§ The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the increases in social security benefits. The necessary uprating order will come into operation on 23 November next. That and the other uprating instruments will be laid after the Social Security Bill becomes law.
The standard rate of basic retirement pension for a single person will rise by £2.45 a week, from £27.15 to £29.60. The rate for a married couple will rise by £3.90, from £43.45 to £47.35. Other long-term benefits that will be similarly increased include widow's pensions, industrial disablement pensions, non-contributory invalidity pension, and attendance allowance.
The standard rate of sickness benefit and unemployment benefit will rise by £1.85 for a single person, from £20.65 to £22.50, and by £3, from £33.40 to £36.40, for a married couple. The increases in invalidity pension will be somewhat higher; for a single person the increase will be £2.35, taking the pension from £26.00 to £28.35, and for a married couple the increase will be £3.75 a week, increasing the invalidity pension from £41.60 to £45.35 a week.
In calculating the new rates of benefit account has been taken both of the 1 per cent. adjustment provided for by the Social Security Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading on 24 February, and of the forecast given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, of a l0 per cent. increase in the retail price index between November 1980 and November 1981. As I said on Second Reading of the Bill, I would have wished that we did not have to make this adjustment, but given the very tight constraints on public spending, which the Chancellor emphasised yesterday, we simply could not afford the extra £225 million in a full year that the uprating of benefits would otherwise have cost.
Supplementary benefits will all be increased next November, on the same basis as national insurance benefits. War pensions will rise similarly and a Christmas bonus of £10 will be paid on the same basis as last year.
For public service pensions, earnings-related components in national insurance pensions, and the pensions payable under the old graduated scheme, where there are no standard rates, the same principle of the 1 per cent. adjustment will apply. That will increase existing rates by 9.06 per cent. The same increase will apply to those who receive guaranteed minimum pensions from contracted-out occupational pension schemes.
Last July I told the House that, subject to economic and other circumstances, we would maintain the value of child benefit in line with prices. As announced yesterday by the Chancellor, child benefit will be increased by 50p, to £5.25 a week for each child—a 10½ per cent. rise—a little more than the expected rise in prices. One-parent benefit—the premium paid to lone parents—will be increased from £3 to £3.30 a week. Thus, a one-parent family with two children will receive £13.80 a week, compared with £12.50 at present.
The prescribed levels of income for family income supplement will rise by £7, to £74.00 weekly for one-child families, and the additional amount for each further child will be raised to £8 a week.
892 I am glad to be able to announce, in the International Year of Disabled People, a substantial increase in mobility allowance—from £14.50 a week to £16.50. That is an increase of nearly 14 per cent. and it marks the importance that we attach to that allowance. We are especially anxious to continue to make it possible for as many disabled people as can to lease or buy cars from Motability, and that increase will help to ensure the continuing success of that scheme. The VAT relief on adaptation to cars for the disabled and the other VAT concessions announced yesterday will also be welcomed by disabled people.
I turn to invalidity benefit. The Chancellor made it clear yesterday that it will not be possible to bring that benefit into tax next year, but I am anxious to make a start towards the restoration of the value of that benefit in advance of taxation. I therefore propose to restore the value of the invalidity allowances this November. Those allowances are the sums paid on top of the invalidity pension and depend on the claimant's age when incapacity begins. The cost of restoring the allowances and of the increase in real terms of the mobility allowance, will be met from the contingency reserve. Our pledge to restore the value of the invalidity pension itself when it comes into taxation now stands unqualified.
Rising fuel costs are causing increasing anxiety among needy people, and the Government have every sympathy with the difficulties that they face. Last November we introduced the most generous fuel assistance package ever. We raised annual spending on fuel aid to more than £200 million, concentrated on giving substantial help to those in the greatest need. This year, we aim to protect the value of that advance. Supplementary benefit heating additions, therefore, including the special boost that we gave them last year, will be increased in line with the expected rise in fuel prices between November 1980 and November 1981.
The basic rates of heating addition and the central heating addition will rise from £1.40 a week to £1.65—that is, to £85.80 a year. About 1½ million people will benefit from that increase, including all supplementary pensioner householders over the age of 70, and supplementary benefit householders with children under 5 years of age. The higher rate heating addition will rise from £3.40 to £4.05, or £210.60 a year. More than 400,000 people are receiving that increase, and they include the most severely disabled, who receive it automatically. The increases in heating additions will cost an additional £40 million in a full year, which means that our total spending on fuel assistance will rise to more than £250 million and will benefit more than 2¼ million people.
