NATIONAL INSURANCE AND PENSION REGULATIONS (Hansard, 22 November 1978)

§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTER
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, if the draft amending regulations had been referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for consideration and advice, a period of at least three months would have elapsed before the regulation could have been made. Meanwhile, the adjudicating authorities would have had to apply the original regulation in accordance with the interpretation placed upon it by the Tribunal of National Insurance Commissioners in a decision given on 8th September, 1978. This showed that the original regulation had not achieved its intended effect. A considerable increase in benefit expenditure, for which the Department had no financial provision at all, would have resulted.

§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTER
My Lords, does that not mean that the National Insurance Commissioners' decision gave considerable help to a number of housewives, who were at least partially disabled and in considerable need? Before interfering with such a decision by the highest adjudicating authority in the National Insurance system, should not the Secretary of State have consulted in the usual way the National Insurance Advisory Committee?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, there are two points here. On the first point, the noble Lord is perfectly right. 977 Had the Department implemented the interpretation put upon the 1977 regulation when the Tribunal reported, then it would have brought into the scheme a considerable number of extra women, for whom the Department certainly had no money whatsoever. The noble Lord, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will know the difficulty which the Department would have been in, in trying to find money that it did not have. It was for that reason that it sought, as I said, to place these regulations, with a view to getting back to the interpretation of 1977. This is perfectly proper because, as the noble Lord will know, the Secretary of State has power under the Act not to consult the National Insurance Advisory Committee, if it is expedient not to do so. I would point out that it was the National Insurance Advisory Committee which approved the wording of the 1977 regulation.

§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTER
Then, my Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the decision was taken not on the merits of a very important social security provision, as interpreted by the highest interpreting authority, but simply because the Department had failed to provide adequate finance in the Estimates? In those circumstances, will the noble Lord agree, even now, to take the view of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in order to see whether they approve of that decision?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, it was not a case of the Department failing to provide adequate money in its Estimates. It provided adequate money, and it got that money dependent upon the interpretation of the 1977 regulation. When this new decision came in, it was impossible to do it and the result was that, if we had referred it to the NIAC, it would have taken three months. Other people would have been brought into the scheme, if the money had been available, only perhaps to be excluded at a later date when the Department felt that it was right that it should go back to the 1977 interpretation. For the benefit of your Lordships, may I say that the difference is one of interpretation. The Department takes the view that a housewife must be substantially unable to carry out her duties, whereas the Tribunal of National Insurance Commissioners took the view 978 that "substantial" did not mean what I always thought it to mean. "Substantial" could be anything less than 50 per cent.

§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTER
My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question about the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and referring it to them now?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot give a categorical Yes or No. But I will obviously see my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and bring his attention to what the noble Lord has said.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much money was saved by not referring this matter to the Commissioners?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
Not without notice, my Lords, and I do not think that I ought to guess.

§ The Earl of KINNOULL
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he accepts that the case shows up a great weakness in the consultation procedures, if one cannot consult because it takes three months? Can the noble Lord say why it would have taken three months to consult with this advisory committee?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, there is not a weakness in the consultative procedure. What I am saying is that the 1977 regulations were approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It is true that we could have gone back to the National Insurance Advisory Committee and said, "In the light of the decision of the National Insurance Commissioners, we are in some difficulty. What do you think about it?", and they would have considered the matter. But that would have meant a delay while the consideration was going on and the question of placing new regulations, if and when that became necessary, would have meant a considerable delay.

§ Lord BANKS
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people think that it is wrong in principle that a disabled married woman should have to pass a stricter qualifying test for this benefit 979 than other disabled people? Is there not a case for abolishing the additional test, instead of making it more stringent?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I have no doubt in my own mind that a very strong case could probably be made out for abolishing it altogether. However, a considerable sum of money—probably in excess of £100 million—would then be needed to bring into the scheme everybody who would then qualify. When this was introduced we spent a good deal of time upon doing some research into the matter. We anticipated that about 40,000 housewives would qualify. In point of fact, the number turned to be about 40,000, so our research was fairly accurate. May I remind noble Lords that this was an entirely new benefit which had never before been introduced, along with a number of other new benefits, at a time when we were facing a real financial crisis in this country. As it was non-contributory, it seemed right that there should be, as we felt, the condition that this benefit should go only to housewives who were substantially unable to perform their household duties.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
My Lords, in order to clarify the matter, when the advisory committee was consulted on the question of what "substantially" meant—I am speaking about the 1977 regulations—could the noble Lord say whether they were specifically consulted as to what "substantially" meant and whether they agreed to the interpretation which the Government proposed to put upon that word?

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I can only say that we knew what we meant by the word "substantially". When it was referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, they agreed with us. This is why, as I say, there was no difficulty at all. While I am on my feet, I should like to say how indebted I am to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for asking this Question, because it is a matter which we need to air.

§ Lord LEATHERLAND
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether I am right—

§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)
My Lords, I think that we have had a good run on this Question. I feel it is right that the House should be concerned about it, but we have been on this Question for over a quarter of an hour.