§ 9. Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the effect of his new pension proposals on existing local government pension schemes.
§ 13. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will lay a White Paper setting out the adjustments in public service pensions which will require to be made on the basis that his proposals for National Insurance changes are implemented.
§ The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman)I hope to deal with this subject in a statement to the House on Wednesday, when the White Paper on partial contracting out will be published.
§ Mr. BarnettWhile recognising that there has been a good deal of misrepresentation of my right hon. Friend's case, may I ask him if he will note that there is genuine and understandable worry on the part of local government officers, and will he at the earliest opportunity make it clear that the pension expectation of local government officers is not in jeopardy?
§ Mr. CrossmanIn the last three or four weeks I have met a good number of local government officers, inside and outside town halls. On each occasion I have found that most of their fears could be allayed by a quiet talk with them. One of those fears is the one referred to by my hon. Friend. Those fears are unfounded'.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWill the White Paper or the right hon. Gentleman's statement contain information about the extent to which pension schemes in the public service will, to use the Minister of State's phrase, have to be "cut back" in order to accommodate his scheme?
§ Mr. CrossmanIn my statement 1 shall hope to deal with public service pensions.
§ Lord BalnielAs the right hon. Gentleman must know the abatement figures now, can we have a rough estimate of the proportion of people in private occupational schemes who will have their pensions cut back and find it necessary to leave the schemes?
§ Mr. CrossmanThat is the kind of point which the noble Lord should put to me on Wednesday.
§ 11. Mrs. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Social whether he will increase the retirement pension to keep up with the cost of living increase.
§ Mr. EnnalsAs I think the hon. Member knows, this is the Government's purpose in increasing retirement pensions this week.
§ Mrs. EwingHow are the Government able to assess whether the increase will be adequate to the rise in the cost of living, as there is no cost of living index for Scotland, where fuel and food prices are higher? Both commodities are essential for old people. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that old-age pensioners in Scotland do not share his confidence?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe retail price index covers the whole country, and the intention of the increases this week was to restore the purchasing power of the pension to what it was two years ago. To do that, we would require not 10s. but 9s. 5d. for the individual, and not 16s. but 15s. 3d. for the married couple.
§ Mr. William PriceIs my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of old folk who thought that this week they would get an increase find that they have got only half of it? While we in this House know that they have already had part of it in terms of supplementary benefits, old people do not understand it. In future, cannot the two lots of increases be introduced at the same time?
§ Mr. EnnalsWe have sought to make it clear that recipients of supplementary benefits received an increase last October. Therefore, they are receiving the second half of the increase, which, in the case of National Insurance recipients, covers a two-year period. To bring it in line with National Insurance benefits we could raise supplementary benefits only every two years, which would be hard on the people concerned. That is why we brought in half the increase last October to deal with the rise in the cost of living up to then.
§ Mr. DeanWhen the Minister goes on television tonight, will he also mention the increases in contributions?
§ Mr. EnnalsYes, and also the issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) raises the point about supplementary benefits.
§ 12. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a statement 625 as to the result of his discussions with the organisations concerned with pension funds about conditions of abatement under his pensions plan.
§ 17. Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he has given to representations on occupational pension schemes ; and when he expects to be able to place substantive proposals before the House.
§ 34. Mr. Deanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now announce the results of his discussion with occupational and public service pension schemes concerning abatement.
§ Mr. CrossmanI expect to make a statement on this subject on Wednesday when a White Paper will be published.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterCan the right hon. Gentleman say now whether he gave any assurances to those with whom he had discussions that if abatement proved attractive and a good many schemes were abated out, that would not be used as a reason for tightening up on the terms to protect the finances of the scheme?
§ Mr. CrossmanYes, Sir.
§ Mr. CroninIn view of the widespread misrepresentations on the subject by, among others, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, will my right hon. Friend make sure that his statement or the White Paper allays once and for all the genuine anxieties of a number of members of existing occupational schemes?
§ Mr. CrossmanMy hon. Friend had better await the contents of the statement, which I will not anticipate.
§ Mr. DeanDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that the logic of many of his recent arguments on occupational pension schemes means a State monopoly in pensions? Will the White Paper have the agreement of the representatives of occupational pension schemes?
§ Mr. CrossmanWe must wait for the Write Paper. I would have thought that the statement that I am seeking a State monopoly on pensions was almost the exact opposite of the truth. I am seeking a fruitful partnership between occupational and State pensions.
§ Lord BalnielThere is no need to wait until Wednesday to answer the question: "Is it agreed with the representatives of occupational pension schemes?". The answer is "yes" or "no".
§ Mr. CrossmanOne should try hard, but that is a feeble line for an Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
§ 15. Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Association of Local Government Officers concerning his proposed pension arrangements and reform ; and what reply he has given to the National Association of Local Government Officers concerning its Association's existing occupational pension scheme and its future.
§ Mr. CrossmanI would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 20th October.—[Vol. 788. c. 739-41.]
