asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state what, and how many, representations he has recently received from old-age pensioners and their organisations about a rise in pension scales.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary met a deputation from the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations on 8th November when they put their case for an immediate improvement in the position of retirement pensioners. Since then I have received some 200 communications from individual pensioners, mostly in uniform terms, making similar demands.

In view of the large number of representations that have been made, when does the Minister intend to improve the conditions of the old-age pensioners, particularly having regard to the invidious way in which the old-age pensioners are treated as contrasted with Forces and other pensioners, who may earn as much as they like on retirement, whereas the old-age pensioners must not?

The hon. and learned Gentleman had better await the reply to later questions upon this point. His Question was concerned only with the number of the representations I have received, and I have given him a full answer to that point.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply has been sent to the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations concerning the points put to him by the recent delegation from the Federation.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will accede to the request of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions, forwarded to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th November, for immediate improvement in the rate of retirement pensions.

I cannot add to the replies given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) and other hon. Members on 14th November.

While not recalling those replies—

They were not answers but evasions.

I expect that they were in the negative. Is the Minister aware that the cost of living has reached an all-time high record and that the cost of food and fuel has now, in addition, made the position worse for old-age pensioners? When does he propose to send an answer to the associations?

The question is concerned with the National Insurance pension, and I remind the House that an increase of 7s. 6d. a week, single, and 11 s. a week, married, came into operation as recently as 23rd April and that since then the cost of living has moved by only about 2½ per cent.

Is the Minister aware that those most in need received 2s. 6d. and 4s.? His reply is a complete evasion. What will he do about those people?

There are later Questions about National Assistance; I would rather give my answer when we come to those Questions.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make a statement on the representations made to him during the week ended 19th November by the Welsh, English and Scottish Federations of Old-Age Pensions in respect of retirement pensions increase.

No such representations have been received since a deputation met the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 8th November, and I cannot add to the replies on this subject that I gave on 14th November.

By that, does the Minister mean that the Government have made up their mind that in present circumstances they will not do anything further to help old-age pensioners?

There are, of course, no such bodies as Welsh, English and Scottish federations. There is one federation. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary saw the federation and told it that as recently as 23rd April very substantial increases in retirement pensions have been made.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce legislation to amend Section 4, subsection 6, of the National Insurance Act, 1951, to enable a pensioner to earn a total of £104 in a year without suffering any reduction in pension benefit.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in their review of the earnings rule and the present earnings limit as it applies to widows, he will request the National Insurance Advisory Committee also to consider the rule and the earnings limit as it applies to retirement pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now arrange consultations with the nationalised industries, the Trades Union Congress, the Federation of British Industries, and other appropriate bodies, in regard to the earnings permitted for old-age pensioners without diminution of their pensions.

I have now referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee the question whether adjustments in the present earnings limits for retirement pensions as well as widow's and adult dependants' benefits—including connected Questions such as the method and period of calculation of earnings—are called for. The procedure of the Committee is designed to ensure, and does ensure, adequate opportunity for the various viewpoints, including those of the trade unions and the employers, to be fully represented and to be considered by the Committee. I am glad to think that the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) recognises the importance and, indeed, the necessity for this before conclusions can be responsibly reached.

While welcoming this sound move on the part of the Minister, may I ask him if he is aware that there are many pensionable people doing useful work teaching at evening classes, often earnings fees of a little over £2 a week but which do not total £104 a year, who are having their pensions cut, and that this is no encouragement?

That and, of course, all other points will be considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I would remind the House that on this question of the earnings rule and its present limits the Trades Union Congress was definite—

How long ago?

Less than a year ago. The Report of the Phillips Committee in December last year and the British Employers' Federation took the same view. Therefore, I think it would be wise to take the opinion of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on this matter before proceeding any further.

Are the views of this Committee binding upon the Minister, and can he say how long he expects it to take, because the delay is getting beyond a joke?

As hon. Members know, the Advisory Committee is at present preparing its report upon the important reference regarding widows' benefits. As soon as it has concluded that matter, it proposes to give priority to the question of the earnings rule. That is a much less complicated question than the issue of widows' benefits, and the Committee should be able to report upon it far more speedily.

Can my right hon. Friend say, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that these objections to the introduction of an increase are quite unrealistic, and cannot something be done pending the findings of this Committee to afford a modest increase in the permitted earnings of these pensioners?

I do not think that would be practicable, because the Trades Union Congress was quite definite, not only that there should be an earnings rule, but that the present limit of 40s. ought to stand.

How often does the Advisory Committee meet, or is it one of those committees which is so overworked that it can deal with only one subject every six months?