The cost of that uprating will be about £2 billion in a full year. About £l½ billion will fall on the national insurance fund and the balance will come from the Consolidated Fund. I shall be reviewing contribution rates as usual in the autumn, and any necessary changes will take effect from April 1982. For the convenience of the House I am circulating details of the new rates of benefits in the Official Report, and copies are available in the Vote Office.
This package of measures will bring help to the least privileged members of the community. The increase in pensions maintains our commitment to protect the real value of the pension during the lifetime of this Parliament. The increases in child benefit and the premium for one-parent families fulfil the undertaking to maintain the value of child benefit that I gave to the House in July last year. 893 Those increases and that in family income supplement are an indication of the importance that we attach to family support. The increase in mobility allowance and invalidity allowances for the disabled, and the heating additions for the needy, demonstrate our concern for those hard-pressed groups. Of course all of us on both sides of the House wish that we could do more, but we have to take account of what we can afford. I hope that the House will agree that the measures proposed are evidence of our determination to protect the most vulnerable in these very difficult times.
§ Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)It is clear that the Secretary of State has had to grub around for a few crumbs for the least privileged in our society. That is indicated by the fact that this is the first time that a Secretary of State for Social Services is not holding a press conference outside the House following his statement. He will not be available for questioning by the press. Therefore, we must do that job in the Chamber.
What is the probable effect of these benefit increases on the unemployed—in other words, the long-term unemployed who will lose their right to unemployment benefit and will come within the scope of supplementary benefit? What effect will the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the forecast in the White Paper have on them?
The White Paper states that expenditure on social security has been 1 per cent. less in the past year than the Government expected. That being so, why are the Government proceeding with the Social Security Bill, which will cut 1 per cent. off pensions? The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the Chancellor's statement that the rise in prices this November will be 10 per cent. How does that square with the statement on page 124 of the White Paper that the forecast of the rise in prices to November 1981 is 11 per cent.? What percentage are the Government working on for price increases this November? The difference of 1 per cent. is not unimportant. It was a large enough difference to prompt the Government to cut the pension because of the 1 per cent. over-provision.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the changing of the threshold rates for family income supplement. I understand that about three-quarters of the 80,000 who receive family income supplement pay income tax. By how much will that fraction increase as a result of the freezing of the tax threshold rates? Is it his aim that 100 per cent. of those in receipt of family income supplement shall pay income tax? It is clear that the present level of three-quarters must be increased.
The right hon. Gentleman must accept that, if Labour's pension law had not been changed so that the link with earnings was broken, the figure that he announced today for married couples would be not £47.35 a week but £49.40. Those are not my figures; they are the statistics provided by the Library. The Chancellor used as an argument for freezing the thresholds the fact that those at work had had real increases in earnings that exceeded price increases. That was the very purpose of Labour's pension law. It was intended that when earnings increases exceeded price increases the pensioners would share in the increases. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures that have been provided by the Library?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the single person's pension that he has announced today, coupled with the freezing of the tax threshold, means that over the 894 next financial year a woman aged between 60 and 65 years will receive, in old-age pension, so many weeks at the old rate and so many at the new rate, making a total of £1,460? The tax threshold is frozen at £1,375. Therefore, a woman aged between 60 and 65 will have an average weekly income of £1 55 more than the tax threshold. If income tax is paid at 30p in the pound, that is a tax of 50p a week on the basic old-age pension for women aged between 60 and 65 years. Does that concern the right hon. Gentleman? Did he have any discussions with the Chancellor about the cross-over?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—[Interruption.] I do not expect Conservative Members to like these questions, but the Opposition and the country are entitled to some answers. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that notwithstanding the 50p increase in child benefit, which takes account of inflation over the past 12 months, if the value of child benefit were to be restored to its value when the Government took office it would have to be increased by 95p a week and not 50p a week? How much of the 14 per cent. increase in mobility allowance that is above the rate of inflation is to take account of the increase in motoring costs as a direct result of the Budget? The right hon. Gentleman is not giving a real increase in the mobility allowance if the full increase in motoring costs is taken into account.
I accept that this year 52 weeks will pass after the previous uprating if the date is to be 23 November. Could not the Government find it in their heart to bring forward the uprating to 16 November, to give pensioners at least one week back of the two weeks that they stole from them last year?
