asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that, while there has been no increase in retirement pensions this year, the prices of many necessities for old people have risen; and what recent investigations have been made by his Department to ascertain the effect upon those people dependent upon retirement pensions;

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the increasing hardship of old-age and other pensioners, he is now in a position to announce Her Majesty's Government's proposals for an increase in the basic rate.

I would remind the hon. Members that no pensioner need suffer hardship because he has nothing but his retirement pension to live on, since he can always apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementation which is now granted on a scale higher in real value than at any time before the scales were raised in 1952.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you consider that Questions Nos. 1 and 23 are in any way similar? The Minister was too quick in giving an answer for me to protest, but I feel that both Questions raise an entirely different matter.

They seem to me to be somewhat similar. Perhaps the hon. Lady can show the difference in the contents of the Questions by asking a supplementary question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that he has not answered either Question at all? Dealing with the first one, does he not really think it is scandalous that any decent person should talk about the position of old people in the way that he has today? Is he aware that most old people have less than 2s. a day to spend on food at present? Secondly, is he aware that the cost of food alone, according to the official index, has risen by 22 per cent. since the last General Election? Thirdly, is he aware that the cost of basic foods on which old people depend has risen by 40 per cent.? May I ask that as a supplementary to the first Question?

I am sure that the National Assistance Board will take note of the hon. Lady's suggestions, but it is incontrovertible that the scales of assistance give a better standard of living today than at any time between 1946 and 1952.

Having regard to the record number of Questions on the Order Paper today on this subject, which indicates the growing concern of the country, will the Minister take this opportunity to make a statement with regard to any increase?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of living in the first half of this year has risen only 1-4 per cent.? Can he explain why his predecessors did not do anything to raise the old-age pension during their régime when the cost of living rose 40 per cent.?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that all the Conservative newspapers are agitating that the increase should take place and that it is overdue, if, as he says, the position is better than it has ever been before?

It is true to say that not only are the assistance scales giving a better standard of living than at any time in the six years ending 1952, but also that the insurance pension itself has a higher value today than it had in the last year of Socialist rule.

Is the calculation which the Minister has just made in relation to the real value of assistance and pensions based upon the cost-of-living index or upon the food prices index?

In the case of pensions, it is based upon the Interim Index of Retail Prices.

rose—

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not usually your kindness to allow a Member to ask a second supplementary question when two of his own Questions have been answered together? I have only had one supplementary question.

It depends upon the length of the first supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the total number of retirement and contributory old-age pensioners in Scotland in each of the last four years; and how many in each year were in receipt of National Assistance.

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the Minister say whether the percentage of old-age pensioners now drawing National Assistance is increasing, as compared with the comparable figures a year ago?

I should have to do a great deal of arithmetic in my head in order to work out that sum but I think it will be found that the percentage of pensioners seeking assistance in Scotland is below that of the average for the United Kingdom.

Is it on the increase?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to give an assurance that the retirement pension will be raised before Christmas Day, 1954.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how soon after he has been able to state the Government's decision on the amount of increase of pensions it will be practicable to implement the decision by increased payment to pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that the retirement pensioners have their promised increase by Christmas, 1954.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether his promised statement on increases in retirement pensions will be made before the end of the present Parliamentary Session; and what is the earliest date on which such increases are expected to come into operation.

I would remind hon. Members that what we are engaged on is the Quinquennial Review of the National Insurance scheme, which is being carried out in accordance with Sections 39 and 40 of the National Insurance Act, 1946 This is a big operation, and we require for the purpose a report from the Government Actuary. Steps have been taken to make this available considerably earlier than might reasonably have been expected so as to enable me to make my promised announcement before Christmas. But, as hon. Members are aware, legislation is needed before benefits can be altered, and even when the necessary legislation has been passed, there is a lot of work to be done before new rates can be brought into force. I have already undertaken that no time will be lost in carrying through this operation, but further than that I cannot go at present.

Does not the Minister realise even now that, if he were to introduce a very short and simple Bill giving the necessary increase, it would have the support of almost the whole House and would be passed very quickly?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am bound by the terms of the Statute which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends passed in 1946. This is the Quinquennial Review. The first stage is the report by the Government Actuary, which we expect very shortly. That has to be presented to the Treasury and laid before the House. The stage after that is that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is obliged, by statute, then to make his review of benefits and contributions.

