HC Deb 26 June 1967 vol 749 cc57-9
1. Mr. Biffen

asked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she now has for an increase in National Insurance retirement pensions.

2. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to announce a further increase in the basic scale of the retirement pension.

4. Mr. Hastings

asked the Minister of Social Security whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living since the last adjustment of allowances for pensioners and widows, she will raise the level of these allowances.

5. Mr. Winnick

asked the Minister of Social Security when it is proposed to increase the basic retirement pension.

10. Mr. William Price

asked the Minister of Social Security when she expects to increase retirement pensions.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison)

I would refer the hon. Members to the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill published on Wednesday, 21st June, and the statement I made on that day.

Mr. Biffen

Is the right hon. Lady aware that that Bill and that statement perpetuate the wholly unsatisfactory policy of universal benefit; and that the future structure of any compassionate policy for the relief of poverty must provide a far greater degree of selectivity, as advanced by the Economist and the Observer this weekend?

Miss Herbison

It may be that the Economist and the Observer have advanced that idea, but I think that they have misunderstood the nature of the provisions that are being made. These are flat-rate benefits for people who have contributed, and in the debate next week the hon. Member's own Shadow Cabinet might be able to tell us what they would do. In other fields, full selectivity is possible, and we want to see it.

Mr. Hastings

But does not the right hon. Lady realise that this indiscriminate hand-out makes no long-term contribution whatever to real poverty? Why does she not try to answer my hon. Friend's question?

Miss Herbison

I answer it in the same way. Does one want to make less provision for people who are sick and for people who are unemployed? That is not what the new provisions do. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a survey showed that 81 per cent. of all single women retirement pensioners, and they are in the majority, were either under supplementary benefit level or just a £1 or less above it?

Mr. Winnick

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side believe that the universal increase as announced last week is well justified? Will pensioners who receive a supplementary benefit get the average increase of 10s. and 16s.?

Miss Herbison

Together with what those receiving supplementary pension got in November, what they will get this time will give them roughly the same increase as other pensioners have had since March 1965.

Dr. Gray

When looking at the situation of widows, will the Minister look also at the situation of unmarried mothers and see whether they cannot be treated on exactly the same basis?

Miss Herbison

We are considering all these matters under the general review; but unmarried mothers are very often in a better position than the father who is unemployed or is under the wage stop, since the wage stop does not apply to unmarried mothers.

Mr. Dean

As the Minister knows, we welcome these increases in general, but does she agree that the total net cost is £220 million a year and that this will be met out of the contributions and taxation of those who are working? In view of that fact, how does she justify 10s. for the retired millionaire and 5s. for those people who have modest incomes?

Miss Herbison

When the hon. Gentleman speaks of 10s. for the retired millionaire I wish that he, too, would read the report of the survey that we made into the circumstances of retirement pensioners, where he would find that the number is very small indeed. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that perhaps 6 million old people should be a means-tested before they get any increase, it is not a suggestion that I would accept.

7. Mr. Gwilym Roberts

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will now take steps to enable men and women over pensionable age to receive their full pension irrespective of any other income.

Miss Herbison

No, Sir. Only earnings at a level inconsistent with retirement are taken into account, and this is necessary to support the retirement condition for men under 70 and women under 65.

Mr. Roberts

Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great needs is to increase the gross national product and that this proposal would help by attracting back to work many pensionable men and women and would, at the same time, meet part of the cost of the concession?

Miss Herbison

From all our inquiries, we do not believe that what my hon. Friend says would be the result of abolishing the earnings rule. When one takes into account the fact that it would take about £110 million to abolish the rule, I have priorities which are much more important than the abolition of the earnings rule.

Mr. Spriggs

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the main principle should be that people should retire from work when they reach retirement age?

Miss Herbison

People have the choice of retiring from work when they reach retirement age. Only on 5th June last we increased the amount that could be earned under the earnings rule in order to give something extra for those who decide to continue to work. But another point we have to keep in mind is that many people who would be willing to work after 65 cannot find work, and many others are not able to work. It would be quite wrong to use that £110 million for those who are working.