Skip to main content

National Insurance

Volume 485: debated on Monday 12 March 1951

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Prisoners (Contributions)

14.

asked the Minister of National Insurance what progress has been made, following discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect to enabling prisoners in His Majesty's Prisons to maintain themselves in benefit under the National Insurance Scheme.

My right hon. Friend and I have come to the conclusion that the existing arrangements, which are described in the reply given on 13th February to a Question by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean), are as satisfactory as is possible in all the circumstances.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the present unsatisfactory arrangements many men and women who go to prison have to pay a far higher penalty than the law demands, despite the time that is allowed for the payment of their contributions afterwards; and in view of the modest sum of money involved, could not something more effective be done to get rid of these injustices?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps he has not recalled the regulations, that were made last year which enable these men and women after release to make their payment retrospectively. In certain circumstances, they have five years in which to do so.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that to be imprisoned for five years and then to come out and to have these arrears added, is too much for most people who have been in prison for several years?

I did not say "if the person had been in prison for five years." I said that the person concerned would have a period of five years after release in which to make the payments.

If Z men in His Majesty's Prisons are called up for His Majesty's Forces, how will this affect their insurance benefits?

Sickness Benefit

15.

asked the Minister of National Insurance why her regulations enable self-employed persons, including Members of Parliament, to draw sickness benefit under the National Insurance scheme at the same time as other emoluments; and what is the waiting period.

I have written to the hon. Member about the first part of his Question. The waiting period is three days.

Does not the Minister think it rather undesirable for company directors, Members of this House and others who are paid full salary, whether sick or not, to be eligible to draw benefit, and would not the right thing be to reduce the weekly contribution that everyone pays and to debar M.P.s from obtaining sickness benefit?

No, Sir. The hon. Member has forgotten that this is an insurance scheme. It does not matter whether the person concerned is a manual labourer or a company director. If he has paid his contributions, he is entitled to benefit.

For the interest of other hon. Members who may want to claim sickness benefit, can the right hon. Lady say what were the contents of the letter to my hon. Friend?

When I said that we were going on to the next Question, the hon. Member must not get up and ask a supplementary which I had stopped.

36.

asked the Minister of National Insurance what sum was paid out in the year 1950, and in January and February, 1951, respectively, in sickness benefit; to how many people; and of how many working days this payment represents the loss.

I regret that I cannot give figures on the precise basis asked for by the hon. Member, but I am sending him such information as is available.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that in the opinion of many experts in administration some of the public are taking a mean advantage of the granting of these sickness benefits? Will she have the cases examined so that public money shall not be wasted?

Retirement (Postponement)

17.

asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps are taken to draw the attention of those who become entitled to retirement pensions to the fact that higher pensions can be earned by postponing retirement.

The position is explained in leaflets and other documents issued to persons approaching pensionable age. I am, however, considering what more can be done to make such persons aware that they can earn higher pensions if they postpone retirement from work beyond the ages of 65 for men, 60 for women.

As most of that answer was entirely inaudible on this side of the House, may I ask the Minister whether she is satisfied with the present position?

I am prepared to look at it again, but there are a number of leaflets in existence which are sent to the old people and which, I know, they read.

May I respectfully ask you, Sir, whether you could ask the engineers to put on a little more "juice"? We cannot hear a word in this part of the House.

I am very sorry that I cannot put that right myself. I often do not hear. I have no doubt, however, that the hon. Member's protest will be heard.

Seasonal Workers

18.

asked the Minister of National Insurance to what extent, in considering whether any case comes under the provisions of the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1950, differentiation is made between persons who are severely handicapped in their search for employment and others who are not in any way handicapped.

The interpretation of the regulations is a matter for the statutory authorities. Until decisions have been given in a fairly wide range of cases by the National Insurance Commissioner, I am unable to say how they will affect individual cases.