Lastly, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's description of the 1980 Budget, why did he not describe this year's Budget as a family budget?
§ Mr. JenkinThe hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) would make a very good one-man press conference. I am bound to tell him that I did not understand his question about unemployment. The assumptions on which the cost of unemployment benefit in the year ahead is based are spelt out clearly in the social security chapter of the public expenditure White Paper.
The 1 per cent. adjustment in the level of benefits is currently the subject of debate in Committee on the Social Security Bill. I have made it abundantly clear that the only reason for the adjustment is to retain public expenditure within the limits that the Government require for their overall economic policy.
The latest price increase forecast that the Chancellor gave to the House yesterday of 10 per cent. for November to November is based on my right hon. and learned Friend's latest assessment and takes account of all the changes that he announced in the Budget.
The family income supplement is an important benefit for families in work. It will go a long way to avoid what might otherwise have been the bad effect on incentives of our inability to raise tax thresholds. I do not know the precise number of those who will find themselves paying income tax and receiving FIS. If the hon. Gentleman tables a suitable question I shall do my best to give him an answer.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Labour Government left behind a very large public expenditure programme and no means to pay for it all. He knows, too, that that Government's commitment to pay pensioners on 895 the basis of the increase in prices or earnings, whichever was the higher, could not be sustained. The Government had the courage to deal with that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of taxation on those beyond pension age. He mentioned especially women aged between 60 and 65 years. I have had discussions with the Treasury. It is a complicated issue and perhaps I may deal with it, Mr. Speaker, if I catch your eye during tomorrow's debate.
I do not think that the House will favour the hon. Gentleman's snide comments on child benefit. I have the impression that most of the House thoroughly welcomes the increase of 50p.
I am sure that those who depend on the mobility allowance to run a car will welcome the substantial increase that I have announced.
Finally, the date for the uprating of 23 November is precisely in line with statutory requirements.
§ Several hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Before I call another hon. Member I make it clear to the House that this statement is bound to play a major part in the discussions on the Budget today, tomorrow and on Monday. I shall limit strictly the number of hon. Members whom I shall call to put questions. There is a ballot for notices of motion and an opposed application to introduce a Private Member's Bill to deal with before we proceed to discuss the Budget. If the opposition to the application to introduce a Private Member's Bill is carried to the Division Lobby it will be nearly 5 o'clock before we begin the debate on the Budget. I warn the House that I shall call fewer hon. Members to put questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
§ Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in respect of his Cabinet colleagues in the Treasury he is a very unlucky Minister? Does he accept that he appears to have been bamboozled by the Chancellor into believing that the failure to implement the Rooker-Wise amendment in terms of a single woman retiring at 60 years of age in November 1981 is a complicated issue? Does he not accept the plain arithmetic—namely, that from November the pension of the single woman who retired at 60 and who is not yet 65 years of age will definitely be taxable, even if it is her sole income? Will he be honest with the House and admit that that will be the position?
Secondly and lastly, Liberals, in common with the rest of the House, welcome the substantial sums that are rightly being paid in the form of extra fuel and heating aids for pensioners and the sick. However, if the Government are dedicated to economy as they claim to be, why does not the right hon. Gentleman get his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to increase the miserly insulation grants so that such huge sums do not have to be spent on winter heating?
§ Mr. JenkinThe taxation of women between the ages of 60 and 65 is a complicated matter. It depends on whether they have other income and whether they are taxed under PAYE. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is precedent for not collecting small amounts of tax at the tail-end of the year. Of course, I have the matter under discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend, 896 and I hope to say something more about it tomorrow. The heating additions that I have announced will be of considerable help to those on supplementary benefits and family income supplement, who are the most needy families in the land. We give 90 per cent. grants to pensioners for insulating their homes. I hope that the new community enterprise scheme will lend to inproved insulation. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is better to help people to save fuel than to burn it.
§ Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North)Does my right hon. Friend accept that further freezing of personal tax allowances means that pensioners as well as earners are being asked to make a sacrifice? Does he agree, however, that in the context of a tough Budget his statement, involving an extra £2,000 million for pensioners, and the new measures that he has announced for the disabled, is convincing evidence of the Government's pledge to assist families and to care for the most vulnerable sections of our community?
§ Mr. JenkinI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Even in this difficult year the Government have demonstrated their concern for those who are facing considerable problems.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side.
