Clause 4 - Exclusions

Part of State Pension Credit Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 18 April 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tim Boswell Tim Boswell Shadow Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow Spokesperson (Work and Pensions) 3:45, 18 April 2002

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 43, leave out subsection (3).

I hope that this debate will take even less time, because the amendment refers to another point in the exclusion clause. As I have said, that proves no difficulty to us, so I shall not need to return to it in the clause stand part debate. The amendment relates to de minimis payments. I understand why the Department would not want to mess about with tuppence a week.

I remember that my mother—a formidable lady who occasionally features in Committee discussions—once received a cheque from the Inland Revenue for tuppence. I communicated with the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue—otherwise known to viewers of ''University Challenge Revisited'' as one of the New college team of 1964 for which I was consistently the first reserve. I asked, ''Is it really a good idea for your department to be sending out tuppenny cheques?'' He replied that my mother had forgotten to tell officials to roll it forward until the next payment. We all understand that it is absurd and irritating for people to receive piffling amounts.

Unless I have completely misconceived the matter, the normal method of payment for savings credit is by bank transfer—we need not debate that now—or by

order book in cases in which cash payment has been requested. Payment will be part of the pension and not a separate exercise.

Mr. Ian McCartney indicated assent.