The Advisory Committee is taking a very important part in the non-statutory review of the National Insurance Scheme. Its great value is that it consists not of experts but of ordinary citizens who have other jobs to do. It has given me a number of extremely valuable reports already, particularly the one dealing with maternity benefits. I am sure that we gain immensely by referring these questions to a body of that sort.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many people in the Manchester area have postponed retirement on reaching pensionable age between the date on which the National Insurance Act, 1946, came into force and the latest convenient date;

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people in the Coventry area were receiving retirement pensions on the last convenient date; and how many of these had reductions made from their pension on account of earning more than £2 per week.

Information regarding particular localities is not available, but the broad national picture is that there are some 5½ million insured persons over pension age. About 400,000 of them are now receiving increased pensions by reason of deferred retirement after 1948. A further 600,000 are currently earning the right to future increased pensions. Some 500,000 have not yet completed the minimum ten years in insurance to qualify for pension. Of the 4½ million pensioners, about 3½ million are receiving pensions which are not subject to any earnings rule. Of the remaining million under age 70 (65 for women) some 50,000, though they have retired, are doing sufficient work for their pension to be reduced on account of earnings.

Does not my right hon. Friend think there is something to be said for abolishing both the earnings rule and the provisions about increments? Does he not agree that if people who have retired but would like to continue doing some part-time work were able to keep a little more of what they earned, it would make a very valuable contribution to the problem of filling the 7,793 vacancies now notified to the Ministry of Labour in Manchester?

No, Sir. I hope my hon. Friend will not ally himself with reactionary Liberalism in advocating the abolition of the retirement principle which progressive Tories and Socialists accepted ten or twelve years ago.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 50,000 pensioners who are suffering some reduction from their pensions because of the earnings rule are in a position worse than that of a Cabinet Minister who, if he were to retire—I believe I am right in saying—could have a pension—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was about to specify before the Minister shook his head the case of the Prime Minister, or a Chancellor, who are able to do that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They would be able to earn—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I meant the Lord Chancellor. If those two gentlemen were to retire, they would be able to receive pensions and do another job, without suffering any deficit in the pensions, so why should the 50,000 old-age pensioners unduly suffer?

By general consent, we adopted the retirement principle in pensions about ten or twelve years ago. Of those 50,000 who are having their pensions reduced or extinguished by virtue of the earnings rule, about two-thirds are having the pension altogether extinguished, because they undertake a full week's work for a full week's pay. As for the remainder, I have now announced that I have referred this question to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and any hon. Member who has views upon it will be able to give evidence before the Committee, if he so pleases.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has now reviewed the case of Mr. A. A. Major; and what decision he has reached.

A letter was sent to the hon. Member on 15th November explaining that the right to a National Insurance benefit is a matter for the independent statutory authorities, and that I have no power to intervene in their decisions. As the hon. Member is aware, Mr. Major has appealed to the local tribunal.

Is the Minister aware that the pensioner went in good faith to a job to which he was sent by the Ministry of Labour at £2 for 22 hours and that for this reason he has lost, with his wife, seven weeks' pension amounting to £26 and has received only £10 in National Assistance? Is this not disgraceful? Will the Minister take steps quickly to make good the money of which the pensioner has been unjustly deprived?

No, Sir, I could not accept those strictures in a matter where a case is sub judice and an appeal is pending before the local tribunal.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that through pension, insurance contributions and Income Tax the State benefits by £150 when a man continues working for one year after the age of 65; that at 3s. a week he would have to live to 85 to recover £150; and whether, in view of this, he will increase the rewards for those who continue working after the age of 65.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will examine the possibility of an increase in increments on retirement pensions.

I would remind the hon. Members that the question of increments was examined by the Phillips Committee, who recommended that there should be no alteration in the present rates of increment. I cannot accept the figures given by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins).

Will the Minister look at the figures again? He will then find that they are, if anything, an understatement, and that if a man continued working until 70 he would have to live to be about 160 before he was in on the deal. Will the Minister look at the possibility of remitting the 6s. 9d. for the stamp in the case of people who work after reaching 65 or give them some further advantage when they receive their pensions?

I will certainly look at the last point, which was not raised in the Question, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that his figures take no account at all of the very important fact that the widow of the insured man inherits his right to increments and that, generally speaking, widows live a very long time.

The widow would need to live a very long time.

As we cannot debate the Phillips Committee Report, which is extremely boring to many hon. Members on this side of the House, may I ask my right hon. Friend, as we have at last made some impression on him about the earnings rule, how long it will take us to make an impression on him about the need to increase increments? What efforts are now required on our part so that we do not have to refer to him as the Minister who neither 'necks nor gees?

