HC Deb 24 July 1969 vol 787 cc2156-60
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

I have today laid before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for social insurance benefits in the new scheme of earnings-related social security. The Government have already, in 1966, introduced a substantial measure of earnings relationship into the provision for short-term benefits for the early months of sickness, unemployment and widowhood. The changes now proposed for short-term benefits are thus limited to those required to adapt them to the new system of earnings-related contributions and long-term benefits. Stamped cards and flat-rate contributions will be abolished for all employees covered by P.A.Y.E. and the new contributions for them will be collected through the P.A.Y.E. system. The proposals, with the financial implications, are set out in detail in the White Paper.

The White Paper also describes the new deal for the long-term sick. Short-term sickness benefit under the new scheme will be payable for up to six months. Those who are still sick at the end of this period will be able to receive a new earnings related long-term sickness benefit—to be called invalidity pension. This benefit will replace the present flat-rate sickness benefit for those who are sick for more than six months. For those who are so severely handicapped that they need a great deal of help from other people there will also be available a new attendance allowance announced in the earlier White Paper.

As regards the industrial injuries scheme, the Government are still in consultation with both sides of industry on the consequential changes necessary in industrial injury benefit and industrial widows' pensions; no change is proposed in industrial disablement benefit. Subject to this, the proposals in today's White Paper, with those already ananounced in the earlier White Paper "National Superannuation and Social Insurance", complete the Government's plans for reconstructing the present national insurance scheme. The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Session of Parliament.

Lord Balniel

We are glad that the White Paper on short-term benefits is now being published. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement would appear to indicate that it contains no proposals other than those which have already been outlined in the original White Paper? In particular, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be disappointment that, apart from the attendance allowance, which will benefit only a limited number of severely disabled persons, there is no advance in the provision for the civilian disabled?

I have already welcomed the attendance allowance, but I should like to ask two specific questions. First, is there any reason why the attendance allowance should have to wait until 1972? Could it not be introduced straightaway?

Secondly, will severely disabled children, who have no contribution record, also be eligible for this attendance allowance?

Mr. Crossman

On the first point about there being nothing new here, the two paragraphs that we had in the original White Paper, as I promised, were expanded. I should think that the announcement of the invalidity allowance was, in a sense, new. We have now added to the short-term six months combination of flat rate arid graded benefit, the first long-term graded benefit for sickness, or, as we say, invalidity benefit. This is new. Though it does not altogether deal with the problem of disability—and I frankly admit this—it is a notable advance in an area where, for a long time before this Government came into office, there was no advance.

Concerning the attendance allowance, I will certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion that this should be paid straightaway. I was thinking of including it all in the Bill and introducing the whole thing together in 1972. However, I will certainly consider the possibility of earlier introduction.

I should like notice of the special question about children. It is a difficult question and I do not want to answer it today.

Mr. Molloy

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement today and, in particular, on his second thoughts, in response to the noble Lord's question, concerning the attendance allowance. This is a serious point. If my right hon. Friend would give the House an assurance that he will not wait until 1972, but give a reasonable promise that there will be some implementation along those lines within the next Session of Parliament, he would be making an even greater contribution than he has now, and many people would be grateful for it.

Mr. Crossman

I cannot go further than I went in my previous answer. I am prepared to consider it. The attendance allowance is a new principle and needs a great deal of careful consideration. I am not going to rush it, because we are introducing a brand new principle into National Insurance. We are giving a small amount of it here. I think we would be wise to wait and do it all together in the big new Bill.

Mr. Farr

While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the attendance allowance, I should like to echo what my noble Friend has said about it being brought into effect before 1972.

Will this attendance allowance be sufficient for a person who is severely handicapped and requires a full-time attendant at home to run to that sort of service?

Mr. Crossman

I do not want to add to what I have already said. There will be a full statement about the detailed application of the scheme. Naturally, we have some experience of this with war pensions and industrial injuries pensions, because we have instances of constant attendance allowance in those cases. Exactly how we will apply the principle in this case will be announced in detail later.

Mrs. Lena Jeger

Has my right hon. Friend been able to give any attention to the position of Members of Parliament concerning earnings-related contributions and benefits? In particular, has he given any thought to ending the fiction that Members of Parliament are self-employed and, therefore, disqualified from unemployment benefit when they lose their seats, which may be a relevant consideration to many hon. Members opposite at the next Election?

Mr. Crossman

I admit that up till now it has been assumed—perhaps wrongly—that Members of Parliament are self-employed rather than employees. I gather that the matter is now under serious reconsideration.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everybody will be delighted to see the end of stamps and cards? Would he care to give the House an estimate of the administrative cost saving which will result from their elimination and what the contribution conditions will be for the award of the invalidity pension?

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is earnings-related. Therefore, to qualify for the award, a person must presumably have been in employment at some time. Will this not increase still further the dis- partity between those who fulfil contribution conditions and those who have been disabled all their lives and therefore unable to do so?

Mr. Crossman

I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on the second question. The whole innovation here is that in return for a contribution paid by an employee his wife, for example, can receive the pension although she has not been an employee. Because of this innovation we are being particularly careful in preparing for the scheme.

On the first question, there is no way of estimating the saving on stamps. We have to combine it with the much increased expenditure on the computerisation of the whole earnings-related contribution. I hope that the net result will be that we do not have to have an increase of staff in Newcastle.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In view both of the complexity and importance of these matters, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper, not only before legislation is introduced, but before legislation is finalised in form? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are good precedents for this?

Mr. Crossman

I should like to consider that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House. I am prepared to talk to the Leader of the House about this because I, too, should very much welcome a debate on these very important issues.

Mr. Fortescue

Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now able to announce the amplification of some of the proposals contained in the January White Paper mean that the nation wide survey of the chronic sick and disabled referred to in that White Paper has been completed and will be acted upon?

Mr. Crossman

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we were able to extract some information from that, of a partial character, but we have not been able to complete the deductions from it. It will be some months before we can publish them.