HC Deb 27 June 1968 vol 767 cc944-54

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Brierley Hill)

I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of one of my constituents who has suffered great injustice at the hands of the Ministry of Social Security. It is an important case, and I am sure that there must be many other people who are in the same position.

In this country we have a system of insurance whereby a person who pays sufficient contributions during his working life gets a pension on retirement. If he fails to comply with this rule, or if he fails to make sufficient contributions during his working life, then he will receive no pension when he retires.

The case I am pleading tonight is that of one of my constituents, Mrs. Wall. This lady worked for most of her life and paid full insurance contributions. As the Minister knows, there are many married ladies today who work and pay a nominal 6d. to cover themselves for industrial injuries but who do not thereby make any provision for pensions in their own right. Mrs. Wall did not come under this category. She paid full contributions in the hope, eventually, of getting a pension which was not dependent on her husband's contributions.

She retired in 1954 when she was aged 52. On 15th May, 1962, she had her 60th birthday. It was at that time, six years ago, that she should have received a pension that was hers as of right. But at that time she was not contacted by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, as it was then called.

The argument has been used that she should have applied to the Ministry to claim for her pension. However, she felt that, as she had retired eight years previously, it must be that she had not paid sufficient contributions to qualify for a pension. Therefore, she supposed that her right to a pension rested on the contributions that her husband was making. So for the next five years she did not receive the pension that should have been hers as of right.

In July, 1967, Mr. Wall, who was at that time approaching his 65th birthday, received a retirement pension form from the Ministry. On that form he included his wife's name and also quoted her National Insurance number. It was when the form was returned that the Ministry, finding that Mrs. Wall had a National Insurance number, checked its records and discovered that she had a yearly average of contributions totalling 28 and, therefore, was entitled to a half pension. To qualify for full pension, one must have a yearly average of 50 contributions. Hers did not come up to that, but she was entitled to a half pension as from 15th May, 1962, her 60th birthday.

When that was discovered, the Ministry agreed to pay Mrs. Wall her pension as from her 65th birthday, which was 15th May, 1967. By doing that, it deprived my constituent of five years of pension. Of course, she was not pleased at that decision and protested. The result was that she was heard by a local tribunal on 20th February of this year. At the tribunal, the insurance officer claimed that she had not proved that there was good cause for delay in giving notice of her retirement. Her case was that the Ministry was guilty of maladministration because it had failed to notify her just prior to her 60th birthday that she was entitled to a pension and that, because she had received no notification from the Ministry, she presumed that she had insufficient stamps to qualify for a pension.

The tribunal found that the practice has grown of insured persons expecting to be notified by the Ministry to make a claim when they are entitled to retirement pensions. It is admitted that the usual practice was not followed in this case by the Ministry due to a slip-up. It is not equitable that the claimant should suffer because of this.

The finding of the tribunal was that Mrs. Wall had not received the pension that was hers because of a slip-up by the Ministry. The tribunal allowed her appeal but said that it was limited to giving her only six months' back pension from the date of her claim. It awarded her a pension as from 15th February, that being six months prior to 15th August, which was the date recorded as being when she first made her claim for pension.

By appealing to the tribunal, she received a further three months' back pension, but she was still being deprived of four years and nine months of the pension due to her. Not unnaturally, she was still dissatisfied, and she took the process a step further. She felt that she should have her pension back-dated to her sixtieth birthday and, therefore, appealed to the Commission. Her appeal was heard on 14th May of this year. The Commissioner's decision contains some interesting observations: … the claimant must give the Minister of Social Security written notice specifying some date as the date of … retirement. The date specified in the written notice which the claimant gave on 15th August, 1967 was 15th May, 1967 which was in fact the date of her 65th birthday. As I have said, she was unaware that she was entitled to a pension on her own contributions and that 60 is the pensionable age for a retired woman but I am still not clear why she gave the date she did. It may be that she obtained advice from some quarter—it certainly seems that the date, which does not appear to be in her own handwriting, was inserted in the form by someone other than herself. The Commissioner closed his decision with these words: The case is already sufficiently confused and I would be reluctant to add anything to the confusion. I should perhaps say however that as I have no jurisdiction to award the claimant a pension for any period before 15tb February, 1967, it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on her complaint that her loss of pension is due to failures in the administrative machine. Certain points in this case need clarification.