Although the Minister is bound to hold this review, is he not perfectly at liberty to increase the pensions now?

Is not the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend expressed the feeling of all of us when he indicated that the Minister need not wait for this report? Is he not aware that he could give an increase tomorrow to the pensioners, if he so wished, without waiting for the report, and that there would be no opposition from this side of the House?

I think that the pensioners themselves know that in 1951, when a much smaller operation, involving only the old-age pensioners and not the war disability pensioners or the sick or the unemployed, was embarked upon by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, 5½ months elapsed that year between the announcement of policy and the date of operation.

Surely, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) on Question 20, when the Minister said that my right hon. Friend would be satisfied with the proposals when he saw them, the Minister implied that he already had the proposal. If that is the case and he wants to raise these pensions, surely the Minister could do it with the help of this House before Christmas?

I have referred to the time-table of 1951. I am confident that, in what is going to be the biggest and boldest operation ever undertaken in this pensions scheme, I can improve on the Socialist timing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that decent-thinking people of all political parties are most anxious that this increase should be the maximum the country can afford and should be introduced as quickly as possible? Is he further aware that decent opinion is nauseated by the attempts being made by some people to make political capital out of the hardships of the old people?

If the Minister cannot guarantee that the old-age pensioners will get an increase before Christmas, will he give a specific assurance that they will get it before next June?

Before the General Election.

Until I am in a position to make the statement of policy, I cannot add anything to what I have said.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proportion of retirement pensioners and non-contributory old-age pensioners are now estimated to be in receipt of supplementary allowances.

Just over one-quarter of retirement pensioners and one-half of non-contributory pensioners.

Is the Minister not aware that, if dependants are added, this must mean something over one-third? Does not this add very strongly to the argument that immediate action should be taken to help them?

As I have said in answering previous Questions, the numbers on assistance are, I am glad to say, becoming stabilised.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proportion of the present National Insurance contribution is taken for retirement pensions; and what is the cost of the non-contributory pensions and the cost of the National Assistance for retirement pensioners.

Nearly half of the total contributions for National Insurance benefits is for retirement pensions. The estimated cost of non-contributory pensions is about £18 ¾ million a year at present, and the estimated cost of National Assistance allowances for retirement pensioners is about £39 million a year.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost of raising the basic rate of pensions to its 1946 value for the rest of the present financial year.

For retirement pensions, about £20 million.

As the Minister must raise old-age pensions in the next Budget at latest, and we now know the amount involved, will he not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the £20 million, or come to the House, when both sides of the House will give him the money, so that the old-age pensioners may face the winter with a little more confidence?

I have given the figure of the cost asked for, and I cannot add to my previous replies.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what period elapsed between the date of the passing of the Act authorising the last increase in retirement pensions and the date on which payment of the higher pensions began.

The Royal Assent was given to the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1952, which gave effect to the increases announced on 8th April, 1952, on 26th June, 1952, and the appointed day for the higher rates of retirement pension was 29th September, 1952.

By how much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to shorten that period on the next occasion? Has he formed any estimate of the total time to be taken by legislation and administration, and can he remove the growing fear that the pension increases will not be effective until October of next year?

The time taken in 1952 was very similar to the time taken by the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported in 1951. I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman was in his place when I gave the assurance—and if I did not give it, I meant to give it—that I confidently hope to knock something off the time-table taken by his own Government.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread misunderstanding over the distinction in the date when he may make the announcement, the date when legislation may be introduced and the date when it may take effect, and in order not to raise false hopes, will he be more explicit as to the date when old-age pensioners may expect an increase in the rates of pension?

I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I have said, except refer hon. Members to the previous timetables and say that I hope we can improve on them this time.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that party political capital made by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill will greatly lengthen the time before pensioners can get increased pensions?

As the Minister seems to know what he has in mind about this increase, why cannot he be more specific in giving us a date, and is he aware that he is laying himself open to the charge that he may be delaying this until the next General Election?

That hardly arises as a supplementary question on a Question concerned only with the time-table of 1952.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this persistent refusal to reveal dates is because he is afraid of revealing the date of the next General Election?

No, Sir. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in our case, I am following the procedure laid down by statute which his Government passed in 1946, and this is quite a different operation from the one in which he participated in 1951.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the latest total of pensioners in the London County Council area whose pensions are supplemented by National Assistance.

