HC Deb 17 June 1966 vol 729 cc1879-80

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North)

We should not let this Clause pass without saying a word of farewell to the very first State pension scheme which was introduced in the country and which is now abolished by the Clause. The Committee will recollect that the pension dates back from 1st January, 1909, when it was at the rate of 5s. It did not begin until a person reached the age of 70 and, even then, he could not get it if he had an income of 10s. a week or more. We have come some way since then, thanks to the contributions which have been made by all parties in the development of our social services.

I want to ask the Minister one question. The White Paper tells us that there are now 63,000 non-contributory old-age pensioners of whom all but 14,000 get National Assistance. That means that there are 14,000 people whose right to benefit has to be protected because they will lose their old-age pensions.

The Parliamentary Secretary has already given us an assurance that these rights are fully protected, but he and his right hon. Friend will realise that there is some doubt amongst people who have considerable experience in these matters about whether that protection is fully covered in the Bill.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important to have clarification of the point, because, after all, these matters are decided not by the word of Ministers but by the law as expressed in the Bill. There are no words in this Clause dealing with the protection of these rights. I assume that we are meant to read the Clause in conjunction with subsection (4) of Schedule 7. I would like to ask the Minister if she is satisfied that this protection given in the Seventh Schedule is sufficient to achieve the object which she has in mind.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies

I would like to assure the hon. Member that he need have no fears about this. Before I deal with that point may I, on behalf of this side of the Committee, bid farewell to the old system of pensions and agree that we are entering a new kind of society in which, whatever our political viewpoint, it is obvious that there will be more periodic reviews of the way in which our social security system works. The aged surviving pioneers of the old pension system will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point.

The hon. Member said in the debate on Clause 5: On the face of it, unless special orders are made, a substantial number of people, most of them retired pensioners, will get less under the new arrangement than they get at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1137.] I can assure him that our intention is quite clear. We thought that we had clarified it in the White Paper. Furthermore, a person now receiving discretionary additions of more than 9s. will continue to receive these to make good the balance over 9s.

The pensioner with a discretionary allowance of 17s. 6d. will get the longer term addition of 9s. plus a discretionary addition of 8s. 6d., so that so far as his special needs are concerned he will be in exactly the same position as before. The Clause simply has the effect of bringing to an end the obsolescent system of the non-contributory old-age pension. We believe that it is a step forward and I can say categorically that no one will be worse off.

Mr. Dean

This particular safeguard is not in Clause 21. Can the hon. Gentleman put on record precisely where it will be found in the Bill?

Mr. Davies

As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is in Schedule 7.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.