HC Deb 26 June 1967 vol 749 cc66-7
20. Mr. Dean

asked the Minister of Social Security how many pensioners are financially worse off under the earnings rule regulations recently introduced.

Miss Herbison

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) on 23rd June.—[Vol. 748, col. 350.]

Mr. Dean

Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have information, as no doubt she has, of many pensioners who are suffering a loss as a result of these regulations, in one case a loss of nearly £2 1s.? Will she at least ensure that where it works out that pensioners are worse off because of the new regulations she will find some way whereby that can be put right?

Miss Herbison

I am sorry, but I could not give that assurance. This matter was very carefully examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It made very strong representations that the change which is worrying the hon. Member should take place. It recommended the higher figure of £6 10s., instead of £5, and the higher taper band of £2 instead of £1, in order to try to make the number who will not benefit smaller. The number is very small.

Mr. Ridsdale

Just because a number is very small surely that does not make this right? Will the right hon. Lady look at it again? Is it fair to introduce earnings rule regulations which make some pensioners worse off than they were before?

Miss Herbison

No, I shall certainly not look at it again—

Mr. Ridsdale

Why not?

Miss Herbison

Because the National Insurance Advisory Committee examined this matter and felt strongly that the anomalies should be cleared away. The fact is that those for whom the hon. Member is concerned had a very great advantage previously over the vast majority of retirement pensioners.

Mr. Dean

Would not the right hon. Lady agree that it is most unusual when changes are introduced in National Insurance that anybody should be worse off under the new arrangements?

Miss Herbison

It may be unusual; but the people who are worse off—again I stress that the number is very small—are worse off than they were because they have a great deal more extra income. The advantage they previously had was something which disturbed the National Insurance Advisory Committee.