Puzzled as I am by the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would inform her that we must pay some attention to the recommendation of the Phillips Committee that, even if National Insurance pensions were subsequently increased, there should be no alteration in the present rates of increment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people get no benefit at all from the increments, as they are often being taken into account if a person applies for National Assistance? In view of that, is not his answer to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) rather a peculiar one?

The hon. Lady has a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with that matter, but I would point out that the whole Beveridge conception of supplanting the need for assistance by insurance benefits would fall by the way if the insurance pension, or part of it, were to be disregarded for computing National Assistance.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what percentage of men awarded retirement pensions in 1954 received increments; and what was the average total increase of pension which those of them who were married thus received for themselves and their wives.

About half the men awarded retirement pensions in 1954 received increments, of an average value of some 15s. a week for those who were married.

I found some little difficulty in following the figures which my right hon. Friend gave in reply to Question No. 9. Could he tell me either how many or what proportion of those who qualify for retirement pensions have postponed retirement in order to increase their pensions?

I am afraid that I shall have to look into that. These figures are very complicated indeed, and it would require a little study before I could give my hon. Friend a completely accurate answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how the purchasing power provided for by the old-age pension today compares with that in 1947 and 1951.

Retirement pensions were introduced in 1946 at a standard rate of 26s., which remained unchanged until the autumn of 1951, when it was increased to 30s. for most but not all retirement pensioners. On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices and the previous cost-of-living index, the present 40s. rate of retirement pension is equal to 26s. 7d. in 1947 and to 32s. 9d. in 1951.

While everybody wants to do what they can to help the old-age pensioners a little further, does not my right hon. Friend think it would be a good thing if this improvement were mentioned a little more frequently, especially by hon. Members opposite?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how the standard of living provided for by the National Assistance Board today compares with 1951.

I am informed by the National Assistance Board that the value of the scale payments varied from time to time during 1951. At no time in that year was the standard as good as it is today, and throughout most of the year it was substantially lower.

While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this improvement, does he think a further improvement could be effected as soon as the Budget has strengthened the country's economy?

As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the question of responsibility in the matter of National Assistance rests in the first place with the Board itself.

Will the Minister agree that last December, when introducing the new scales, he told the House that they were 56¼ per cent. over those of 194S and the cost of food and fuel, the main items, had risen in the same period by 56 per cent.? As the cost of living has since increased by a further 5 per cent., will he now admit that people receiving National Assistance are not only worse off than they were last December but worse off than they were in 1948?

No, Sir, I cannot agree with that. In any case, the Question deals only with a comparison between scale rates today and in 1951.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the rise in the cost of living since the current retirement pension rate of 40s. was approved; and how this rate compares with the rate which it replaced.

Since December last, the Interim Index of Retail Prices has risen by 4½ per cent. The pension rate of 40s. is 23 per cent. more than the former 32s. 6d.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what weight is given to the peculiar pattern of old-age spending when the value of retirement pensions and National Assistance scales is assessed by reference to the cost-of-living index.

Account has been taken of information of this kind in settling the rates, which give a higher purchasing value than changes in the retail prices index would themselves call for.

If this weightage is given in assessing the scale, why is it that the Minister in this House inevitably refers to the Interim Index of Retail Prices when defending these figures? Is he aware that the average expenditure of persons living alone is, on fuel and on food, something like three-fifths of their total income, and that therefore it is of no relevance whatever to quote the index in relation to these figures?

Hon. Gentlemen will have noted that I refer to the index only when referring to insurance pensions, because we know that more than three cut of every four insurance pensioners have other resources and do not have to have recourse to the National Assistance Board for supplementation.

Will the Minister publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of how the rates are applied by the National Assistance Board, because this is of very great importance and interest to hon. Members of this House?

The hon. Gentleman must know that under successive Governments the National Assistance Board has always declined to publish any kind of notional budget because there is such wide variety in the needs of individual pensioners.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this House he has been constantly urged to issue an index of old-age pensioners relating to their needs; that he has on a number of occasions refused to disclose the methods used by the National Assistance Board for computing the basis and what basis is computed; that the index of consumer prices is wholly out of accord with the Interim Index of Retail Prices, and therefore every figure he has given today relating to old-age pensioners and National Assistance is, in essence, deceptive and misleading?

No, I cannot accept that. I have stated to the House what has been the practice under successive Ministers ever since 1948.

Can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that when the cost-of-living index rises, owing to a rise in the cost of seasonal foods, the index does not also drop when the costs of those foods drop?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question to the Minister of Labour and National Service, who is responsible for the index.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the estimated loss in purchasing power of the old-age retirement pension since the date of the last pension increase.

On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the loss in purchasing power of the 40s. retirement pension is 1s. 4d. The retirement pension is still worth more than at any time before the present rates were introduced.