§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)I welcome the increase in the mobility allowance and the special cost allowance for the blind, but why did not the Secretary of State take the opportunity to introduce a special disablement cost allowance? Why did he choose only the blind, and neglect those with less publicly acceptable disabilities, such as spastics, epileptics and mentally handicapped people? Does he accept that the public attitude to such disabilities is often deplorable and sometimes neglectful, and that he should have helped that group today?
§ Mr. JenkinThe right hon. Gentleman will know that it has been a complaint of the blind that whereas, over the years, a number of new benefits for disabled people have been introduced by successive Governments, there have been no new benefits for the blind. The doubling of the tax allowance, which my right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday, will be widely welcomed by the blind and those who speak for them.
§ Mr. William Waldegrave (Bristol, West)Will my right hon. Friend accept the wholehearted congratulations of hon. Members on the Government Benches who wanted child benefit uprated in line with prices? Does he agree that there is, however, bound to be a serious worsening of poverty trap problems as a result of the failure to raise the tax threshold while increasing means-tested benefits in line with prices?
§ Mr. JenkinNothing that the Chancellor announced yesterday will in any way deepen the poverty trap, if by the poverty trap one means, in the technical sense, the marginal rate of tax on the extra pound earned. Of course, the poverty trap will be affected by the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, but the House has already approved that. Improvements in family income supplement announced yesterday will help to deal quite effectively with the poverty trap as it affects the low-paid with children.
§ Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North)In spite of the Secretary of State's suave presentation of his statement, does he not accept that the Government's decision not to protect against inflation the elderly, the sick, those on supplementary benefits and the unemployed will be seen as a cynical attack on the people least able to care for themselves? Does that not fully justify what Help the Aged said yesterday—that it was a mean and spiteful Budget? Had I, when I was Secretary of State, made such a statement, would not the right hon. Gentleman have demanded my resignation?
§ Mr. JenkinThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The vast majority of elderly people understand the economic difficulties that we face and are perfectly prepared to pay their share. They recognise that we gave a pledge to protect the value of the pension over a Parliament and they know that we are honouring that.
§ Sir Frederick Burden (Gillinghan)Does my right hon. Friend agree that the meanest attack ever made on old-age pensioners was when a Labour Government were not able to pay them their Christmas bonuses in 1975 and 1976? I welcome the child allowance increase, but will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the proposal that as from the middle of next year certain categories of people entitled to the allowances will receive them one month in arrears? Is he aware that many women regard the allowance as part of their weekly expenditure? Will he carefully consider the matter so that they can continue as they have in the past, unless they themselves wish to draw the allowance weekly?
§ Mr. JenkinI am considering carefully the large number of representations that we have had, including a good many that have made precisely the last point made by my hon. Friend. We should never let the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) forget that it was a Labour Government who managed to leave out the peak months of their inflation when they uprated the pension in 1975.
§ Mr. John Evans (Newton)If by the middle of this year the rate of inflation proves to be above 10 per cent., will the Secretary of State uprate benefits accordingly?
§ Mr. JenkinMy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a categorical undertaking to the House that if our estimate falls short of what turns out to be the rate of inflation the pension increase in the following year will make up for it. It would be impractical to try to change the level of pension at a late date in the year.
§ Mr. W. Benyon (Buckingham)In order to assist us properly to grasp the situation, can my hon. Friend tell me, or have published in the Official Report, at what level of earnings a married man with two children will have to be in order to be better off working when benefits are uprated?
§ Mr. JenkinThe incentive problem is not the same as the poverty trap. It has always primarily affected families with children. Child benefit will be increased by more than the benefits for those who are out of work. Therefore, for those families the problem will not have got worse as a result of the announcements yesterday. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who knows a great deal about 898 these matters. Neither the incentive effect nor the poverty trap has been worsened by the decisions announced yesterday.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)Is it not a major injustice in the International Year of Disabled People that countless thousands of the long-term sick and disabled who have to live on invalidity benefit should suffer a cut in real terms in their living standards? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House want him at the very least to excuse invalidity pensioners from the effects of clause 1(3) of the Social Security Bill? The right hon. Gentleman patted himself vigorously on the back for an increase of 14 per cent. in the mobility allowance, but is he aware that we who launched the mobility allowance increased it by 150 per cent. in less than three years? Is he also aware that, while his increase will take place in November, the savage increase in petrol prices has already taken place? Is he further aware that the Spastics Society this year is paying £¼ million in value added tax and that other voluntary organisations are carrying even more grievous burdens, while he is asking them to do much more than they are doing? What action is he taking to help voluntary organisations?