Has the Minister considered the case of Mr. Hugh Quigley, of 58, Elderpark Street, which I sent her when putting down this Question? Does she not think that if anyone is incapacitated and unable to obtain work during the winter, these regulations should not apply to him? Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that these regulations, which are causing a great deal of trouble, should continue to apply at all?

I have explained before to the House that the statutory authorities have wide discretion in this matter and can take all these circumstances into account.

28.

asked the Minister of National Insurance what representations were put forward on behalf of agricultural seasonal workers, and by whom, before the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1950, were introduced; and whether those representations were accepted or rejected.

16.

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether the organisations she consulted before bringing in regulations to prevent seasonal unemployed workers from drawing unemployment benefit included the National Union of Agricultural Workers; and whether the regulation was introduced in agreement with that trade union.

34.

asked the Minister of National Insurance how far consultations took place with the National Union of Agricultural Workers before the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1951, were introduced; and if she will indicate the nature of the representations made by the National Union of Agricultural Workers then and since.

I understand that when the National Insurance Advisory Committee were considering the question of special rules for seasonal workers, the unions representing agricultural workers made representations to them. When I received the Committee's Report and before regulations were drafted certain representations were made to me by the Trades Union Congress and various points of view were put forward including those of agricultural workers. I take full responsibility for the draft regulations which I subsequently asked the House to approve.

Would the right hon. Lady be so good as to answer the last few words of my Question, which asked whether or not the representations were accepted or rejected? Is she aware that the regulations so far have had a most unsatisfactory effect so far as women in agriculture are concerned and is it not a pity that the advice of the union was not accepted?

When the National Insurance Advisory Committee made their report to me, representations were made to me from the T.U.C. and a deputation came to see me representing all the unions which were concerned with seasonal workers. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) now asks me to disclose to this House what one individual, or two individuals maybe, of certain unions said—in fact, in Question 28 I am asked to give the name. I believe it would be a breach of confidence to do that publicly and would be calculated to prejudice my discussions in the future.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the National Union of Agricultural Workers have been opposed to the imposition of these regulations all the way through? Did she not say in a letter to the union:

"I am sorry if any remarks I may have made in the House of Commons on the 5th February have been taken as implying that these Regulations had actually been agreed with the agricultural union"?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given, but I must also recall that when I made the draft regulations and submitted them to the Advisory Committee, no unions made representations. Furthermore, when I came to the House and asked for approval of the regulations—the House will recall that approval was necessary in this matter—I got them on the nod and there was no debate.

Are we to understand from the earlier reply that these regulations were approved by the T.U.C.?

Not at all; I invited the T.U.C. to send a deputation to see me. The hon. Member has asked me what certain individuals said and I have refused to disclose publicly what they did say.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that some weeks ago in this House she replied to me that she considered that the unions were the obvious people to advise and that we ought to have their advice? Is not the effect of her reply that she has not accepted their advice?

When I am given advice, on whatever matter it is, I consider the advice given. I do not always take it.

On a point of order. The right hon. Lady has misstated what I said only two minutes ago. I have never asked what individuals had said. I asked her what the unions had said.

Short-Time Working

19.

asked the Minister of National Insurance what unemployment benefit is paid to persons who normally work five days a week and are now only working four days a week owing to shortage of material.

On the facts stated, two days' benefit would normally be payable provided the claimant does not receive wages for the period in question and is not otherwise disentitled.

I should have thought that the hon. Member would have known these rules. This is nothing new. This is common practice, and has been so for many years. The position is that if a man does a normal working week of five days, is unemployed on the fifth day, registers at an exchange and makes himself available for employment for the rest of the week, he is then entitled to two days unemployment benefit.

Do I understand, then, that if a firm works a five-day week with the same number of hours as a firm which works five and a half days, all those who work what they regard as a full five-day week can draw unemployment pay on the Saturday.

Certainly not. They cannot draw unemployment pay if they have already worked a full week. They can only draw it if they are unemployed on the fifth day of their normal work and are then available for two more days.