First, would the Parliamentary Secretary explain why Mrs. Wall was not contacted by the Ministry before her 60th birthday? When her case was heard by the local tribunal in February, the insurance officer submitted: Normally, the Ministry invites claims from people approaching pensionable age, but this is not always done. Why not? If certain people are contacted, why are others not contacted? Those who are still employed as they reach pensionable age are, it seems, notified, while those who have retired early are not. This is unjust, because many of those who have retired early have done so because of ill-health and are therefore more in need of the money than those who are still working up to retirement age. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with this system, which seems to operate in the Ministry, which allows this sort of injustice?

The second point concerns Section 49 of the National Insurance Act, 1965, which says: … no sum shall be paid to any person... in respect of any period more than six months before the date on which the claim for the benefit is made. Again, I should like to know why this stipulation is made. What useful purpose does it serve? Is it that this is some sort of loophole to cover administrative errors so that other cases like Mrs. Wall's can just be fobbed off and told that the Ministry or the local tribunal or the Commissioner can do nothing because the Act stipulates that six months is the most that can be awarded from the date of application?

I would prefer anyone who had made sufficient contributions during his working life to receive the pension which was his due, back-dated if necessary to the time that it was due. If any person went to a private insurance firm and the firm made a mistake and did not pay at the time agreed, I believe that that firm would have to honour its obligations. I am anxious to know why the Ministry adopts what seems to be a very hardhearted attitude.

The third point is the question of who filled in on Mrs. Wall's retirement form that the 15th May, 1967, was the date of her retirement. It certainly was not Mrs. Wall, because she left this item blank. The Commissioner noted this in his observations, saying quite clearly: … it will be seen that both the insurance officer and the local tribunal assumed that although in the notice given on 15th August the claimant had specified 15th May 1967 as her retirement date, it was nevertheless open to them—within the statutory six months' limit —to treat her as having been retired at an earlier date … it will be seen that the local tribunal in fact awarded pension from as early a date as the statutes (on that assumption) permit. I presume that 15th May, 1967 was inserted because Mrs. Wall's 65th birthday—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Mr. Montgomery

I assume that on her birthday, even if she continued to work, she would have been entitled to claim her pension as of right. If this entry had been left blank, would Mrs. Wall have been entitled to receive more than the six months' back pension which she received? I find the whole matter extremely complicated and I feel that the Commissioner kept emphasisine the point that some person incorrectly filled in the date of Mrs. Wall's retirement.

This is an important case and I trust that the Minister will give satisfactory answers to my questions. It is a sad case because it concerns someone who worked for most of her life and who fulfilled all the obligations required of National Insurance contributions. She is now deprived of money that I believe is due to her and which would be of great help to her now. I am certain that I shall receive a sympathetic reply from the Minister because I know him to be a sympathetic man. In the 1959–64 Parliament we both represented the North-East. In 1964 the political winds were not so kind to me and I was swept out of the North-East and had to make my way back to Parliament from somewhere else. The Minister, as in Tennyson's brook, goes on. I will not predict what may happen at the next General Election—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that although Adjournment debates are wide, he must keep to the subject which he himself has chosen.

Mr. Montgomery

I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in his reply and will ensure that my constituent can get her money. Knowing him to be a compassionate man, I am sure that he recognises the injustice which this lady is suffering. Besides receiving a sympathetic reply, I trust that his remarks will be constructive and helpful. If not, then I feel so strongly about this case and my obligation to my constituent that I may feel it necessary to refer the whole matter to the Ombudsman, since I see no reason why Mrs. Wall should suffer because of a failure in the administrative machine.

10.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) on the speed with which he has brought to the attention of the House the case of his constituent, Mrs. Wall. I agree with him that this is an unfortunate case and I wish to make it clear at the outset that I am extremely sorry that Mrs. Wall has lost her pension from the age of 60 through failure to claim it until she reached the age of 65, and I appreciate her disappointment. I regret, however, that there is nothing that my right hon. Friend and I can do to help her, as I shall explain.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Commissioner's report. It is not for me to speculate on statements made in it. It is my duty to explain, on behalf of my Ministry, how the National Insurance Act covers the kind of case he has raised.

