INTERPRETATION (Hansard, 6 November 1974)

§ Mr. Boscawen
I will now seek to raise the matter that I was not in order in raising in the previous debate. Why is it that war pensioners of 70 in the case of men and 65 in the case of women 65 will not qualify for this payment at the earlier ages at which ordinary pensioners qualify? When they see others who retire at 60 or 65 will, rightly, be able to get this bonus even if their pension is completely extinguished by the earnings rule, they wonder why they cannot get it until the later age.
Am I right in understanding that those on long-term supplementary benefit for two years or more who are under 60 or 65 are not entitled to this bonus? This applies to 300,000 people, a number of whom are disabled and many of whom have not been able to work all their lives and build up contributions but are in great need. About 250,000 of these people are the very ones that the Secretary of State will be helping during the year with her disability payment, a similar measure to one that we were pledged to introduce. It seems a pity that they cannot be included in this measure.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I am grateful for the hon. Member's queries. He is right in 1109 assuming that long-term recipients of supplementary benefit who are under pensionable age will not be eligible under the Bill for the Christmas bonus, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their wives. I think that hon. Members understand not only the financial but the difficult administrative problems which such an exercise would involve. Of course I understand and sympathise with the point —there is no difference between us on that—and we have found it possible to extend the categories, in number, by about 1 million.
I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong to assume that war pensioners over retirement age are being treated in an inferior way to recipients of the retirement pension. A man over retirement age becomes entitled to the £10 bonus only if he is receiving or has title to the retirement benefit—or, in a few cases, an invalidity benefit. Therefore, retirement pensioners who are retired or retirement pensioners who are doing some part-time work but are still in receipt of a pension because of the provisions in the National Insurance Acts—the earnings rule has a bearing here—are entitled to the bonus. That is so not only if they are receiving the retirement pension but if they are affected by the earnings rule.
An individual over pensionable age who has not retired is not entitled to the bonus until he reaches the age of 70, and exactly the same considerations apply to war pensioners over retirement age. However, the categories of war pensioner who will be entitled to a Christmas bonus who are under pensionable age are those receiving the unemployability supplement or the constant attendance allowance, because those are two of the qualifying benefits.
I hope that I have made myself understood in a difficult area. The war pensioners over retirement age are treated exactly the same as any other person over pensionable age receiving a qualifying benefit. Second, war pensioners under retirement age but receiving one of the qualifying benefits listed in the Bill will also be entitled to the bonus.

§ Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
The Gracious Speech said that the Government would introduce legislation to end sex discrimination. The Government 1110 having announced that intention, is it not anomalous to bring forward legislation under which men have to be five years older than women before they can receive the £10 bonus? If the Gracious Speech means what it says, when will the legislation to end sex discrimination with respect to the age of receiving pensions be introduced? Will it overtake this £10 bonus?

§ The Chairman
Order. I think that the Minister will be hard put under the terms of "interpretation" to give that guarantee and still remain in order.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
He would, indeed, Mr. Thomas. But this is an anomaly which has been spotlighted by the Government in the Queen's Speech. I put it to the Minister that it is wrong to introduce a Bill containing such an anomaly when the Queen's Speech has said that there is to be legislation to get rid of this anomaly because it is sex discrimination. I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister before this Committee stage is ended how he intends to implement the undertaking given in the Queen's Speech.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman, while trying hard to keep within the rules of order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now the first member of the new party of abstainers in this Parliament. I congratulate him on that. However, it is rather unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect the new Government, of only three weeks, to sweep away within such a brief period what he sees as an anomaly but what has persisted throughout the whole of the post-war period and for even longer than that. As there is a very serious point about the difference in statutory retirement age between men and women—namely 65 and 60—I think I can assure him, without straying from the rules of order, that there will be debates not too far in the future when he will be able to make his comments on that subject. I hope that he will be able to support the general proposals that we bring forward in legislation enshrining our own proposals for long-term pensions.