The estimated number of retirement, contributory and non-contributory old-age pensioners in the London County Council area who were receiving regular weekly National Assistance grants at the end of September, 1954, was just over 100,000.

Is this not a deplorable increase over the corresponding figures for last year? Does it not show that even in London, which is one of the most prosperous parts of the country, poverty and destitution prevail?

I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will be pleased to know that there has been a slight decrease in the numbers drawing assistance since June of this year.

Compare like with like.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the actual increase per month of retirement pensioners on National Assistance in the last available six months.

Monthly figures are not available, but between March and September they increased by about 20,000.

Despite the satisfaction expressed by the Minister about a general decrease in the number of retirement pensioners receiving National Assistance, does not this reply show that the number is still increasing? Surely these numbers speak for themselves and underline the complete inadequacy of the retirement pension?

The increase is very slight. It is very slight indeed compared with the rise which took place month by month and year by year under the Socialist Government.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now give an assurance that old-age pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance grants will not have such grants reduced by the whole amount of the promised increase in pensions.

I cannot give such an assurance. In assessing need, the National Assistance Board is bound to take National Insurance pensions into account in full.

Is the Minister aware that the proposed increase, about which he has been talking so much, will be regarded by all those pensioners who have to rely upon National Assistance as a cruel hoax if he gives it with one hand and takes the whole lot back with the other hand?

The National Insurance pensions were deliberately omitted from the schedule of disregards contained in the National Assistance Act, 1948, because our general objective is to make pensions payable without a means test the main provision against old age.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to be able to open a local office of his Department to serve the new housing estate at Kirkby, near Liverpool.

Current estimates of the rate of development of this new housing estate suggest that it will continue to be adequately served by the Ministry's local offices at Walton and Huyton for at least another year, but, if there is need, facilities for dealing with callers' inquiries will be provided at Kirkby in 1955, and continued till a full-time office is required.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his willingness to deal with the immediate problem, but does he recognise that the travelling distances both to Walton and Huyton are very considerable and costly, and that the sooner he can get an office at Kirkby the better?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that special attention is being given to this problem.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will arrange with the National Assistance Board to open an office to serve the 60,000 residents of Huyton-with-Roby, in view of distances applicants have to travel to offices in the Liverpool and St. Helens areas, and the cost and inconvenience arising therefrom.

The National Assistance Board informs me that it intends to open an office in Huyton-with-Roby or Prescot as soon as suitable premises can be obtained.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of persons in receipt of National Assistance at the latest convenient date together with comparable figures for 1951. 1952 and 1953; and what is the increase since 1st January, 1954.

The numbers of regular weekly grants of National Assistance in payment at the end of September in the years 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954 were, respectively, 1,409,000, 1,599,000, 1,713,000 and 1,764,000. Figures are not available to enable comparison to be made with 1st January, 1954, but during the greater part of this year, the total number of grants in payment has been falling; the figure for September last was about 18,000 less than that for the end of January.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the number of persons now receiving National Assistance suggests that the pension allowance is much too small? Does he not further appreciate that his party stated, in October, 1951, that the pension of 30s. had already been left behind by the cost of living? Does not he now see that it is necessary to increase the pension by much more than 2s. 6d.?

I regard it as a very satisfactory trend that the numbers on National Assistance have at last begun to fall. During the years of the Socialist Government, they increased year by year by an enormous amount.

Do I understand the Minister to say that he is satisfied, when there has been an increase of nearly one-fifth on the figures for 1951? Does not he realise that the Government's policy of reintroducing Poor Law relief under the guise of National Assistance is abhorrent to everyone, and that his Government can increase pensions at once without waiting for any further legislation? When is he going to stir himself?

Ever since 1948, I have expressed concern about the growing numbers of people on National Assistance. It is a matter for general congratulation that the figures today are stabilised, and actually show a fall as compared with January last.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that old-age pensioners who have been induced to continue working after 65 years of age on the promise of additional pension for each year worked are disappointed when they have to seek extra help from the Assistance Board to find that their advantage is wiped out by their extra pension being regarded as ordinary income; and whether, in his forthcoming announcement, he will consider restoring to the pensioners the extra they earned by including the additional pension among the other items which are disregarded by the Assistance Board in calculating income.

No, Sir. One of the advantages of the increased pensions men can earn by continuing at work after 65 is the better prospect they offer to insured persons of remaining independent of assistance.

