HC Deb 04 March 1968 vol 760 cc17-9
21. Mr. J. E. B. Hill

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take steps to extend the constant attendance allowance payable under the industrial injuries scheme to persons in similar conditions who come under the National Insurance Scheme.

22. Mr. Ian Lloyd

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider amalgamating the provisions for chronic sickness under the National Insurance Scheme with the provisions for disability under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, with a view to treating all forms of disability alike, irrespective of cause.

32. Mr. Astor

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will extend the benefits payable under the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme so as to include all comparably disabled people, irrespective of the circumstances or cause of the disablement.

Mr. Loughlin

The two schemes of National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Insurance serve different purposes and the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Scheme could not be extended to all disablement irrespective of its cause. I do not think that this would be the way to solve a problem about which I completely share the concern of the hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Hill

Can the Minister say how many people he estimates are in this category and, secondly, as the injury and disablement are in each case such as would justify constant attendance on medical grounds, would it not be more humane to try to equate the treatment of the two categories?

Mr. Loughlin

As I said in reply to an earlier Question, there is a distinct difference between one benefit and another. The House has recognised this and both sides have accepted it since 1948. I cannot estimate the number involved. The purpose of the question is to get the amalgamation of two schemes, which is not practicable in our view.

Mr. Astor

As the hon. Gentleman confirmed a few minutes ago that the contribution is the same, could he explain why those who suffer disablement should not be equally treated regardless of cost as the effects are the same? The right hon. Lady said that she was awaiting the review being conducted by the Minister of Health. As she did not expect that we may have usable results for two years, can the hon. Gentleman say something about the immediate effect on the scheme?

Mr. Loughlin

On the latter part of that question, I do not think two years is appropriate as some results might accrue before two years. I repeat what I said. It is not practicable to try to merge two different types of benefit which traditionally has existed since the scheme began.

Mr. Wilkins

For the information of the House, could my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary give an estimate of what the increased cost to the Exchequer or to the Insurance Fund would be of the new benefits asked for, or the increases asked for, by hon. Members of the Opposition this afternoon?

Mr. Loughlin

I do not know the number—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I do not know the number of people involved and I cannot give the information requested, but it would be substantial. The Industrial Injuries Scheme is based upon compensation for loss of faculty. It involves assessment of the loss of faculty. How many doctors would we require to go into the whole process of loss of faculty if we took it over a wide range of the population?

Mr. Holland

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, while the benefit available for the two types of injured, that under the Industrial Injuries Scheme and that under the National Insurance Scheme, are different, the hardship suffered as a result is the same?

Mr. Loughlin

Of course the hardship suffered is the same. It always has been. I cannot understand the hon. Member. Hon. Members opposite have to face the fact that they are now challenging the whole business of preference. If they challenge it in the Industrial Injuries Scheme they would also need to challenge it for war pensioners. Is that what they want? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"]