NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL (Hansard, 2 August 1972)

§ LORD ABERDARE
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ BARONESS PHILLIPS
As this will be our only opportunity to comment, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply to the questions which I put to him on Second Reading. I note that there is to be a re-arrangement of the small print of the pension book, and this I am very delighted to learn. I have conveyed this information to some of the pensioners and they have informed me that they are already quite happy with the better quality paper which they find in the pension book. So they await with 446 baited breath a better lay-out with larger type.
I should merely like to enter a further plea for the consideration of the younger widow. The Government introduced the liberal and much wider concession to include the under-50 widow, but I feel that the effect wilt be rather spoiled if they still retain the restrictions that seem to hedge about this particular pension at the moment. In the reply which I received from the Minister, we learned that the graduations recognise that the chance of a widow re-establishing herself in work after being out of the employment field for a long time is less for a widow who is 49, than for one who is 40. This is true, but if a widow is 40 and lives in a small mining village in the middle of Yorkshire her chances of getting employment are equally difficult as for a widow of 49 who lives elsewhere. In other words, the matter is not quite so simple as was stated in the reply from which we learned that: A widow who qualifies for an age-related pension can choose whether or not to pay flat-rate contributions, but if she decides not to pay she will not be credited with contributions. That seems to me to be reasonable, but if she pays and is unemployed she will not receive any unemployment pay, and will receive in total only the higher of the two benefits which she would have had. So far as I can gather, none of these benefits will be higher than the rate of pension that she has been receiving. If she has been getting a pension of about £3.25 a week, I am still a little puzzled as to what she will in fact receive. I will not trouble the Minister to give me a reply now, but I feel that I must get this on the record. Finally, I note that: A widow is in a special position in that unlike most beneficiaries she can receive her benefit while she is working. To allow an unemployed (or sick) widow who had, in fact, enjoyed the advantage of being able to earn"— I like that— … enjoyed the advantage of being able to earn". We are told in the first instance that this is good for her and we are told in the last that she is very lucky to have this privilege. I would point out that under any actuarial pension scheme to which her husband paid in she would draw out 447 irrespective of whether she was or was not working. I would hope we would be able to look at this a little more closely in the coming months.
I would say at this point, and perhaps the Minister will not be surprised to hear it, that I do not intend to move the Amendment on the Order Paper. But I should like to register a very strong protest, not to the Minister but to those who arrange the programme, that a Bill of this importance has been placed in such a position on the programme, and that we are told it is to have its Committee and remaining stages. We would have debuted this clause because it is one which does not sit very neatly in this Bill; it deals with a very complicated field of industrial accident. However, it would be wrong to have a long and complicated debate at this stage when we could not amend in any case. When we look at this Bill and realise that it deals with something like £400 million, and that it is a Bill which is going to bring a lot of comfort to many people, I am very disturbed at procedure. I would register a protest that not only was the Second Reading placed after another Bill on Friday but that again this evening the Bill is placed in a position in the programme where we cannot do it complete justice.

§ LORD ABERDARE
Before the noble Baroness continues may I thank her very much for what she has said. She has caught me on the wrong foot and I rather wish now that I had not written to her. She has raised a number of points about widows and has not referred at all to the Amendment which she is now not going to move. The first thing I would say, although I do not want to excite too many hopes, is that my letter stated that we are considering whether any improvement in the layout is possible. I am glad to know that the quality of the paper has improved. I appreciate her other points about widows' benefits; of course she knows fully the other arguments. On the question of the privilege of being able to earn, the point is that the widow is not only getting earnings but is at the same time getting benefit, so there is some concession to a widow that another person does not receive.

§ BARONESS PHILLIPS
This point comes up so often: she does not receive any special concession from the State. If it were a private scheme and if she paid in she would draw out. This always bedevils our discussions about widows. I have heard it so many times. If she is a widow and her husband has in his lifetime made contributions it has nothing to do with whether or not she works.

§ LORD ABERDARE
I appreciate the noble Baroness's point of view, and I know that she appreciates that we have helped widows between the ages of 40 and 50 and have given increased benefits in respect of their dependants. I am really rather sorry the noble Baroness has not moved the Amendment because I think it would have been useful to have a few more words on these matters. I believe our position on Clause 5 is fully defensible. I would only mention that my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Paul Dean, did make one concession in moving an Amendment, and has undertaken to look further into hard cases that arise. I will not go into it further because the noble Baroness is not going to move the Amendment. I hope she will agree there is some substance in our point of view on Clause 5.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I hope the noble Lord will convey to his noble friend the Leader of the House, who has just come in, the protest which my noble friend has made about the difficulty in dealing with this matter, because clearly it is farcical now to attempt to move the Amendment we had intended to move. I know that the noble Earl is anxious to do better in another year. I would only say that we should like to strengthen his hand. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is very reasonable and we are reluctant to criticise him, but it does make a bit of a mockery of what is an important Bill. My noble friend Lady Phillips had a lot to contribute. But noble Lords are very exhausted, and I think we just have to accept that the Bill we wish to see pass into law has to pass into law and we leave it there.

§ LORD ABERDARE
I have only one small point. I appreciate the difficulty at this hour, but I know that this was agreed through the usual channels.

§ BARONESS PHILLIPS
Yes.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Yes, because the Opposition are realistic and anxious to co-operate. I know that the Government Front Bench are equally concerned about what we do in the House of Lords. I do not want to give lectures at this time of night; we all know the reality of the situation. But a number of people were anxious that there should be a thorough discussion of this, and the noble Lord clearly has indicated that he would like to answer; but I think it is futile to do so. We shall just have to recognise there is a point beyond which human endurance can no longer do its job. I think Parliament and your Lordships have been strained and will be further strained. Certainly it is perfectly true that this was agreed through the usual channels but it is frustrating for us all.

§ LORD ABERDARE
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ LORD ABERDARE
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ BARONESS PHILLIPS
My Lords, I should just like to give notice that on this question of industrial injuries, we shall probably initiate a debate in the autumn—and we shall hope that it will take place at the beginning of the day.