HC Deb 10 March 1954 vol 524 cc2269-71

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend section two of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such increase in the expenditure which under any Act is to be defrayed out of moneys so provided as is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session abolishing the limit of pension up to which increases may be made under the said section two and substituting ten per cent, of the scale of increase authorised by that section, toeing provisions operating from such date as may be specified therein.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I do not want to take up much time because I know there is a good deal of other business to be transacted and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were up all night, but I wonder whether the Financial Secretary will throw some light on the point raised just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). I think it would be useful if he could give us some guidance so that we may know what we ought to do when the Bill is in Committee, that is, if something has then to be done. What this Bill does, or what we thought it did— and I understand now that it still does— is to continue an exclusion which was first put into operation by Section 3 of the 1947 Act, which affected pensioners who retired on unaveraged salaries received on or after 1st April, 1947, or on averaged salaries when the averaging period began on or after 1st April, 1946.

I understood from the Financial Secretary when I interrupted him earlier that, in spite of that provision in the 1947 Act, a tapering arrangement would be introduced which would enable pensioners right up to 31st March, 1949, to qualify and that therefore no anomaly so far as that period was concerned would arise. Now I understand from his reply to the right hon. Gentleman that when he replied to me he was not referring to this difficulty at all but to something else of which I am not fully seized. I do not press him on the matter because I know it is a complicated one, but I should be obliged if, nevertheless, he could give us some indication of what it was he was thinking about when he replied to me. and to what extent, if any, my point is different from the point raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West. I am sure the Committee would be obliged to the Financial Secretary if he would.

Furthermore, is the Financial Secretary quite sure that the Money Resolution is not too tightly drawn to enable us to improve the Bill in Committee?

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think that I can respond to the request of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) were discussing, I think, two quite separate and distinct matters. The interest of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley was in what is colloquially called the "taper." That is the arrangement under which a certain diminishing increase in the benefits conferred by this Bill goes to people who retire at such a date that their pensions are higher than those who retire at an earlier date.

If we do not add to those pension groups some such provision to deal with overlapping, we get the anomalous position in which some one is getting appreciably more pension because he retired in one year rather than another. The purpose of the taper is to eliminate these anomalies to which hon. Members have referred.

I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West was concerned with a very limited number of cases which gave rise to a certain amount of difficulty. There are, I understand, a few basic pensioners with between £400 and £410 who will not, as the Bill stands, benefit under it. They are the pensions of a certain small category whose family arrangements happen to bring them to that particular figure and who already benefit by rather more than 10 per cent, under the Acts of 1944 and 1947. That is a slight complication which my right hon. Friend's eagle eye did apparently spot. It is essentially a Committee point and it will certainly be looked into.

On the Money Resolution, I think that I can only say that it is designed to fit in with the main purpose of the Bill, which is this 10 per cent, increase for pensioners in this category, and I do not think that we should find any difficulty in accepting it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.