Is not the Minister aware that a person will not ask for National Assistance if he is able to live without it? If he is compelled to ask for National Assistance, is it not quite wrong that he should be deprived of the inducement offered to him to give up his pension for five years in order to add to it when he retired? Will not the Minister reconsider this matter when he looks at the scheme again?

No, I cannot undertake to do that. Increments of pension were not included in the list of disregards put into the National Assistance Act, 1948, by the party opposite. Our object on this side of the House is to see as few people as possible drawing National Assistance subject to a means test.

Does the Minister realise that I am not trying to score any party point? I hope he is not going to introduce party points in discussing this matter. As he said, it was estimated that people could live on the pensions plus this increment, but, where circumstances force them on to public assistance, is it not quite wrong to deprive them of the promise the State made that, if they worked longer and did not draw the pension, their pension would include the extra money?

In my view, the main purpose of the great Beveridge Plan was to make insurance rather than assistance the main provision for old age.

I am sorry to persist, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the revised pension rates plus increment will be sufficient to absolve these people from the necessity of asking for National Assistance?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well satisfied when he sees the proposals I shall make.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement he has just made, that the object of that side of the House is to reduce the number of people on National Assistance, is a little unfortunate, because it will have the effect of preventing those perhaps in greatest need from coming forward to ask for assistance?

No. I certainly hope that it will not have any such effect, but I do think we ought all to agree that we want to see people earning pensions as of right by virtue of payments made, rather than going to assistance subject to need.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what definition is used in the Regulations of the National Assistance Board to define cases of need in so far as food is concerned.

The National Assistance Regulations contain no such definition. They prescribe comprehensive rates which Parliament has approved for all subsistence requirements except rent, for which an addition is made.

Would the Minister make that quite clear? Is he aware that old people truly believe that they can ask for help in regard to food only in connection with food for medicinal purposes? Will he make it clear, to take tea, for example—the price of which has increased—that the old people can call for assistance? Does he not realise that the old people cannot get through another winter without some help?

I think the position ought to be understood. Apart from the scale rates, which were so greatly improved in 1952, the National Assistance Board is paying additional discretionary allowances in one case in every three which comes before it. The Board has a discretion, which it is exercising, to pay something more than the scale rates in 600,000 cases. My belief is that the Board is doing its job with humanity, courtesy and kindness.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948, in order to bring the amounts of resources to be disregarded into line with the decline in the value of the £ since the passing of the Act.

No, Sir: I do not think we want to encourage more people to rely on assistance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept, then, the principle of disregards? If he accepts it, surely he must accept the principle that the amount of the disregard should vary with the change in the value of money? Is he aware that miners, whose pension has just been increased from 10s. to 15s. a week, are having 4s. 6d. a week deducted from their National Assistance because they are now above the basis level?

To increase the disregards is no help at all to the most needy persons, and it would obviously widen the scope and increase the numbers of people able to draw assistance. That is not our policy. We believe that the existing disregards, which cover the ownership of a house, £375 of war savings, £50 of other capital, up to £1 a week disability pension and £1 a week casual earnings, on top of the full scale of National Assistance, are adequate at the present time.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the present average discretionary addition being paid by the National Assistance Board to augment existing scale rates.

The latest date for which such information is available is November, 1953, when the average addition was 5s. a week.

In view of the relatively small sum that has been paid, is not this a further reason why the Board should be given an immediate opportunity at least to increase the general rate to help relieve that category of case?

I think that the Board is using its discretion very freely and that the existing position is reasonably satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance detail of the improved scales of National Assistance which have been in operation since 1952.

The principal rates provided in the current National Assistance Regulations (a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member) are, for needs other than rent, 35s. for a single householder and 59s. for a married couple. The scales for blind and certain tuberculous persons are substantially higher.

Is the Minister aware that his statement does not bear out his claim this afternoon that the National Assistance scales are better than ever or, indeed, are even adequate? Will he pay regard to the fact that the former rationed foods have increased by something like 40 per cent. in price since 1951 and that, on the present scales, old people are barely able to manage to buy them? If pensions cannot be raised this year, will the Minister approach the National Assistance Board so that pensioners can be given an increased or supplementary allowance to provide for these increases in price?

