INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO LUMP SUM PAYMENTS (Hansard, 19 October 1973)

§ Dr. Marshall
I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, leave out line 8 and insert: '(a) in the case of a man in receipt of an invalidity pension, the age of 60; (b) in the case of any other man, the age of 65;'. 601 The effect of the amendment would be to include within the scope of what I will now call the November bonus all the men in receipt of invalidity pension between the ages of 60 and 65 who are not now included. I shall not rehearse all the arguments which have already been advanced about the need to extend the scope of the bonus in that way. I know that there are two of my constituents who come within that category.
Two factors lead such people to think that they have a right to the bonus. First, they regard themselves as retirement pensioners, because they look forward to no future opportunities of work. Secondly, they are by and large on the same rates of pension as retirement pensioners.
I know that there is the invalidity supplement. but for those who have come on to invalidity pension over the age of 60 that supplement is very small. The people involved feel that because their normal rate of benefit is very nearly equal to the rate of benefit for retirement pensioners they should be eligible for the special bonus.

§ Mr. O'Malley
The Under-Secretary has been unable to accede to our requests—requests which are being made to all of us by people of all political persuasions and none—that widows, the long-term sick and the disabled, amongst other categories, should be entitled to receive the £10 Christmas bonus. That proposition has been steadfastly rejected by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has moved a much narrower amendment. I have particular sympathy with his amendment, because in the area from which I come, and where I was born, the number of invalidity pensioners, men over 60 who have worked in the mining industry and heavy industry all their lives, is high. The Under-Secretary has rejected the broader proposals, but the narrower proposal advanced by my hon. Friend is one on which he could be helpful.
I hope that elderly people who will probably not work again, and who are retirement pensioners in all but name and the fact of being of legal pensionable age, will be allowed to receive the Christmas bonus. They do not form an enormous group, but they are a con- 602 centration of a type of deprivation similar to that experienced by retirement pensioners.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede something this morning. So far we have had nothing from him. He knows that if Governments want to get their legislation through it helps if they give Oppositions something. That greases the wheels a little when discussions take place on other Bills. I am sure that there will be other Bills next Session from the hon. Gentleman's Department. Perhaps I may twist the hon. Gentleman's arm and say that if he wants reasonable co-operation in discussions on future legislation I hope that he will give us something this morning.
I am asking for nothing unusual. I believe that for the invalidity pensioners covered by the amendment I am entitled to use any weapon available to me, and I make no apologies for using it.

§ Mr. Dean
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) used his mildest and most persuasive manlier, but with dark threats in the background. I have the impression that it was the mildest part of what he said that I was expected to take most seriously.
I appreciate what he said, and understand the argument advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). We have gone over many of the arguments in earlier debates.
The moment one departs from the clear and well understood line of the age of 65 for a man and 60 for a woman one gets the kind of invidious comparisons that come about if one singles out this group of people, deserving as they are, and says that although they are under the age of 65 or 60 they should benefit.
Some of these people benefit from the 40 per cent. increase in the invalidity allowance which was introduced at the beginning of this month, in addition to the invalidity pension which they receive, and if one were to distinguish this group, then, understandably, widows, perhaps struggling to bring up families on their own, would say that if the Government are prepared to let in these people, who may be on a higher level of benefit, why should they not be included? Therefore, much as I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman, it is impossible to depart from the clear dividing line of 603 retirement age without introducing all sorts of inequities into the arrangements—something which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to do in practice.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
This is an exploratory amendment. In subsection (i)(d) "qualifying benefit" is defined as "a war disablement pension". There was no such provision in last year's measure.
The words which I am proposing to delete from subsection (6) deal with the war disablement pension. I do not know what those words are doing there. It reads as though those people receiving such a pension—even those over the age of 65—will not be entitled to the bonus. I do not believe that that could sensibly or possibly be the case. This is no doubt some erudite, exotic piece of draftsmanship, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee why this group is included this year when it was excluded from last year's legislation, and what is the difference between last year's Act and the Bill.

§ Mr. Dean
I sympathise with and understand the hon. Gentleman's bewilderment. The Bill represents an improvement and a refinement of last year's arrangements, and perhaps I may briefly explain what it does, and how.
The majority of war disabled pensioners will be entitled to the special lump-sum payment by virtue of also receiving another qualifying benefit—retirement pension or supplementary pension. War disablement pension is included in the list of qualifying benefits this year to cater for those few war pensioners who do not have any other qualifying benefit and who were not covered in the 1972 Act. It is felt that these few should be put on the same footing as retirement pensioners, and that explains why the war disablement pensioner is in the list this year but was not there last year.
Between the ages of 65 and 70–60 and 65 for a woman—a person must retire in order to draw his retirement pension. After the age of 70—or 65 for a woman— 604 a person is automatically entitled to a retirement pension, whether or not he is retire from full-time work, by virtue of the 1965 National Insurance Act.
There is no such condition for a war disablement pensioner but it is considered desirable that war disablement pensioners should be treated in the same was as retirement pensioners for the purpose of this lump-sum payment. Subsection (6) ensures precisely that. Paragraph (a) secures that a war disablement pensioner aged over 70–65 for a woman—can qualify by means of his war disablement pension whether or not he has retired. and paragraph (b) ensures that if aged between 65 and 70–60 and 65 for a woman—he must be retired in order to qualify. In other words, this is an entirely beneficial provision, and I hope that I have been able to explain the reason for the rather obscure wording.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.