The minimum pensionable age for a woman is 60 and Mrs. Wall reached the age of 60 in May, 1962. She had paid contributions from 1945 to October, 1953, when she then exercised her right, as a married woman, no longer to be liable to pay them. Although she paid no contributions which counted for pension between October, 1953, and reaching the age of 60, in 1962—a period of nearly nine years—she would have qualified for a reduced rate of pension on the basis of those contributions from her 60th birthday had she claimed one. She did not in fact claim a pension when she reached the age of 60. Nor did she make any inquiries of the Ministry as to whether the contributions she had paid would entitle her to a pension. Indeed as she explained in a letter which she wrote to the local office in November, 1967, she did not claim because she thought that she had not paid sufficient contributions to be entitled to any pension. It was extremely unfortunate that Mrs. Wall made no inquiries when she reached the age of 60.

Mrs. Wall's first approach to the Ministry about a retirement pension did not take place until July, 1967, shortly after she had reached the age of 65. At that time, she made a claim based on the insurance of her husband, who was then also approaching age 65, which is the minimum pensionable age for a man. While dealing with that claim, our local office noted that Mrs. Wall had disclosed that she had a contribution record of her own. The office then invited Mrs. Wall to make a further claim for pension this time on her own insurance. This was done in order to find whether it may or may not have been to her advantage to have her pension on her own right rather than on her husband's insurance. She subsequently made the alternative claim for pension on her own insurance on 15th August, 1967, claiming to be treated as retired from 15th May, 1967, her 65th birthday.

Mr. Montgomery

One of the points I have been making is that Mrs. Wall was not quite sure of the date on which she retired. She knew that it was in 1954 but she did not know the exact date. This was left blank and someone in the Ministry put in a date.

Mr. Pentland

It may be that an official, in order to assist Mrs. Wall, did put in a date, but, as the hon. Member will find, according to the Statutes that is irrelevant to the real issue involved in this case. She subsequently made the alternative claim for pension on her own insurance on 15th August, 1967. She claimed to be treated as retired from 15th May, 1967, her 65th birthday and pension was at first awarded on this basis.

Later, in November, 1967, Mrs. Wall wrote claiming five years arrears of pension, that is from the date of her 60th birthday in 1962, on the ground that the Ministry had a duty to tell her when she reached age 60 that she was entitled to claim a retirement pension and the Ministry was responsible for her loss of pension before May, 1967.

There are time limits for giving notice of retirement and claiming pension. These can be extended where good cause is shown for claiming late but there is an overriding provision in Section 49(4) of the National Insurance Act, 1965, which prevents payment of benefit in respect of any period more than six months before the claim is made. Mrs. Wall's claim that her pension should be awarded back to her 60th birthday has been considered in turn at each of the three stages in the National Insurance system of adjudication and appeal. The insurance officer awarding pension from 15th May, 1967, allowed only three months before the date of her claim. The local tribunal to which Mrs. Wall appealed awarded a further three months' pension, making six months in all. That is the maximum arrears of benefit which can be paid after a delayed claim for benefit, whatever the circumstances leading to the delay. Mrs. Wall then appealed to the Commissioner, who confirmed in his decision published on 29th May, 1968, that Mrs. Wall had received the maximum amount of pension which could be paid by statute, and he dismissed her appeal.

The hon. Gentleman argued that an absolute time limit of the kind which restricts the period for which arrears of benefit can be paid when a claim is made late but with good cause for delay is out of place in our scheme of National Insurance. This question was recently considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and I cannot do better than refer to some comments included in paragraph 8 of its Report published in April, 1968, Cmnd. 3591. The Committee said: … it is difficult to conceive of a universal insurance scheme (designed to be fair to the generality of contributors) without the occasional case which does not readily fit the rules, and having given all opinions careful consideration, we maintain our view that in the general interest there must be an overriding time limit if nonsense is not to be made of the initial time limits and a strain placed on the good cause condition that it was never intended to carry ". However, the Committee concluded that there was, nevertheless, scope for some easement of the existing six months' limit and recommended an extension to one year.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee are presently being studied by my right hon. Friend, and I cannot at this stage prejudge the outcome. It is, however, clear that this expert and independent Committee endorsed the principle of an overriding limit, and it is also the case that, whatever legislation my right hon. Friend may introduce as a consequence of its recommendations, unfortunately it could not act retrospectively to help Mrs. Wall in any way.