§ Mr. JenkinThe right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. Perhaps I may say this about the mobility allowance: by next November we shall have increased the mobility allowance by 65 per cent. in two years. I think that that demonstrates the importance that we attach to this benefit. It is certainly widely welcomed. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that last year my right hon. Friend announced a substantial package of tax reliefs for donations to voluntary bodies and to charities, and that this comes into effect on 6 April this year. This should lead—I hope that it will lead—to a substantial increase in the flow of funds to voluntary bodies.
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the Chancellor announced yesterday a number of specific and valuable reliefs from VAT aimed particularly at helping either the disabled or the organisations that work with the disabled. The right hon. Gentleman should give a little credit where credit is due.
§ Following is the information:
§ INCREASED BENEFIT RATES
§ (The Social Security Act 1975, as amended, is referred to as"the Act"; the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, as amended, is referred to as"the Pensions Act")
| PART I BENEFITS PAYABLE FROM NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND | ||
| (SEE ALSO PARTS 3 AND 4) | ||
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rale £ | |
| Basic component of category A retirement pension* (section 6(1)(a) of the Pensions Act), category B retirement pension*, (section 7 of the Pensions Act), widowed mother's allowance and widow's pension | 27.15 | 29.60 |
| Category B retirement pension* (section 29(7)(a)(i) of the Act) | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| Basic component of invalidity pension | 26.00 | 28.35 |
| Standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefit | ||
| Beneficiary' under pension age | 20.65 | 22.50 |
| Beneficiary over pension age | 26.00 | 28.35 |
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rate £ | |
| Invalidity Allowance: | ||
| 5.70 | ||
| Higher rate | 6.20 | |
| 5.45 | ||
| 3.60 | ||
| Middle rate | 4.00 | |
| 3.45 | ||
| 1.80 | ||
| Lower rate | 2.00 | |
| 1.75 | ||
| Maternity allowance | 20.65 | 22.50 |
| Widow's allowance | 38.00 | 41.40 |
| Child's special allowance | 7.50 | 7.70 |
| Guardian's allowance | 7.50 | 7.70 |
| The weekly rate of graduated retirement benefit payable for each unit of graduated contributions will be increased by 9.06 per cent, from 3.54p to 3.86p. | ||
| * An age addition of 25p is payable to retirement pensioners who are aged 80 or over. |
§ The following sums will be increased by 9.06 per cent.:
- (a)additional components in the rates of long.term benefits calculated by reference to any final relevant year earlier than the tax year 1981–82.
- (b)increases of retirement pensions for deferred retirement under schedule 1 to the Pensions Act.
- (c)increases of graduated retirement benefit for deferred retirement under schedule 2 to the Social Security (Graduated Retirement Benefit) (No. 2) Regulations 1978.
- (d)increments in guaranteed minimum pensions under section 126A of the Act.
| PART 2 BENEFITS PAYABLE FROM CONSOLIDATED FUND (BUT SF.F. ALSO PARTS 5 TO 8) | ||
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rate £ | |
| Attendance allowance: | ||
| Higher rate | 21.65 | 23.65 |
| Lower rate | 14.45 | 15.75 |
| Non.contributory invalidity pension | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| Invalid care allowance | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| Mobility allowance | 14.50 | 16.50 |
| Category' C or D retirement pension*: | ||
| Higher rate | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| Lower rate | 9.80 | 10.65 |
| * An age addition of 25p is payable to retirement pensioners who are aged 80 or over. |
| PART 3 INCREASES FOR DEPENDANTS | ||
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rate £ | |
| Increase for a wife or other adult dependant of: | ||
| Category A or B retirement pension | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| Invalidity pension | 15.60 | 17.00 |
| Unemployment benefit and sickness benefit (where beneficiary is over pensionable age) | 15.60 | 17.00 |
| Unemployment benefit and sickness benefit (where beneficiary is under pensionable age) and maternity allowance | 12.75 | 13.90 |
| Non.contributory invalidity pension, invalid care allowance and category C retirement pension | 9.80 | 10.65 |
