HC Deb 30 November 1976 vol 921 cc672-4
7. Mr. Grist

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the eligibility for benefits of occupational pensioners between 60 and 65 years of age.

Mr. Ennals

Occupational pensioners, like the rest of the population, are entitled to all the national insurance benefits to which their contributions give rise, including where appropriate sickness and invalidity benefits, and to benefits such as attendance and mobility allowance. Our proposals in the Bill, which will be before the House on Second Reading on Thursday, relate solely to the unemployment benefit entitlement, lasting for one year at a stretch, of occupational pensioners with pensions of over £25 a week; but even they would not have their unemployment benefit, including maximum earnings-related supplement, totally withdrawn unless the occupational pension exceeded £58.10 in the case of a married man.

Mr. Grist

If the Minister is intent on breaking the national insurance principle, does he realise that £25 is a ludicrously low cut-off point? If there are abuses, does this mean that he thinks that the "availability for work" rule is not being operated properly, and will he consider some adjustment to the non-employed person's stamp for those over 60?

Mr. Ennals

The hon. Gentleman says that the level is ludicrously low. I have already said that a man with a dependent wife receiving earnings-related supplement would not have his unemployment benefit pay ended totally below a figure of £58.10. If we take the example of a single person, the figure is just over £50. Therefore, we are talking about people who will receive a quite substantial income and in any case will have retired.

The question of availability for work is difficult, and was considered by successive Governments. The only way to check whether a man is available for work is to be able to offer him a job and find out whether he accepts it. It is extremely difficult to offer a job to many of the people in question, particularly those living in rural areas or in areas to which they have retired and where unemployment is high. The chance of having this point properly tested is, therefore, difficult. The hon. Member will know that the insurance principle was originally set by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which recognised that this was an area of, if not abuse at least misuse, of social security benefits.

Mr. George Cunningham

Will the Minister bear in mind that the majority of the House of Commons has pulled down this flag when Governments of both parties have run it up in the past? Will he recognise that it is not acceptable to say that we shall deny a legitimate entitlement to people who deserve it under the proper criteria because there are some people who abuse it? Will the Minister try in the next 48 hours to avoid nailing the Government's colours to the mast, since it will result in the destruction of the flag when it is pulled down by the rest of us?

Mr. Ennals

I recognise the deep concern of my hon. Friend. If we look at the history of this issue, we note with interest that successive Oppositions have opposed successive Governments, believing that this was an area in which there was misuse. If we are concerned with limitation of public expenditure, the Government and, I think, the Opposition, will agree that this is a much more important area in which to make an examination, rather than producing hardship or discrimina- tion against the unemployed by other means, such as Conservative Members have suggested.

The fact that successive Oppositions have opposed successive Governments does not mean that at this time of economic crisis this is not the right area in which to look for savings.

Mrs. Chalker

Surely the Secretary of State would be better employed with his right hon. Friend, in correcting abuse by tightening up the rules on availability to work. Why does he not start on this far more productive way of dealing with the problem?

Mr. Ennals

I welcome the hon. Lady's appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps she ought to have listened to the answer that I gave to her hon. Friend on this question. If she is in doubt whether there is a satisfactory availability for work, I repeat what the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said when dealing with the matter. If she has a proposal, we would welcome it when the Bill reaches Standing Committee.