Date of payment of benefit (Hansard, 3 April 2000)

§ Mr. Webb
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House will be relieved to hear that this will be a brief contribution, prompted by two cases of perceived injustice in the way the benefits system treats people who have just reached state pension age. People receive their first state pension on the Monday after they reach state pension age, even though they may have been 65 or 60, as the case may be, for up to six days. That is six sevenths of a week, and it can leave a person reaching state pension age short, to their way of thinking, by as much as £100.
I should like to draw attention to the cases of two people. The Minister will be familiar with the case of Mr. Maiden, constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who felt aggrieved by the fact that he missed out on several days' worth of pension. He took the Benefits Agency to a tribunal and won. An article in Choice magazine, from April 1999, says: Ron was triumphant…although the Department of Social Security says his success doesn't set a precedent. In other words, the tribunal decided that this man should have been paid his pension from when he was 65, not from the following Monday. However, the Department of Social Security decided that although the tribunal had found against it, it would not apply that rule to other people.
That case was brought to my attention by a constituent, Mr. Wells, who was 65 on a Tuesday and therefore lost six days' worth of pension. He says that although it is not 726 a huge sum, it is a matter of principle. He took his case to appeal and lost. I told him that I would bring the matter to the attention of the House with a view to rationalising the slightly odd situation where a person can have reached the qualifying age for the state pension but not be entitled to draw it for nearly a week thereafter.
I have written to the Minister on the issue previously, and the responses tend to say that the same is true of other benefits, so if the person was receiving another benefit before reaching state pension age, that would run on for the six days and there would be no loss; but of course that is not true of someone who is in employment immediately prior to reaching state pension age.
Thus the purpose of new clause 11 is to try to tidy up the legislation, to make it plain that entitlement starts when one reaches 60 or 65. It does not matter terribly that the payment may not be made until the next Monday; but the entitlement should date from the date of reaching state pension age. That seems only just and fair. I hope that the computers are not a barrier and that the Minister will accept the new clause.

§ Mr. Rooker
First, I make it clear that the way in which the pension is paid does not cheat pensioners. When I was elected to the House years ago, my constituents asked me similar questions. I received replies from Ministers and asked parliamentary questions, so perhaps this is a generational issue.
I wish to put several points on the record, and one is that we must be careful about the language we use. Two principles were set down in 1948 and they have remained the same since. First, retirement pension is paid weekly in advance, so I shall not return to the arguments about ACT and whether it should be paid four weekly in arrears. Secondly, it is paid in whole weeks, not in part weeks.
There is no sense in beating about the bush and, earlier today, I answered a question from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The consequence of making the pension payable from someone's birth date is that, when the payment is no longer required because the pensioner has died, we would have to try to claim back the extra few days' payment. Frankly, we are not prepared to countenance that.
A pension is paid from the Monday following someone's 60th or 65th birthday and continues to be paid until the Monday after it is no longer required. In the sensitive period after someone has died, no attempt is made to claim back from the family any extra days paid.
I must disabuse hon. Members of their notions of the effects of ignoring the consequences of the new clause. The oncosts of part weeks would be £20 million a year. Because of the Public Accounts Committee and the requirements of accounting officers, we simply cannot write off £20 million.
Nobody loses out under the present system. Pensions are paid from Monday to Monday and they are paid in whole weeks. It has always been like that, and we do not propose to change the current system. I do not deny that, in due course, we want to pay pensioners by ACT, and the period covered by the payments will form part of the discussions in the next couple of years. Obviously we shall not pay four weeks in arrears; that is totally out of the question.
727 I do not want to offer any hope for change, because the consequence of paying pensions in part weeks is that we would have to claim back money after a pensioner was deceased. We are not prepared to countenance that. Frankly, I doubt that, if Members of the House were in my position, they would take a different view.

§ Mr. Webb
That was an interesting response, but not the one that I expected. I fear that I must report back to my constituent that he did not get his £100 when he was 65, but that his estate will receive it the week he dies. That seems to paraphrase the Minister's reply. I am not sure that my constituent will be happy with that, but I shall not try the House's patience any further. Given that I have received a different response from the ones that the Minister has given me in writing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.