The assistance rates speak for themselves. In any event, they are a matter primarily for the National Assistance Board. The married rate today is 59s. From 1948 to 1950, it was 40s., and from 1950 to 1951, 43s. 6d. There has been a very big increase since then.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons were receiving National Assistance on the first day of September of each of the four years 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As these figures show that there is a considerable increase in the number, will the Minister regard this as further evidence of the position of the old-age pensioner? Will he do something about it before Christmas?

The increase from August, 1953, to August, 1954, was only 60,000, which compares with an annual average of nearly 200,000 in the years following 1948.

Is the Minister aware that by selecting those figures he is being unfair? My Question refers to 1951 to 1954.

I am sorry. I thought I was helping the hon. Member with the one figure which he required. Perhaps he will study in the OFFICIAL REPORT the table which I have given.

It would have been better had the Minister studied my Question.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of certified pneumoconiosis cases for the last 12 months in the mining industry in each area separately; and how such certifications compare with the last three years.

I regret that the information is not available for the last 12 months; but I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for the years 1951 to 1953, and for the first half of 1954.

Can the Minister say whether there has been an increase or a decrease in the number of these pneumoconiosis cases during the period?

There was an increase of about one-third in 1953, compared with 1951 and 1952. For the first part of 1954, it would appear that the annual rate was about the same as that for 1953.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, terrible as is the incidence of this disease in the mining industry, it is also prevalent amongst foundry workers? Will he see if figures can also be given to see what is its effect in this industry?

I shall certainly furnish the right hon. Gentleman with any figures which are available upon this subject, in which I take a deep personal interest.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the application of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1954, to Scotland.

In general, the scheme will apply without distinction in all parts of Great Britain. I have, however, been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about an administrative provision which concerns Scotland.

Who will be responsible, financially and otherwise, for ordering a post-mortem examination in Scotland in cases where there is dual certification of death?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has floored me on this occasion. I wish he would put that point about procedure in the Scottish courts to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have been in consultation with the Secretary of State on one point only, dealing with the payment of death grant in these particular cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 80,000 mine workers in Scotland and that this scheme affects their wives and families and is of great interest to us?

I shall be very happy to look into the point if the hon. Gentleman will let me know all about it.

As this provision deals with coroners' inquests, which do not take place in Scotland, is the right hon. Gentleman making alternative arrangements?

That is a point upon which I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is his most recent estimate of the number of widows receiving the 10s. per week widow's pension; and what the cost would be to bring such pension up to the standard of the widow's pension prescribed for under the National Insurance Act.

About 170,000. The annual cost of increasing these pensions to the current rate of widow's pension under the National Insurance Act would be about £10 million.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for what purpose applicants for welfare milk and vitamin tokens are required to give their maiden names and the age of their husbands when completing Form F.W.6.

By way of a check on identity and to avoid duplication; applications for welfare milk and vitamins used to be linked up with a person's ration book and necessitated registration with a particular retailer. These formalities have been abolished and, in their place, the applicant is simply asked to give enough information to trace her National Insurance number or, failing that, her husband's number.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to a great many people, this is an imposition and an intrusion into their personal affairs which has really no relevance whatever to the purpose for which the information is being sought?

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that, as a result of representations from different quarters, I have had this form simplified and some of the questions struck out.

In view of the fact that an unmarried mother will be entitled to welfare milk and vitamins, can the Minister say whether he has had the request for the woman's single name struck out?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many meetings of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions were held during 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively.

From 1949 to 1953 there were, respectively, eight, five, five, three and four meetings. So far there has been no meeting in 1954.

Will the Minister consider calling an early meeting of this Advisory Committee, as I know the members are anxious to consult him on various problems; or does he think he is entirely self-sufficient now that war pensions are under the wing of his enlarged Ministry?

The answer is: Yes, I certainly will, and I expect to have very shortly matters of considerable importance which I am anxious to discuss with the Central Advisory Committee.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent the proposed increases in war pensions and allowances are required to await the Actuarial Report on the Quinquennial Review under the National Insurance Acts.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether the Quinquennial Review includes in its purview pensions paid to disabled ex-Service men.

The provisions for the Quinquennial Review of National Insurance benefits do not extend to war pensions, but I must have a complete picture of the total cost of all the proposed improvements before I can announce any of them.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of ex-Service men will be very disappointed with that reply, because they were promised in two world wars a reward for their service and sufferings irrespective of actuarial considerations? As he has the knowledge of what is needed to increase pensions to the present-day purchasing power of money, why does he not act now?