Then anyone who works four-fifths of a week is entitled to two days' unemployment benefit? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, that is the interpretation.

To get the answer correctly, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether a man who works only four days through shortage of materials, and so on, is entitled to draw two days' unemployment benefit?

I have said this three times already. If the man has a normal working week of five days but works only four days, registers at the exchange and then is available for work for the rest of the week but no work is forthcoming, he can then draw unemployment benefit for two days.

Retirement Pensions

20.

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the increasing number of old age pensioners and of the necessity for as many persons as possible remaining in work, she will reconsider the anomaly by which self-employed persons in shops, smallholdings, etc., are forced to abandon either their work or their pension on reaching pensionable age.

33.

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the increasing need for maximum output of every kind in industry, she will consider the introduction at an early stage of the necessary legislation to enable State pensioners, in all categories, who are willing and able to work, to be allowed to do so without any restriction on the amount earned.

It was unanimously agreed by all parties in 1946 that the pensions to be provided under the new scheme were to be retirement pensions for those who gave up regular work. They were designed to encourage people to go on working beyond minimum pension age by providing higher pensions for themselves and their wives when they retire or reach the age of 70. I do not think the abolition of the provisions would have the effect the hon. Members desire.

Surely the right hon. Lady would agree that things have changed a great deal since 1946 and that if the older people who can carry out jobs of this sort have to go, they have to be replaced by younger people? Surely it is worth looking at the regulations again?

Without abandoning the principle of the retirement pension, could my right hon. Friend do something to increase the amount which it is permissible for these old people to earn before they are disqualified from drawing their benefit?

Does not the right hon. Lady consider the present position, arising out of the urgent need for production, vastly different from that obtaining in 1946, and will not she have the matter reconsidered?

asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) at what values coal and light were assessed in 1948 and today, respectively, in assessing the earnings allowable together with a retirement pension;

(2) whether she will consider raising the amount of earnings allowed without loss of retirement pension by an amount equivalent to the average rise in wage-rates since the National Insurance Act was passed.

37.

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether the Government have any intention of increasing the permitted level of earnings for old age pensioners before reductions in retirement benefit are made.

The amount of earnings to be disregarded was fixed in the Act of 1946 as a measure of the amount of employment which could be ignored consistently with the principle that the pensions provided were to be retirement pensions. It was not related to specific items of expenditure or to a particular level of wages. I have, however, noted the hon. Members' suggestions.

May I now have an answer to Question 21, which was not included in the answer given by the Minister?

I have answered it, as the hon. Member will see if he reads my answer.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the level of wages in comparison with pensions plus casual earnings must necessarily be a relevant factor in considering how much casual earnings should be ignored?

I said in answer to the previous Question that I am considering that.

Can the Minister give us any idea whether there is any intention on the part of herself and the Government to bring in necessary amending legislation in the near future to assist in solving this problem?

How soon does the right hon. Lady suggest she can bring in any amendments?

asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) whether she is now in a position to announce any changes in the assessment of part-time or casual earnings of old age pensioners, in order to encourage all who wish to do so to contribute to the national productive effort;

(2) whether, in view of the steady rise in the cost of living since current rates of pension were fixed, she will now consider an increase in those rates;

(3) when she expects the present review of the operation of the National Insurance Act, as it affects old age pensioners, to be concluded; and whether she will expedite this review, in view of the difficulties old age pensioners are encountering owing to the rise in living costs.

I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement on these matters. I would remind the hon. Member that any person in difficulties can apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementary help.

In regard to Question 30, is not the proposal there suggested one which is in the national interest, because the people will be employed and thus contribute towards their own benefits? Does the right hon. Lady realise, in relation to the other Questions, that the figure of 26s. first recommended by Lord Beveridge—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, 24s."]—was in fact out of date by the time the scheme was launched and is it not now time that a revision was made?

