HC Deb 27 June 1966 vol 730 cc1207-9
5. Mrs. Renée Short

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows are in receipt of the industrial death benefit pension.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies)

About 26,000.

Mrs. Short

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, but does not he think that it is about time that these widows, only 26,000 of them, at least had parity of treatment with the former 10s. widow? Is it not time that we really got on with this?

Mr. Davies

As my hon. Friend will know from my right hon. Friend's Answer to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) and for Newbury (Mr. Astor), we are already taking action on this in the general review, and we hope to give satisfactory answers and achieve concrete results soon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present position was the result of the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee and was avowedly of an experimental nature? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend to look at the matter on the merits and in the light of those facts?

Mr. Davies

I assure the House that my right hon. Friend needs no persuasion about social security. Within the gamut of the massive job left to us after the Opposition became the Opposition, we are doing what we can.

10. Mr. McGuire

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will seek to amend section 5 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injury) Act 1965 so as to provide that, in every case where the balance of probabilities supports the contention that death was caused by employment, the doctrine of injury by process will not defeat a claim for industrial death benefit.

Mr. Harold Davies

This suggestion was carefully examined by an expert and authoritative Committee as part of a comprehensive review of the diseases provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act. The Committee concluded, however, that a change on the lines which my hon. Friend suggests would not be a practicable proposition. I believe, however, that my hon. Friend has in mind the particular case of sudden death following exposure to ethylene glycol dinitrate and nitroglycerine, and my right hon. Friend is considering what might be done about this very unusual condition.

Mr. McGuire

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree with the commissioner's comments in this case, that the Acts were designed for a special purpose, and that the carrying over of a very old doctrine known as the doctrine of injury by process from the old Workmen's Compensation Act is defeating the purpose of the most recent Act? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the commissioner commented that the remedy lay not with him but with the people who make the law, which is us? I hope that we shall do something quickly.

Mr. Davies

Knowing my hon. Friend's expert interest in this subject, I took the trouble to read the report of the commissioner's decision. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that one of the problems—the Beney Committee illustrated it—is that it is very difficult to come to a conclusion on injury by process as against injury by accident. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.

11. Mr. McGuire

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many claims for industrial death benefit have been disallowed where death has been caused by prolonged exposure to ethylene glycol dinitrate and to nitroglycerine; and what amount of money has been saved as a result of these claims being disallowed.

Mr. Harold Davies

I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. McGuire

I think that this is what is called being snookered with one's supplementary question. I would hope that when the information is to hand [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Minister aware that the opinion of many people who take an interest in this subject is that the amount of money is very small, and that this reinforces what I have said previously about the desirability of changing the oboxious rule of injury by process?

Mr. Davies

While I would not agree with the last part of that sentence, even if we had the statistics about disallowed claims, they would not be of much use because the disallowances vary according to the attitude of the persons concerned to making claims and the advice available to them. In other words, there may be people who should have made claims but have not done so. So long as that is so, the statistics are not of much value.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not know how many industrial claims of this nature were made and how many disallowed?

Mr. Davies

No. What I am saying is what I have said in my reply.