§ 2.57 p.m.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how many widows have had their pension books withdrawn, and how many have appealed against the decision, at the present date.
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the provision under which national insurance widows' benefit ceases to be payable if the widow is living with a man as his wife. The latest 12-month period for which a figure is available is 1st July 1978 to 30th June 1979. During this period 1,104 widows had their benefit withdrawn under the provision in question following a decision of the local insurance officer. Of these widows, 177 have so far appealed to the local tribunal against the insurance officer's decision.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that it is on the suspicion of the local insurance officer that a widow's pension is withdrawn if she is thought to be cohabiting? May I ask the noble Lord, in view of the figure that he has given of the widows who are appealing, whether he is aware that even pending the appeal the widow's pension is still withdrawn and she is not allowed even supplementary benefits?
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, to try to get some perspective in this matter, out of the 1,104 widows who had their benefit withdrawn, 177 appealed and 120 of those appeals failed, 44 were successful and 13 are outstanding. So we are talking about a very small minority of cases. It is well known, and the Finer Committee decided so, that this is a very difficult matter to administer. I understand what my noble friend says about benefits being withdrawn on suspicion. If either anonymously or otherwise people send in a report to the adjudicating authorities, it is the latter's duty to see 11 that these things are looked into; they cannot be ignored. We are talking in a very small minority of cases of people who are drawing benefit improperly.
§ Baroness SEEARMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that, even if it is a small number of cases, for the people concerned it is a very serious matter indeed? We do not believe, do we, that the number of cases affects the justice of the issue? Would the Minister not also agree that while an appeal is pending the widow should, if not allowed pension, at least be allowed supplementary benefit?
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the fact that the number of cases is small is not a particularly good defence. However, I did say that those cases are difficult to administer, and because the number is so small is perhaps some tribute to the way in which the job is carried out.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not contrary to natural justice for an action to be taken against a woman in such circumstances until the matter has been heard by a competent tribunal? In our society we do not hold people guilty until they are proved innocent; they are innocent until they are found guilty. I ask the Government really to consider the matter. Furthermore, I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible, as the noble Baroness has said, to continue the pension until such time as a tribunal has found the person guilty of this offence; and, secondly, when that person wants to appeal, whether the appeal could not be undertaken more expeditiously than it is at present.
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I shall deal with the last point that the noble Lord made. Efforts are being made to accelerate the appeal procedure. I know that work is going on as regards that matter at present. I do not believe that it would be possible for the widow to continue to receive her benefit while this matter is being looked at, because, in many cases, it would go on for quite a long time, it would mean public funds being tied up, and eventually there may be some difficulty in getting the money back.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, is not the local insurance officer who determines these matters himself a quasi-judicial authority in this and other matters? Moreover, does not the smallness of the numbers, to which the noble Lord referred, confirm the experience of many of us who have been involved in matters of national insurance administration that local insurance officers are singularly unwilling to take action in these cases unless they are absolutely blatant?
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. That is exactly what I have been told myself and I believe that great care is taken not to pillory widows on a suspicion basis. As I have said, I think that there are but few cases, and great trouble is taken not to be unfair.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, for whose help I have been very grateful in the past. However, is it not a well-known fact that social workers know from personal experience when they are dealing with these people and helping them in their straitened circumstances, that many of them—indeed I would say the large majority of them—feel that there is no point in appealing because the decision has been made by someone and they do not stand any chance at all?
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I do not quite understand why that should be so. There are many people to advise. I personally do not believe that these benefits are withdrawn unless initially the manager of the office is virtually convinced that it is right so to do.
§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGERMy Lords, how can one officer on his own, without living in the house with the couple, be sure of what is going on? Surely there must be suspicion, even very strong suspicion? Secondly, is it not possible that if benefit, or certainly supplementary benefit, was payable pending appeal, the appeals might be heard rather more expeditiously?
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I am not sure that I know how to answer that question.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I hesitate to inflict myself again upon your Lordships, especially when your Lordships are in a querulous mood. However, we have spent eight minutes on the Question, and perhaps your Lordships might feel that it would be appropriate to move on.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, considering the obvious interest in your Lordships' House as regards this matter, and in view of the fact that my figures vary completely from those given by the noble Lord this afternoon, and that it takes up to 18 months for a commissioner to hear the appeals, thereby causing a great deal of distress to the woman concerned, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will please ask his right honourable friend to consider this matter in depth and with urgency?
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, the whole House knows what a valiant champion of the widows my noble friend is, and I shall certainly pass on what she has said to my tight honourable friend.