In regard to Question 30, I think that perhaps the hon. Member was not in the House when I said I was considering this matter.

When the right hon. Lady is considering the matter, will she bear in mind the advantage of doing something simultaneously to increase the incentive to remain at work when considering the increase in the casual earnings limit, so as to preserve the present balance between those who decide to remain at work and those who decide to retire?

Assistance (Urgent Applications)

23.

asked the Minister of National Insurance under what Sections of the National Insurance Act, 1948, or Regulations made thereunder, the National Assistance Board are entitled to order their staff to receive or deal with applicants at their homes.

The board's officers are civil servants whose terms and conditions of service do not depend on any particular provisions of the National Assistance Acts and regulations made thereunder.

Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to receive a small deputation from the staff concerned with a view to getting this troublesome matter settled?

I am very surprised that my hon. Friend should ask that question. There have been no complaints from the staff. I feel very strongly—and I have said this before in the House—that the National Assistance Act should be administered humanely. All we have asked of the staff is that, in the case of an emergency which calls for the applicant to go to the house of the official, the applicant who goes for assistance or information shall be treated humanely and courteously. I would remind my hon. Friend that of the 2,500 officers asked to do this since 1948, only 169 have been called upon and no one has complained.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been persistent failure to reach agreement in the Departmental Whitley Council as to the conditions under which this obligation should be fulfilled? May I ask her again to try to reach agreement with the staff, so that this service, which all members of the staff are anxious to render, shall be given with the utmost good will?

24.

asked the Minister of National Insurance to what extent the National Assistance Board take account of the home circumstances of officers upon whom the obligation has been imposed of receiving or dealing with applicants at their homes.

The Board are not aware of any particular difficulty but they are, I understand, prepared to take account of individual circumstances on representation by any officer concerned.

Pensioners (Supplementary Allowances)

25.

asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of retired pensioners in Wales and the number in receipt of supplementary pensions.

There are 226,000 retirement pensioners in Wales of whom some 61,000 are receiving supplementary allowances from the National Assistance Board.

26.

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will consider making a general allowance for clothing for all retired pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance.

As I informed the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) in reply to a Question on 5th February, the regulations governing National Assistance only provide for payment of clothing allowances where there is exceptional need. There is, therefore, no power to make an automatic allowance for this purpose as my hon. Friend suggests.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she will consider an alteration of these regulations, in view of the fact that the very circumstance of these people drawing National Assistance reveals that they are in need and that the case in general is at least made out?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that the officers are exercising a wide discretion when I tell him that last year there were 132,000 grants at a cost of £490,643.

Will my right hon. Friend consider especially the case of the single pensioner living alone? Is it not a tragic fact that many of them are unable to purchase any clothing, or household or bed linen? Does not my right hon. Friend think that some special consideration should be given to them?

Assistance Rates

35.

asked the Minister of National Insurance under what circumstances, in view of the increasing cost of living, there will be a revision in the basic rates of National Assistance.

Any alteration in the scales for National Assistance is a matter for the National Assistance Board in the first instance. They have the matter under constant review, but I cannot say in what circumstances they might decide to put forward new proposals.

Will the Minister bear in mind, in view of the increasing cost of living, that a day will shortly come when a man and wife without other resources will no longer be able to live on 43s. 6d. per week, excluding rent?

Personal Case

39.

asked the Minister of National Insurance why Mrs. H. F. Ford, Blandford, Dorset, is unable to be legally represented before a local tribunal in her appeal.

As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Member, legal representation of claimants before local tribunals under the National Insurance Act is precluded by a regulation. This regulation was made on the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, who, after considering numerous representations, took the view that the proceedings should be kept as informal as possible.

Is the Minister aware of the embarrassment caused to this lady, who was appearing before the tribunal for the first time, while the tribunal were quite accustomed to these matters? Could not some alteration be made in the Act so that she could be legally represented at all levels?

Is there anything that would preclude the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), from accompanying his constituent?