§ 4. Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has completed the review he undertook to make about the anomalies arising from linking insurance under the pre-1948 Acts with benefits under the existing Act; and what remedies he will propose.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the matters to which he refers are part of the highly complex transitional arrangements which were made by and under the National Insurance Act, 1946, and which it would hardly be possible to alter substantially after this lapse of time. I am, however, considering whether certain minor adjustments might not be made to help in certain cases.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs the Minister aware that he told me that on 18th March and that I thought it might be a good idea after three months to remind him again? Will his review cover the case of a constituent of mine who had paid full contributions since 1948 but, because he was denied the opportunity of contributing before that and although he has been insured for over 20 years, he could not get a full pension and is suffering to the extent of 3s.? Will that sort of case be included?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterMy recollection of the case of the constituent to which the hon. Gentleman referred is that he was not denied an opportunity to contribute but there was, in fact, a contribution deficiency because he did not contribute. I should not like to add to my Answer at this stage, but if the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter he will have some knowledge of its fearsome complexity. I am hoping to be able to deal with a minor but rather acute aspect of the matter.
§ Mr. CallaghanThe right hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection is almost accurate. In fact, my constituent was denied an opportunity of contributing because he was over the income limit. It is that type of case to which I refer.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThat is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me at this time to start revising all the legislation of the past 25 years.