I think I can say that when I am able to make an announcement—and I am just as impatient to make it as hon. Members are to hear it—the ex-Service community will be very well satisfied with the proposals.

As it is common ground that the basic rate of 1946 was not too high, and as the Minister could act tomorrow by the Royal Warrant and 300 back benchers on both sides think we have a debt of honour to the ex-Service men that ought to be fulfilled now, will not the right hon. Gentleman do something now for the ex-Service men?

I do think it is reasonable for the Government to say that they must collate all the various proposals in all the different pension schemes before an announcement is made.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if be will now consider allowing old-age pensioners to earn over 40s. without loss of retirement pension.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the fact that the earnings allowance is imposed to encourage persons to remain at work and earn increments on retirement pensions, he will take steps to protect the interests of these persons who cannot remain in full-time employment by altering the law to remove the earnings allowance limit in respect of these people.

I think we must wait for the report of the Phillips Committee before considering questions of this kind.

Does my right hon. Friend not realise that these old people have paid for their pensions and should be allowed to earn what they like? Will he remove from the Statute Book this scandalous piece of Socialist legislation?

No, I cannot accept that.

It is Socialism.

We adopted by general agreement in 1946 a new principle of giving a pension by virtue of retirement. There must be some test of retirement. This earnings rule has been the subject of inquiry by and of evidence given before the Phillips Committee, and the report of that Committee will be available very shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this earnings rule imposes a great hardship on women, particularly on widows, who find it very difficult, quite often, to get back into employment? Will he bear that particularly in mind so that we can have some amelioration of the present earnings rule?

Yes, I will certainly undertake to bear the point that my hon. Friend has raised particularly in mind.

In view of the admitted pressure that there is these days on all pensioners, and the public support there is for them not only from these benches but in the newspapers, why must the right hon. Gentleman wait until the Phillips Committee reports? Is there any hope of the Phillips Committee's reporting and of the right hon. Gentleman's making a statement before the end of the year?

Oh, certainly. I am hoping that the report will be available by the end of this month. I certainly promise a statement before the Christmas Recess.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as there is practically full employment in the country, he would, by allowing pensioners to work and earn more, benefit both industry and the country?

Yes, but we must be careful not to induce people to retire prematurely and to depend upon part-time earnings and pension rather than continue in their regular jobs and earn the higher pension by their so doing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is no superannuation scheme applicable to professional or official classes which demands retirement or permanent unemployment as a condition for paying the benefit of the scheme? Why cannot the same principle be applied to workers generally?

That may be so, but there was general agreement, I think, in all parts of the House in 1946, and we must try out this new retirement principle and provide higher pensions to be earned by virtue of deferred retirement.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in receipt of retirement pensions have died during the six months ended 30th September, or nearest convenient date.

About 140,000 in the six months ending 30th June, 1954.

Without being partisan, may I ask whether, in view of these figures, the Minister will not anticipate the reports now pending and give this increase before Christmas?

I am afraid that the numbers of deaths every half-year are an inevitable fact from which we cannot escape.

Is there any difference between the figures given and the usual annual rate for many preceding years? If not, is not the imputation behind this Question quite disgraceful?

I did not myself read any imputation behind it. I have no reason to suppose that there is any change in the mortality rates in the last three or four years which is of any significance.

On a point of order. Has not the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) imputed dishonourable motives to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells)? I think this is an important matter. A question of this character is put down to discover how many people who might have been receiving old-age pensions at the increased rate would not get them because of the death rate. This is not a dishonourable Question to ask. Surely the hon. Member for Reading, North should be asked to withdraw what he said.

I am bound to say that I could not myself understand what the implication was.

Withdraw.

We never expected the hon. Member to withdraw.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will grant an increase in pension to the 400 totally disabled ex-Service men of the first war who are drawing an alternative pension and who have had no increase of any sort since 1919.

I cannot usefully add to what the Parliamentary Secretary said about alternative pensions generally in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) on 20th October.

Will the Minister reconsider this and take into account that there are 400 of these men, mostly wounded when they were young, that they have lived their lives in a state of disablement, that the average age is 64, that the cost of giving them an increase would be £14,000, and that the most any could draw is £5 a week? Does he not think that the State should do something for these men?

