HL Deb 17 December 1969 vol 306 cc1100-1

2.39 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that the extra £1 a week in pension received by a man who works from 65 to 70 is taken into account when he applies for supplementary benefit, whereas a superannuation payment of a similar sum received from his employment is not.]

BARONESS PHILLIPS

Yes, my Lords. In calculating a persons' entitlement to supplementary benefit, up to 20s. a week of certain forms of income, including superannuation, can be disregarded. The Ministry of Social Security Act provides that this does not apply to any part of the National Insurance retirement pension. This is because the supplementary benefits scheme and the insurance scheme are complementary and a disregard of any part of the retirement pension would amount to double provision by the State.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her reply, but may I ask her whether she will look into the matter again, because it appears that there is some discrimination against the people who care to work for the extra five years as against those who do not?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I think it is rather important to point out that this disregard is not peculiar to superannuation schemes. The disregard applies to "other income", and this could of course include charity payments, or something from capital. It is also important to realise that the supplementary benefits scheme is complementary to the insurance scheme—in other words, it is intended to bring income up to a reasonable minimum level.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, does the Minister not think that as a result of this situation people are not encouraged to go on working for the extra five years, and that it would be a good thing if they were so encouraged?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, if I dare take issue with the noble Lord on this point, I think that people are encouraged because of what they could earn and not because of the 20s.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

My Lords, does my noble friend defend this discrimination on the ground that there should be one law for the rich, including the millionaire living on investment income, and the other for the poor?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I should have thought it was unlikely that the millionaire would be applying for supplementary benefit.