HC Deb 07 May 1956 vol 552 cc839-44
60. . H. Fraser

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding an increase in the earnings limit of widows and others who are drawing pensions

61. Mr. Collins

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he accepts the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Earnings Limit for Benefits, Command Paper No. 9752

64. Mr. Gower

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now announce the decisions regarding the amounts which retirement pensioners and widow pensioners may earn without diminution of their pensions

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

I will with permission, Sir, make a short statement in reply to Questions Nos. 60, 61 and 64 on today's Order Paper.

In accordance with the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the course of debate on 3rd February, the Government have given urgent consideration to the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of earnings limits for benefits, which I presented to Parliament on 2nd May (Command 9752). I think the House would wish to express gratitude for the rapidity and thoroughness with which the Committee has done its work on this difficult and complex subject and for the most useful and well expressed report which it has produced.

The Government accept the recommendation of the majority of the Committee that the earnings limit for retirement pensioners should be raised to 50s. and that deductions from pensions should only be made at the reduced rate of 6d. in the shilling on earnings between 50s. and 70s.

The Government accept the recommendation that a similar change should be made in respect of widows' pensions. The effect of these changes would be that retirement pensioners and widows earn- ing 80s. a week will still be in receipt of £1 a week pension which will only become totally extinguished when earnings reach £5 a week.

The Government have considered the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee that in respect of widowed mothers the earnings limit should be 60s. with deduction at the reduced rate of 6d. between that figure and 70s. a week. They feel, however, that somewhat more generous provision can properly be made in the case of widowed mothers and, while accepting the Committee's recommendation that the earnings limit should remain at 60s., propose that deductions at the reduced rate of 6d. in the shilling should run up to 80s. a week instead of the 70s. proposed by the Committee.

The Government also accept the proposal that pensions should be adjusted in accordance with earnings in the previous calendar week instead of in the previous pension week. I understand that these proposals lie within the scope of the Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), to which the House gave a Second Reading on 3rd February, and which is due shortly to come before a Standing Committee.

The Government also accept in principle the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee that a retirement pensioner should be enabled to elect to revert to his previous position and so become eligible to earn increments on his pension when he finally retires. This change would also require legislation, and I cannot at present say when it will be possible to introduce it.

The Committee made a number of other recommendations which Her Majesty's Government are studying. It seems probable that we shall require to see further reports which are due from the Advisory Committee before coming to a decision on certain of these.

Mr. Collins

In respect of the reference made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Bill in the name of his hon. Friend, the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), does he accept or oppose the proposal in the Bill for an earnings limit of 60s.? Can he, further, say when he expects legislative effect will be given to the announcement which he has just made?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should be rather doubtfully in order if I attempted to indicate the attitude I may take in the Standing Committee. But perhaps I should not offend if I invited the attention of the hon. Gentlemen to the fact that there are Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of some of my hon. Friends which are in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. I cannot speculate on the other question of the hon. Gentleman as to the course of discussion in the House on a Bill, particularly when it is a Private Member's Bill

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has just said will give great pleasure throughout the country and, in point of fact, will receive the support of the promoters of the Bill, who are delighted that the Government are following where back-benchers have led? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether earlier legislative effect cannot be given to the proposal of the Committee to allow pensioners to come back into the insurance scheme and earn increments if they wish?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I will certainly consider the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but we shall have to give a little time to consideration of one of the conditions in which, according to the Advisory Committee's Report, the option to—I apologise to the House for this ugly word-de-retire should be given. It is proposed by the Advisory Committee that a married pensioner should be only able to de-retire—[An HON. MEMBER: "Change his mind."]—or, in the rather more elegant words of my own statement, "revert to his previous position," which is a rather longer phrase, if his wife agrees. That would need a little further thought. We have accepted the general principle of reverting to the previous position—I give that phrase to the right hon. Gentleman—and I would like to consider a means of carrying it out

Mr. Marquand

Is the Minister aware that on this side of the House we would like to associate ourselves with the thanks he has expressed to the Advisory Committee for its Report? As we have previously agreed that the matter of the earnings limit might be considered during the passage of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), we have no objection to it; but the proposal that he has just announced for the modification of the Committee's proposals in regard to widows is one on which we must reserve our opinion until we have had time to study it. Would it not have been more beneficial to raise the size of the children's allowances rather than to raise the earnings limit? Did the right hon. Gentleman take fully into account the desirability or otherwise of giving an incentive to widowed mothers to spend a lot of time at work? Finally, on this difficult question of de-retirement with or without the wife's permission, will he accept my assurance that he is quite right to postpone legislation for a limited time, until we can think about it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

My statement and, indeed, the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, related only to earnings limits, and any question of dealing with allowances in respect of widows' children is one which it is not impossible might arise on other legislation which may not be very far off. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to reserve his position and that of his right hon. Friends on this matter until he has further considered it, but, as he knows, the Advisory Committee gave prolonged consideration to it and heard a great deal of evidence before reaching this conclusion. I am sure that the House will give proper weight to that

Mr. J. Griffiths

As one who had the privilege of piloting the original Bill through the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to join with me in expressing the hope that when the Bill comes into operation employers—both private and public—will not seek to take advantage of pensioners, as in the case of the former old-age pension, and cloud the whole issue, which should be of advantage to old-age pensioners? May we hope that this benefit will be for the pensioners and that no one who employs them will take advantage of it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think there is a real fear of that, at any rate in certain quarters. I hope that no one will so conduct himself as to lend any colour to that fear—its existence makes it much more difficult to deal with this complex matter—and that everyone will behave as generously as one would wish. The more restraint there is in that direction, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, the better

Mr. Gower

As it is so desirable to attract pensioners back to employment, will my right hon. Friend study the possibility of permitting them to do so in some degree retrospectively?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In matters of National Insurance arrangements of this sort there are few, if any, precedents for retrospection. I cannot see how one can retrospectively incite people to work

Mr. T. Brown

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the publication of the Report there has been strong and profound dissatisfaction expressed by those whom the proposals will affect when they are put into legislative form? Is he further aware that during the weekend a number of conferences have been held by those who will be affected, and that resolutions expressing dissatisfaction at any earnings limit at all have been passed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The question of any earnings limit at all was outside the scope of the Advisory Committee. It raises very wide questions which go to the very root of the National insurance Scheme. I am quite certain that opinion generally welcomes the relaxation which can result from the work of the Committee, if the House agrees, and the relief which it will give

Mr. Drayson

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement he has made brings a measure of justice to old-age pensioners and that it is not a question of generosity?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

As always, I am inclined to agree with the phraseology of my hon. Friend

Mr. H. Morrison

I gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that part of the legislation will not be introduced yet and that he could not give a date for its introduction. Can he be a little forthcoming, because there is a great deal of anxiety about the whole question covered by the statement? Can he be a little more encouraging and say when the remaining legislation will be introduced?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If he studies my statement, the right hon. Gentleman will see that I indicated the parts of the Report which, according to the advice I have received—although, of course, the question of order is not for me—may possibly come within the scope of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North. I think I am right in saying that they cover the matters on which there is the greatest feeling of urgency, but I cannot give any indication today as to further legislation on this subject

Mr. Mikardo

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what happens to a de-retired pensioner when, eventually, he un-de-retires?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think that that raises the question of re-de-retirement