CONTRIBUTION CONDITIONS FOR RETIREMENT PENSIONS, WIDOWED MOTHER'S ALLOWANCE AND WIDOW'S PENSION (Hansard, 11 June 1975)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Secruity (Mr. Alec Jones)
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 34 at beginning insert 'In relation to Category A and Category B retirement pension'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 4, in page 10, line 42 leave out 'responsibilities at home' and insert 'the care of children or elderly or disabled relatives'. and Government Amendment No. 5.

§ Mr. Jones
Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that the provision now in the Bill relates only to retirement pensions. Amendment No. 5 makes a different provision for widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance, so as to enable a 563 man to qualify his widow for a full benefit provided he had actually contributed or been credited with contributions in at least half of his requisite number of years, or in 20 years if that is less, and the remainder were years of home responsibility.
This amendment will be of particular benefit in those cases where a man dies in his 20s or early 30s, and where the benefit at issue will almost always be widowed mother's allowance. The normal rules require a man whose insurance life runs from age 16 to age 30 to have contributions paid or credited in 12 of those 14 years if his widow is to get full benefit. The modification which the amendment makes would mean that if, for example, he had paid for 10 years only, but had had home responsibilities for the other two, her title to the full rate of benefit would not be lost. Cases of this kind will undoubtedly be rare, fortunately, but it seems right that, where they arise, pension rights should be protected if family responsibilites have kept the husband at home.
I am not sure whether the Oppostion intend to press Amendment No. 4, or whether it is merely a probing amendment. We spelt out in Committee the general terms under which the home responsibility would be decided. Detailed examples were given by my right hon. Friend in reply to a series of interventions by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Following that detailed explanation, letters were written to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and I believe that specific cases and examples were sent out to Members of the Committee indicating how the home responsibility would affect people of different age groups and different records of contribution.
Apart from the general terms, we envisage that there would be three, as it were, general categories of people entitled to the home responsibility provision. First, there would be those persons in receipt of personal benefit such as child benefit. Secondly, there would be persons in receipt of dependency benefits on an invalidity or retirement pension. Thirdly, where there was no such previous benefit there would be claims which would need investigation, but wherever possible it would be our wish that the home responsibility provision could be identified by 564 reference to payment of benefit, because this would make it a simple and easy scheme to administer.
In Amendment No. 4 the inclusion of the word "care" is the problem worrying us. The proposed wording, in fact, covers those contingencies which would be within the Government's definition of "home responsibility". The inclusion of the word "care" in the statutory provision would tend to suggest that we would have a duty to investigate in almost every individual case. That is something we would obviously seek to avoid.
I understand that the Opposition naturally would want—as would every hon. Member—the fullest details of the home responsibility provision. I have sought to reaffirm the point made by my right hon. Friend; namely, first, to acknowledge the principle that we want it linked wherever possible with the payment of a benefit, and, secondly, to show that, whilst we would not want to carry out investigations in a broad variety of cases, there will be cases where investigation is absolutely necessary, and in such cases investigations will be carried out.
Where a claim has to be substantiated we would first have a signed statement giving us the details and circumstances of the case. We would arrange home visits to check on this, and certainly where necessary spot checks would also be carried out.
There are some details of the home responsibility not yet finalised, and I regret this, but there is a link at least with home responsibility and other problems such as married women's option. The hon. Gentleman will understand that.
The best protection for the House—we are not trying to rush anything through—is the fact that the regulations embodying home responsibility will need an affirmative resolution of this House, and at that time the final details, which have not yet been completed, will be available for the scrutiny of the House.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
I can begin, on Amendment No. 4, by reassuring the Under-Secretary of State that our principal purpose was to make sure that a further debate took place on the home responsibility provision.
565 I accept his explanation that the use of the word "care" in the amendment would cause difficulties in practice, and I am quite happy to accept what he says, therefore—that technically it would cause more difficulties than it would solve to substitute our definition.
But the reason we wish to have a further debate on the home responsibility provision is that it was clear, at the time of the Committee discussions, that, despite the considerable expertise of the Minister of State and his ability to answer the very detailed questions which were thrown out as more and more complications occurred to Members of the Committee, the Government had not concluded their decisions on this matter. There is still a great deal of uncertainty. What has happened is that the Government have written into the Bill the power to use the home responsibility provision in the way outlined, but the details of how it is provided and precisely which people are to be benefited still remain completely in the dark. The letter which was helpfully sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and other Members of the Committee, trying to explain some of the difficulties, includes the phrase, the details of home responsibility have not yet been decided", and that is what the Under-Secretary of State has just confirmed. It is very unfortunate that a Bill can go through all its stages and reach this stage with the Government still unable to give any final details about the categories of people who will be affected.
I have to clutch at straws and accept that there is some consolation in what the Under-Secretary said. When the Government have reached some decision to put their good intentions into practice, the procedure will be the affirmative resolution procedure. So, no doubt at a similar time of night on some future occasion we shall have more details about who is to benefit.
We welcome the idea in principle, but the Government are still saying that the home responsibilities will normally be attached to the receipt of some benefit. I understand that the Government were looking at the case of those who had to look after children—therefore, presumably, those receiving family allowance is probably what they had in mind—and 566 then those caring for relatives receiving invalidity or retirement pension or those receiving attendance allowance for some dependent relative in their household.
Several questions arise from that. I confine myself to two. First, is it the intention that home responsibilities will apply for all children of school age, so that one would be credited with home responsibilities for the full 16 years of each child's school life, resulting in many years of home responsibilities in the case of large families?
Secondly, is it the case that the Government anticipate taking into account only the care of relatives? The original explanatory notes on the Bill talked about the receipt of a specified benefit by the person concerned, a dependant, or another member of the household. It sounds as though someone being cared for, living in the household, not a relative, might be the basis for home responsibility payments.
I invite the Minister to deal with those broad points before we go any further.
This late hour is no time for me to go into the careful explanation given in the same letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton about the way in which home responsibility will work, given that it will have an effect on the requisite number of qualifying years that anyone has when it comes to entitlement to benefit.
Three examples were given in that letter seeking to show the level of benefit to be payable to people who had a given level of years of contributions and years of home responsibility. The generosity still startles me. One of the illustrations shows how years of home responsibility from the age of 21 to 39—which is not unreasonable for anyone looking after a family—result in contributions being required for only 20 years, after taking account of home responsibilities. Therefore, to qualify for a benefit, bearing in mind the 25 per cent rule, which is the minimum to qualify at all, someone in that position need only work and pay national insurance contributions for five years to get a benefit in her own right.
It is a major step that only five years' contributions are necessary in an entire potential working life to get a benefit. Anticipating the years of home responsibility between 16 and, say, 23 or 24, plus 567 the added years between 55 and 60 in the case of a woman younger than her husband, a great many people will be able to take advantage of the home responsibilities arrangements. For that reason, it will be very expensive to introduce this innovation.
We shall save our queries for the regulations. We accept the crying need to do something about the woman who has to break off her employment to look after young children and who, at the moment, finds her national insurance benefit affected adversely. Then there is the single woman who has to abandon work after paying national insurance contributions for some years in order to stay home to look after an ageing relative or other dependant. Such people are hard-hit categories. The national insurance system hits them very hard.
We welcome the home responsibilities arrangements. We obviously view them as an important target area. Perhaps if a little further light is shed on this matter I could happily assure the Minister that I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 4.

