§ 33. Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in his consideration of a change in the earnings rule for the wife of a disabled man.
§ Mr. EnnalsI have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 3rd March.—[Vol. 779, c. 28–9.]
§ Mr. RidsdaleIs it not very wrong that once the earnings of a disabled man's wife go above £2 16s. she loses the whole of those earnings? Something should be done about this at once, especially in these days of high cost of living and inflation.
§ Mr. EnnalsThe rule reflects the view that it would be unfair and uneconomical to pay a married man on his contributions a substantial increase for a wife who was financially self-supporting. A wife who earns more than the amount of the dependency allowance ceases to be a dependant. This is the principle. As I said in my Answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, the question of the levels is now being examined and a statement will be made in the comparatively near future.
§ Lord BalnielIs it not of great importance to the psychological health of the wife of a disabled person that she should be encouraged to go out to work and not discouraged? Is not the abolition of this earnings rule, which cannot cost a great deal of money, a very high priority in the reconstruction of social security?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe noble Lord is presumably referring to the disabled man. We have also to look at the unemployed man and the sick man, who are equally affected. It is not fair to pick on one section of the community without considering the others. This is a point which is well recognised in the new scheme which we shall be introducing, and as far as the levels are concerned, a statement will be made later.