§ Sir G. NabarroYes, but that was in the last Session, and anyway it was a rotten answer. Would the right hon. Gentleman now apply himself to this simple proposition? Will he give the House an assurance that after the introduction of his much-vaunted national pension scheme no local government officer will be worse off as a result of the removal of part or the whole of his entitlements under his occupational pension scheme, which has been built up over the last three decades?
§ Mr. CrossmanI have repeatedly said that there is no question of removing existing rights. As for the rest of the question, the hon. Gentleman had better wait until Wednesday.
§ 16. Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he proposes in his new pension scheme to pay more from the Exchequer to those who earn more than those who earn less.
§ Mr. EnnalsNo such proposal has been made.
§ Mr. FortescueDoes it not state in the White Paper on the national superannuation scheme that the Exchequer contribution to the pension scheme will remain at 18 per cent.? Since the rich, 627 the higher paid, are to receive higher pensions than the lower paid, is it not self-evident that the Exchequer contribution to their pension will be higher than the same contribution to the poor?
§ Mr. EnnalsBy no means. Those who pay higher contributions will get more in benefits. They will be contributing to their own higher level of pension provision. The situation will be almost the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman states, because one of the cases for an Exchequer contribution to the new scheme roughly on the same proportion as the present scheme is the redistributive element by which lower paid workers will get a higher proportion of their earnings as pension than higher paid workers.
§ 25. Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held with trade unions and other bodies representing employees in occupational pension schemes regarding his proposed national superannuation scheme.
§ Mr. CrossmanMy main channel of consultation with employees' representatives has been the T.U.C. Meetings have also been held with representatives of the National Association of Local Government Officers and the National Federation of Professional Workers.
§ Mr. HastingsIf we are right in assuming from the right hon. Gentleman's Answers this afternoon that he has not got agreement from the representative bodies to his scheme, does this not indicate that they have resisted his proposals very strongly, and will he force, or has he already forced, them to accept them against their will?
§ Mr. CrossmanI am not sure that there is any relationship between the supplementary and the original Question.
§ Mr. LaneIn preparing his statement for Wednesday, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in addition to local government officers, there is great and genuine anxiety among the police and firemen and that it is urgently necessary to reassure these people, in particular, concerning their future prospects?
§ Mr. CrossmanI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, to 628 which I had given some thought before it was made.
§ Mr. Leslie HuckfieldMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether his statement on Wednesday will include specific reference to the representations that he has received from the National Association of Local Government Officers?
§ Mr. CrossmanI think that we had better await the actual text of the statement. If my hon. Friend wishes to put such points to me, no doubt, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to do so.
§ 26. Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research he intends to undertake to establish whether or not benefit in return for contributions is what the people of Great Britain desire.
§ Mr. CrossmanI do not consider that any such research is necessary.
§ Mr. FortescueThe right hon. Gentleman is bringing forward a superannuation scheme so complicated that nobody will understand it, which will entail the keeping of individual records for over 40 years in many cases, and in which no worker will know the amount of his pension until the day that he draws it. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel no obligation to discover whether the people of this country would like a simpler scheme which would lead to an adequate flat-rate pension for everybody within the foreseeable future?
§ Mr. CrossmanWith respect to the hon. Gentleman, no one can foresee what the flat-rate level will be before it materialises. As for the question of earnings relation, I do not think that any more research is necessary because of the pioneer work done by the private occupational pension schemes.I am surprised that this Question comes from the Opposition. Everybody has been telling me of the virtues of earnings relation, and that, surely, is undisputed between the two sides.
§ Lord BalnielIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever he says on Wednesday, if it appears to us that the scheme is designed to, and will, harm occupational pensions schemes we, when 629 we return to office, will alter it to encourage occupational pension schemes?
§ Mr. CrossmanI am aware that the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps wisely, has decided to wait month after month before making up its mind and may conceivably make up its mind on Wednesday afternoon.
§ Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will discontinue the payment of weekly 6d. pensions in cases where the recipient is in receipt of no other pensions.
§ Mr. EnnalsThere is a clear obligation to pay the benefits earned by the contributions to the graduated scheme. Graduated pensions of 3s. or less a week are commuted if it is clear that there is no prospective title to a flat-rate retirement pension with which they could be paid. Where, as an interim measure, 6d. pensions have to be paid by themselves pending eventual title to a larger pension they are paid monthly, as I explained in answer to the hon. Member's Question on 20th October.—[Vol. 788, c. 152.]
§ Mr. WyattDoes my hon. Friend realise that many of the 2,000 people whose only pension is 6d. a week think that the Government are playing an elaborate practical joke on them? As it would cost only £200 a year to raise the minimum pension to 2s., would it not be better to do that? Would it not la:, less derisory and also make the expenditure of 9s. a year for issuing each 6d. pension more worth while in terms of administration?
§ Mr. EnnalsMy hon. Friend should make his criticisms to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced what he calls a practical joke and what I call a swindle.