§ Mr. Alec Jones
I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the general principle of home responsibilities. In the two special cases he mentioned there is no disagreement between us.
The hon. Member said that he felt that home responsibilities could be regarded as a slightly over-generous method of dealing with things. The basic point is that one is trying to deal with home responsibilities by trying to ensure that anyone who qualifies by virtue of having to stay at home to look after a child or a sick or elderly parent shall not suffer as a consequence. It is our desire to do that by way of fitting them into categories, either those who have a personal benefit, such as a child benefit, or those who are dependent on people on benefits. There is also a third category of claims where family circumstances would need investigation.
Complications came to light in Committee. Every time my right hon. Friend the Minister of State answered one specific 568 point, another arose. We could have continued the discussion of home responsibilities from that time until tonight and still be dealing with a series of complications.
I cannot go any further on the details tonight. However, the affirmative resolution will give the House the fullest opportunity to debate this matter in great detail.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 11, line 4, at end insert— '(5) In section 33 of the principal Act (partial satisfaction of contribution conditions) the following subsection shall be added— (4) Regulations may provide that where—

(a) a person is entitled by virtue of this section to a Category A or Category B retirement pension consisting only of the additional component with no basic component; and

(b) that pension, and any graduated retirement benefit to which he may be entitled, together amount to less than the prescribed rate,
the person's entitlement as respects that Category A or Category B retirement pension shall be satisfied either altogether or for a prescribed period by the making of a single payment of the prescribed amount."' The purpose of the amendment is to provide that, where a person has no title to the basic component of a retirement pension, any small amount of additional component—or of additional component and graduated retirement benefit—which is due to him may be commuted. This parallels the provision which has operated since 1961 under the graduated scheme.