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rate £ | |
| Increase for a qualifying child of: | ||
| Widow's allowance, widowed mother's allowance, invalidity non.contributory invalidity, and retirement pensions, invalid care allowance, unemployment and sickness benefit (where beneficiary is over pensionable age) and child's special allowance | 7.50 | 7.70 |
| Unemployment benefit and sickness benefit (where beneficiary is under pensionable age) and maternity allowance | 1.25 | 0.80 |
| PART 4 INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFIT | ||
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rate £ | |
| Injury benefit: | ||
| (a)beneficiary 18 or over or entitled to increase for child or adult dependant | 23.40 | 25.25 |
| (b)beneficiary under 18 and not entitled to such an increase | 20.65 | 22.50 |
| Disablement pension: | ||
| (a)beneficiary 18 or over or entitled to increase for child or adult dependant— | ||
| Degree of disablement per cent | ||
| 100 | 44.30 | 48.30 |
| 90 | 39.90 | 43.47 |
| 80 | 35.40 | 38.64 |
| 70 | 31.00 | 33.81 |
| 60 | 26.60 | 28.98 |
| 50 | 22.20 | 24.15 |
| 40 | 17.70 | 19.32 |
| 30 | 13.30 | 14.49 |
| 20 | 8.90 | 9.66 |
| (b)beneficiary under 18 and not entitled to such an increase— | ||
| Degree of disablement per cent | ||
| 100 | 27.15 | 29.60 |
| 90 | 24.44 | 26.64 |
| 80 | 21.72 | 23.68 |
| 70 | 19.01 | 20.72 |
| 60 | 16.29 | 17.76 |
| 50 | 13.58 | 14.80 |
| 40 | 10.86 | 11.84 |
| 30 | 8.15 | 8.88 |
| 20 | 5.43 | 5.92 |
| Maximum disablement gratuity will be increased from £2,950 to £3,210 |
| Unemployability supplement | 26.00 | 28.35 |
| Increase of unemployability supplement for early onset of incapacity for work: | ||
| (a) if on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 35, or if that date fell before 5 July 1948 | 5.45 | 6.20 |
| (aa) if (a) does not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 40 and he had not attained pensionable age before 6 April 1979 | 5.45 | 6.20 |
| Existing Proposed £ | Weekly rate Weekly rate £ | |
| (b)if (a) and (aa) do not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 45 | 3.45 | 4.00 |
| (bb) if (a), (aa) and (a) do not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 50 and had not attained pensionable age before 6 April 1979 | 3.45 | 4.00 |
| (c)in any other case | 1.75 | 2.00 |
| Maximum increase of disablement pension in cases of special hardship | 17.70 | *19.32 |
| Maximum increase of disablement pension where constant attendance needed; | ||
| (a) except in cases of exceptionally severe disablement | 17.70 | 19.40 |
| (b) in any case | 35.40 | 38.80 |
| Increase of weekly rate of disablement pension for exceptionally severe disablement | 17.70 | 19.40 |
| Increase of injury benefit for dependent children | 1.25 | 0.80 |
| Increase of disablement pension with unemployability supplement for dependent children | 7.50 | 7.70 |
| Increase of injury benefit for adult dependant | 12.75 | 13.90 |
| Increase of disablement pension with unemployability supplement for adult dependant | 15.60 | 17.00 |
| Widow's pension: | ||
| (a)initial rate | 38.00 | 41.40 |
| (b)higher permanent rate | 27.70 | 30.15 |
| (c)lower permanent rate | 8.15 | 8.88 |
| Widower's pension | 27.70 | 30.15 |
| Allowance under section 70 of the Act in respect of each qualifying child: | ||
| (a)higher rate | 7.50 | 7.70 |
| (b)lower rate | 1.25 | 0.80 |
| Maximum under section 91(1) of the Act of aggregate of weekly benefit payable for successive accidents: | ||
| (a) beneficiary 18 or over or entitled to an increase in respect of a child or adult dependant | 44.30 | 48.30 |
| (b) beneficiary under 18 and not entitled to such an increase | 27.15 | 29.60 |
| Maximum weekly rate of lesser incapacity allowance supplementing workmen's compensation (section 2(6)(c) of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975) | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| Weekly rate of allowance payable where disablement is not total (section 7(2)(b) of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975) | 16.30 | 17.75 |
| * or the amount (if any) by which the weekly rate of the pension, apart from any increase under sections 61, 63, 64 or 66 of the Act falls short of £48.30, whichever is the less. |
| Existing weekly rate £ | Proposed weekly rate £ | |
| Age allowance for elderly widows: | ||
| Ages 65.69 | 3.45 | 3.75 |
| Age 70 and over | 6.90 | 7.50 |
| Adult orphans | 27.15 | 29.60 |