§ 5. Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the increase in industrial wages since the amount which pensioners could earn weekly without a reduction in their pension was fixed at £2, he will now increase this figure.
§ 16. Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now consider revising the present earnings rule of old-age pensioners.
§ 21. Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the present position of two vacancies for jobs in industry to every workless person, also approximately 55,000 unfilled vacancies for jobs in the Midlands atoll:, including Kidderminster, Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, and other industrial towns, and to encourage old-age pensioners up to 70 years of age to remain at work, if they wish, whether he will increase from 40s. to 80s. per week the limit of earnings before the retirement pension is mulcted.
§ 29. Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will review the earnings limitation imposed upon old-age pensioners in the light of successive increases in retirement pensions in recent years, and of the present high level of employment and the number of vacant jobs now available; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake)I cannot add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 20th June.
§ Mr. JohnsonWould my right hon. Friend not agree that, in view of the increase of wages, earnings of £2 a week are no longer a fair figure on which to estimate whether a person should or should not receive a pension?
§ Mr. PeakeMy hon. Friend no doubt is aware that the Phillips Committee went into this matter and recommended no change in the earnings rule. So far as widows are concerned, the question of widows' benefits is now with the National Insurance Advisory Committee and, when we receive its report, it may throw some light on this matter. In any case, it is something that we shall have to deal with in the course of the non-statutory review of the scheme.
§ Mr. NabarroIs my right hon. Friend aware that the answer given to the House today is totally unrealistic? Is it not a fact that throughout the country today there are two vacancies for every job for every workless person, and that tens of thousands of old-age pensioners would remain at work were they given reasonable incentives to do so?
§ Mr. PeakeI am not saying that there may not be a case for some change in the rule, but I would say to my hon. Friend that to adopt his proposal and make the earnings limit 80s. instead of 40s. would make it a very paying proposition for almost every woman worker in the areas mentioned in his Question to give up full-time employment when she was over 60 and supplement her pension by part-time earnings.
§ Mr. GowerWill my right hon. Friend, in future consideration of this subject, note that very strong opinion is held about it by all, both in this House and outside, and will he agree that the same circumstances which led to an increase in the permitted earnings in 1951 would appear to call for an increase today?
§ Mr. PeakeI have already said that there may be some case for a change in the rule, but we have to take note of the opinion of well-informed bodies, such as the Trades Union Congress, in this matter.
§ Dr. KingCannot the Minister at least in fairness raise the amount so that it has the purchasing value which £2 had when that amount was first fixed?
§ Mr. PeakeThe amount originally fixed by the 1946 Act was 20s., and that was in fact doubled in 1951.
§ Mr. MarquandThe right hon. Gentleman referred to the opinion of the Phillips Committee, but did that Committee, in adhering to the rule, necessarily adhere to the figure of £2 for all time?
§ Mr. PeakeYes, I think the Committee made a clear recommendation that the present rule should remain unaltered.
§ Mr. NabarroWith a minority report.
§ 20. Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many old-age pensioners, at the latest convenient date, suffered deductions from their retirement pensions on account of the earnings rule imposing a maximum earning of 40s. per week before the pension becomes subject to reduction; how many retirement pensions were being paid on the date referred to; and what percentage those suffering pension deductions under the earnings rule were of the total number of pensioners.
§ Mr. PeakeOut of the 4,500,000 retirement pensioners, some 50,000—that is, about 1 per cent.—have their pensions reduced on account of the earnings rule.
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a fact that the whole of those 50,000 would be available for consideration against the 400,000 vacancies that there are for jobs today, notably in the Midlands area? Would my right hon. Friend not care to relate these two sets of figures, which should be related to one another, and not endeavour to hark back to 1951 when an entirely different set of circumstances existed in this country?
§ Mr. PeakeAlthough it is only a small percentage of the total number of pensioners, let us face it that it is those pensioners who are between 65 and 70 if they are men, or 60 and 65 if they are women, who are subject to the earnings rule. But I must point out again that any large relaxation of the rule would make it much more remunerative for women to give up full-time employment and take part-time employment instead.
§ 27. Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what additional charge would be incurred by public funds, and which funds, by raising 8 the limit of earnings for old-age pensioners from 40s. per week to 80s. per week before reducing pension.
§ Mr. PeakeI regret that information is not available on which to assess the additional charge which would fall on the National Insurance Fund.
§ Mr. NabarroWill my right hon. Friend take steps to secure the assessment of this figure, which is vital in this controversy? Is he not aware that if old people can be induced to remain in full-time employment, it must lead to an increase in national wealth which will more than offset any temporary or transient charge which may fall on the National Insurance Fund?
§ Mr. PeakeBut what I cannot get my hon. Friend to observe is that his proposal would lead to a great transfer of people at present in full-time employment to part-time employment plus pension.
§ Mr. H. HyndIs the Minister not ashamed to have to stand at the Box and give so many negative replies on such a human subject?
§ Mr. PeakeNot in the least. I know, for one thing, that the views which I have expressed about being careful in what we do in the relaxation of the earnings rule are shared very generally by the whole of the trade union movement.
§ 28. Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consultations he has had with the nationalised industries, private employers, and trade unions, about the earnings limitation imposed on old-age pensioners; how many representations he has received on this subject in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PeakeNone, Sir. But these bodies had opportunities of putting their views before the Phillips Committee. I regret that information about the number of representations is not available. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 20th June.
§ Mr. GowerDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread feeling that he is moving too slowly in this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not moving at all.") While it is true that 9 the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may be objectionable—
§ Mr. NabarroThere is nothing objectionable about the figure.
§ Mr. PeakeAs I have said, this matter is tied up to a considerable extent with the Report on widows' benefits which we shall receive shortly.
§ 30. Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the value of the earnings permitted to old-age pensioners without diminution of their pensions, in terms of actual values in 1951 and today, respectively; and the figure now required to make the actual value of these earnings equal to the value of permitted earnings in 1951.
§ Mr. PeakeThe earnings limit was increased from 20s. to 40s. in July, 1951, which, on the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, would today be equivalent to 23s. 9d. and 47s. 6d., respectively.
§ Mr. NabarroIn view of the whole series of unsatisfactory answers on this problem, I beg to give notice—and hope my hon. Friends will join me—that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment as soon as possible.