 15 years of age and has, therefore, had to leave school but has not been able to find work.

I understand that the family is not entitled either to family allowance or to National Assistance. The total income of the family is, therefore, £10 3s. If it were possible for them to have National Assistance—in other words, if the father did not work—I understand that the family would get £14 1s. 6d. Therefore, this young boy, through no fault of his own, reduces the income of the family because he is unable to work.

I would like to know from the Minister whether, at least until the school-leaving age is statutorily raised to 16, she will allow cases such as this to be eligible for assistance.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Quennell

May I follow the eloquent plea of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) in again drawing to the Minister's attention the plight of the incapacitated housewife which I mentioned on Second Reading and again earlier in today's debate. I support everything the hon. Lady said about the difficulties suffered by the houswife and family so afflicted. It is not only the afflicted woman who suffers but also her husband who has the extra financial burden of supporting the home and also the children, who lose the whole-time attention and care of the mother. Indeed, their entire time is spent in looking after their mother.

When the mother goes into hospital it costs the State about £1,000 to keep her there. if her husband is entitled to claim full fiscal relief he is entitled to the princely sum of £35 a year, which is quite derisory in comparison. It will cost him about £600 to keep his wife at home. The need of such families is therefore apparent. But these are the families the numbers of which it is very difficult to assess. It is almost impossible to find out the number of families where the housewife is afflicted in this way from such diseases as sclerosis or polio. I have tried to ascertain the numbers involved and I have failed. We need to help these families. I hope that the right hon. Lady will pay attention to my earlier plea and that of her hon. Friend to help this category of family.

Miss Herbison

Again we have had a very good debate. The main point made has been about the disabled housewife and the effect which her disablement may have not only on herself but on the whole family. I will not spend any time on this at present because the point is covered by later Amendments, and since we have been going rather slowly on the Bill, it seems a pity to use the time of the House now when the subject will be discussed again later this evening. I promise that I will deal with the points that have been raised when later Amendments are moved.

The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the age of 16. It is only when a person becomes 16 that he or she has a right to become an applicant. This age is mentioned because, it is to be remembered, the school leaving age will be put up to 16. Moreover, a great many young people—more and more each year—are continuing at school until the age of 16 although the compulsory age limit has not yet been raised to 16.

The hon. Lady gave an example of a low wage-earner with a disabled son and other children. In other instances there is not such great hardship because the vast majority of young people are able to find jobs when they leave school at 15, and the real hardship arises when the father is in full-time employment but is a low wage-earner and has other children. I will deal with this aspect on a later Amendment.

I believe that the Opposition Front Bench, too, are anxious to get on with the Bill. I am willing to stay all night if that is necessary to allow the discussion to take place, but I think that there is anxiety to get on with the Bill and I will deal with these points when the Amendments are debated.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

Is it not the case that 16 was arbitrarily fixed as the age some years ago under a previous Administration and not because the school leaving age was to be raised to 16? I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that this arbitrary decision has caused much heartburning especially in areas in which there are pockets of unemployment or hard cores of unemployment, so that when the child leaves school at 15 he is denied any allowance in spite of the fact that he is more or less an adult and in spite of the fact that the father is in the low-income group.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that because of this economic problem the Lanarkshire education authority was compelled to open a pre-vocational centre to give some training to these 15-16 year olds, who could not find jobs, and a reasonable bursary to tide them over?

I recognise that it is the genuine intention of my right hon. Friend and the Government to increase the school leaving age by 1970, but as the possibility of a serious shortage of teachers might prejudice this intention and raise the question of a possible postponement at that time, will my right hon. Friend later in the Bill consider the possibility of using as a yardstick the statutory school leaving age instead of mentioning any particular age? I have always felt that this would have overcome many problems which I have experienced in my constituency where it is still not easy for school leavers to find employment.

I ask my right hon. Friend to bear this point in mind. I know that she, too, has had this experience, and I appreciate that she has taken account of it, but I should like her to indicate that it has been borne in mind and that the Government hope that it will be possible to meet the problems of children who leave school at 15 in areas where it is difficult to find employment and who become wholly dependent on a father who is in the low-wage-earner group.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.