NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1958 (Hansard, 23 July 1958)

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. This scheme came into operation in 1948 at the request of both sides of the industry. It covers, broadly, colliery workers employed by the National Coal Board or small mine owners. The scheme provides supplementary benefits for those in this industry in receipt of benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act and is financed by contributions of 4d. a week from adult male employees and 4d. a ton from the National Coal Board. 131 It is administered by a National Committee with five representatives from each side of the industry, under the chairmanship of Mr. James Crawford. These amendments are recommended by that Committee, and the Government Actuary agrees that they can be carried by the Fund.

There are three main points. First, the supplementary benefit rate for widows and women having the charge of a deceased colliery worker's children is increased. The standard rate for widows is increased from 25s. to 31s. a week—that is, by roughly 25 per cent. This brings the rate into line with what is paid to a colliery worker who is incapacitated by industrial injury.

The second point is the limitation as to the amount of supplementary benefit which can be paid under the scheme: it arises in cases where the post-accident earnings and benefits are greater than the pre-accident earnings. It is better that this should not be the case in a scheme of this character. Up to the present time this limitation has come into play only after the injured man has returned to work and been in employment for thirteen weeks. Under this amendment, however, it will apply to all beneficiaries under the scheme, whether off work or back at work, after they have been on supplementary benefit for three weeks. It may seem curious that a man can receive more, by way of benefit, when off work, but in fact it can sometimes happen, and the National Committee who administer the scheme consider that the resources available should not be used in this way. This limitation will not, however, take account of widows' benefits and death benefits, and will not apply to a person receiving "constant attendance allowance". Its operation may seem a little complex but all it does is to ensure that a man's income from all these sources is not more than his income was while he was previously at work.

The third point is in relation to the investments of the Fund. Up to now, the investments in preference or ordinary stock have been limited to 25 per cent. It is now proposed that this should be increased to 30 per cent. I think I can say that the other points in the amendment are mostly details for purposes 132 of clarification. I should, however, perhaps add that the Government Actuary is satisfied that the Fund can carry the additional charges and that the emerging capital cost is estimated to be about£5 million. This is the sixth amendment to the original scheme. I beg to move.