I come to the main ground of complaint against the Ministry in Mrs. Wall's case. It is contended that, whatever the statutory provisions, she is entitled to an ex gratia payment by way of compensation for loss of pension because the Ministry was responsible for her failure to make a claim when she reached the age of 60. I must say quite firmly that the Ministry had no such responsibility. Section 48 of the National Insurace Act, 1965, states that … it shall be a condition of any person's right to any benefit that he makes a claim therefor in the prescribed manner". The Ministry has always made it clear in its leaflets about benefit that responsibility for making inquiries and for claiming at the proper time must rest with the insured person.

Mr. Montgomery

This is one of the points which I wanted to be clarified. It would seem that if somebody is in full-time work and nearing pensionable age he or she gets a form to fill in but that people who have retired do not. I wonder whether the Ministry could give any guidance about the steps which the Ministry is taking to improve the knowledge of people entitled to pensions to make that claim.

Mr. Pentland

I am coming to the procedure which we adopt in these matters.

In practice, the Ministry tries to remind the generality of insured persons likely to qualify for a retirement pension at about four months before they reach minimum pensionable age of their right to claim. They are sent a letter, a claim form and a copy of the Ministry's leaflet on retirement pensions. But this is organised entirely on the initiative of the Ministry as a helpful service incidental in the administration of the scheme. The Ministry is under no statutory obligation to provide it. Its existence in no way diminishes the onus placed on the insured person by the National Insurance Act to make a personal claim for benefit. It would be quite wrong, moreover, and unfair to the main body of contributors, for the Ministry to accept any liability for loss arising from failure to claim in any case where for one reason or another the arrangements did not result in an insured person receiving his notice, or where the arrangements were not applied.

The arrangements did not operate for Mrs. Wall because, as a married woman, she had, many years before she reached the age of 60, taken advantage of the special provisions which enable married women to choose not to be liable to pay contributions. The reminder service is not applied to married women who choose not to contribute for pension under these arrangements and rely for retirement pensions on their husband's insurance. The great majority take advantage of these arrangements and only a small minority have in fact paid sufficient contributions to satisfy the conditions on which a married woman can get a pension on her own insurance.

I must confirm as strongly as I can that the question of whether or not a reminder is sent cannot affect the insured person's responsibility to claim benefit on time. It is nowhere suggested in our publicity that the Ministry will remind everyone at pension age. The fact that Mrs. Wall was not reminded of her entitlement to claim a retirement pension on reaching age 60 does not make the Ministry liable for the pension she has lost through her failure to claim it or make any enquiry about her right to do so, and there are, I am sorry to say, therefore no grounds on which my right hon. Friend could make an ex-gratia payment to her by way of compensation.

Finally, I must briefly comment on the claim made on Mrs. Wall's behalf—this claim was made to the Ministry before the hon. Gentleman raised the matter on the Adjournment—that her case deserves special treatment because it involves maladministration, which we do not at all accept, and that in another case examined by the Parliamentary Commissioner— the Ombudsman, as the hon. Gentleman called him—where maladministration was found a large sum by way of arrears was paid. It would not be right for me to go into detail on the other case to which reference has been made. It is sufficient for me to say that it can clearly be distinguished from Mrs. Wall's case because there was in that case quite clear and indisputable evidence that the person had been misled by erroneous advice when she had made some enquiries about entitlement to pension. But she had made inquiries. Unfortunately, Mrs. Wall took no steps whatsoever to enquire about her entitlement until she was 65 and, however much one may sympathise with her, and I do, I can only repeat that my Minister cannot accept liability for the pension she has lost.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.