These men have been exceptionally treated and have drawn something higher than the standard rate throughout their period of disability. Whenever the standard rates are improved, they have the option of going on to the standard rates if those are higher than the pensions they are receiving. I have no doubt that some of these men will be able to exercise that option when I announce my new proposals for war pension rates before Christmas.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the National Assistance Board have refused to make grants to London bus men, recently on strike, unless they first agreed to borrow £2; and if he will make a statement.

Assistance to persons in full-time employment is payable only in case of urgent need. Bus men who applied for assistance after the strike were, therefore, first required to take advantage of the London Passenger Transport Executive's offer to make an advance against wages already earned.

Is the Minister aware that Government approval of this procedure will create a new and very dangerous principle as applied to National Assistance, and, if extended, would it not destroy the whole basis of National Assistance, namely, that the power to borrow would be used as evidence of means? Will he, therefore, look at this matter again in the hope that this can be reversed?

I am informed by the Board that this is not borrowing at all. The men themselves were drawing money to which they were entitled and which they had already earned.

The Minister is quite wrong. These men were offered a loan, and as many of them did not wish to get into debt in this way their wives applied for assistance benefits, they were told that, unless they borrowed this money, they would get no grant from the Board. Surely that is a wrong principle, and will the Minister receive a deputation?

I think that the House knows that assistance is given to the wives and dependants of men on strike quite regardless of whether the strike is official or unofficial. In the case of the strikers themselves, the Act lays down, and the Board are bound by the Act, that it can only be given in what are called urgent cases, and I think that the Board in this case was acting properly in suggesting that these men might draw from their employers sums of money which they had already earned.

What about a deputation?

Of course, I will receive a deputation from hon. Members of this House at any time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men were told that they could not draw assistance unless they first agreed to borrow money? There is a question of principle involved. What is the Minister's reaction to that? Does he approve the principle of forcing people to borrow before they can get assistance?

I do not really see that persons are in urgent need if their employers hold a sum of money which is due to them and which they can obtain by asking for it.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what emergency plans he has for providing extra Christmas fare for pensioners and people in receipt of other insurance benefits.

I do not regard arrangements of this kind as appropriate to an insurance scheme.

Is the Minister not aware that he is the only person who can ensure a bearable Christmas for our old folk, and that it is not exploiting the situation in any way when we say that there is real need among these old people, which everyone recognises except himself?

I should have thought that what I have already said about the National Assistance Board would have assured the hon. Member that the Board was doing a humane and kindly job; but I do not think it would be at all appropriate to an insurance scheme to introduce gifts of Christmas fare, and so on.

asked the Prime Minister if the speech by the Minister of Education at a Primrose League luncheon on Tuesday, 26th October, referring to a new form of inquiry into the political views of school teachers, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend, in the course of a speech to the Primrose League, recommended their members to see more of the teaching profession and to give them the hospitality which their important position in the local community deserved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a report of the speech in the "Scotsman" of 27th October, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education said that in his constituency his party workers had complained that their new school teacher was a very bad influence on the children and that they were sure that that teacher was a Welsh Socialist? His actual words were:

"How can you expect them not to go wrong?"

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member has not gone wrong. My right hon. Friend and I both read the report of the speech. The gist of it was that it was a great pity that people went about saying that sort of thing when they had not taken the trouble to make the acquaintance of the teachers concerned and find out what sort of people they were.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Education is the first ever to concern himself with the politics of the teachers in the employ of his Department? Secondly, are we now to understand that the policy to be adopted towards teachers is not to "treat 'em mean and make' em keen," but to invite them in to have a meal?

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how many pats of butter sold in the Members' Tea Room make up 1 lb.; and at what price he buys the butter.

Approximately 80 to the lb. It is not the policy of the Kitchen Committee to disclose prices paid for commodities.

On what date was the number 80 to the lb.? My general information is that on the day that this Question appeared on the Order Paper the size of the pat of butter was increased.

I can only give the hon. Member the information which has been given me from a reliable quarter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what forms of action are contemplated by Her Majesty's Government in fulfilment of the obligations of Article IV of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty.

The nature of the action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government would entirely depend on the circumstances in which Article 4 of the Treaty was invoked and on the general situation prevailing at The time.

Does this reply mean that the Government reserve to themselves a completely free hand to decide what action to take in the event of a situation arising, or do the Government regard this Article as imposing a binding obligation on this country to send military forces to deal with a situation arising under the Article?

The reply means exactly what it says.