§ 10. Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will amend the regulations so that women who are more than five years younger than their husbands shall, in future, receive a pension larger by 2s. for each year that the husband works after the age of 65 years, and shall also be paid similarly augmented pensions if they are widowed.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterSuch a proposal would require legislation and could not in any event be carried through by regulations. On the merits, the hon. Member will be aware that similar proposals have not found favour with this House.
§ Mr. CollinsIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, in attempting to justify the enormous profit which the State makes out of persons who defer their retirement, pointed out the advantages gained by their widows, and that his answer to my Question vitiates to a very large extent that answer? It is obviously a great injustice to the widow; will he not consider bringing in legislation to remove that injustice?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the hon. Gentleman will study the debates in this House in both 1951 and 1952, in which this precise issue was discussed at considerable length, he will see that he is under a good many misapprehensions.
§ 11. Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will take steps to cancel the liability to pay National Insurance contributions in respect to all employed persons who, on 5th July, 1948, were too old to benefit under the late-age entrants scheme.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterNo, Sir. No contributions other than industrial injury contributions are payable by the employed person in such a case, but it is a longstanding principle that the employer should pay the normal employer's contributions in all circumstances.
§ Mr. CollinsIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question includes, of course, the contribution paid by employers, and that I recently sent to his Department a case of a man of 79, who had just retired, in respect of contributions paid for fourteen years without any hope of any benefit on retirement? Can he give any example in common law where this extortion could be paralleled?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe hon. Member will recollect that this is a case in which the main contribution, apart from industrial injuries, was by the employer, and it has for a very long time been thought right in these cases that the employer's contribution should be paid at the normal rate, because it would be quite wrong to allow the National Insurance Scheme to act as an incentive to employers to employ one category of worker as against another.
§ Mr. CollinsI have no doubt that in this case as in others the man was exploited despite the regulations, and will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question about unjustified extortion?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI cannot accept for a moment that the man or the employer to whom the normal law of the land applies was exploited in any way whatever.
§ Mr. CollinsIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.