Is the Minister aware that this further underlines the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that he is basing this additional cost of living on the Interim Index of Retail Prices? Is he aware that in that period food prices have gone up 5·7 points in that same index and fuel prices more than that; that the cheaper clothing will be dearer as the result of the Budget, and that all these things affect old-age pensioners more than the average citizen? Will not the Minister consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service to see whether he can formulate some special cost-of-living index to show the real loss in purchasing power of old-age pensions.

Those considerations may be very relevant to the scales of National Assistance, but when we consider National Insurance pensions we must remember that the whole population is insured today and more than three out of four pensioners have other resources.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to receive up-to-date figures from the National Assistance Board concerning the number of special discretionary allowances paid to old persons to help them to meet fuel costs.

The Board informs me that further information will be available in a few weeks' time from a sample inquiry made earlier this month.

Is it any use asking the Minister what he imagines the old people should do during those few weeks? Is he not aware that, however keen the local branches of the National Assistance Board may be, they have not the power to give additional discretionary allowances for coal beyond what they are giving today? How does he suggest these old people buy their coal this winter?

Discretionary additions are, of course, given for a wide variety of purposes and over a very wide field. In 1954, 620,000 cases of discretionary additions were granted. This, of course, is the time of year when discretionary additions for fuel are being given and are on the increase.

Will the Minister not now tell the National Assistance Board that the House of Commons is really anxious about this question of coal prices and would like to get this information quickly and not wait for four weeks? Could it at least, in answer to Questions, say what it has in hand next week?

On this Question I was confining my answer to the number of special discretionary allowances. Each year, at the beginning of November, the Board invariably takes a sample of all the cases in which discretionary additions are being granted, and the results of that inquiry will very shortly be available; but I can assure the House that no one receiving assistance at the present time is having the grant of a special discretionary addition delayed on account of the preparation of these statistics.

Would it not be appropriate that all these questions about coal for old-age pensioners should be remitted to the appropriate place, namely, the National Coal Board?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what instructions he has given to the National Assistance Board to ensure that the families of prisoners are relieved of hardship or destitution.

None, Sir. Any person over the age of 16 who is in need may apply to the Board for assistance.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Press of a man who appeared before the Scarborough magistrates last week and who asserted that in a prison, which should be well known to the Minister, Leeds Prison, he was receiving better food than were his family who were at liberty? Would the Minister ask the National Assistance Board to bring its scales up to at least the standard enjoyed in prison?

I am afraid that I know nothing about the fare provided in Leeds Prison, but I will convey what was said by the hon. Member to the National Assistance Board.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of pensioners in receipt of National Assistance for each month of the present year up to the most recent monthly count.

An analysis of the recipients of National Assistance grants giving information of the kind asked for is made only quarterly. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what has been the amount paid out by the National Assistance Board for supplementary pensions each month this year, up to the most recent return.

The National Assistance Board regrets that the information asked for is not available. The Post Office records of payments on the Board's behalf do not distingush the amounts paid to different categories of recipients of assistance.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the national average of supplementation paid to pensioners in January, 1955; and what was the national average at the most recent available date.

The National Assistance Board informs me that information of the kind asked for is usually obtained only once a year, but information is available which shows that the average amount paid in supplementation of retirement and non-contributory old-age pensions was 15s. 3d. at the end of 1954 and 12s. 5d. at the end of June, 1955.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of recipients of National Assistance who also received additional help in kind through the exercise of the local officer's discretion during September, 1954, and September, 1955, respectively; and what percentage of the total recipients of National Assistance these figures represent in each year.

The National Assistance Board regrets that the number of persons who are given assistance in kind is not known, but states that this form of assistance is rarely used.

I did not hear the last part of the Answer, but I will not ask the Minister to repeat it. Is he aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a pretty widespread feeling in different parts of the country that there has been a change of policy with regard to the use of the discretionary power; and can he say that that impression is a wrong one? Instead of waiting for the review that we are promised, is he able to indicate to the House now what the trend is with regard to these figures?

I can categorically deny that there has been any change of policy at all regarding discretionary additions to National Assistance payments. The regular autumn sample count is now in progress, and the figures will be available very shortly.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the discretionary powers vested in the National Assistance area officers, under the 1948 Act, in dealing with hard cases, have been transferred to the regional officers at the regional offices.

The Board informs me that the discretionary powers of their area officers have been in no way curtailed. The very extensive use which is made of these powers can be seen from the figures given in the Board's Annual Report for 1954.

The Minister cannot ride off on that answer. Is 0the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discretionary powers conceded to area officers have now, in many cases, been transferred to the regional officers? The regional officers are having meetings with the area officers and are laying down what they should do, how they should do it, and why they should do it. In view of the reports reaching us from time to time, will the Minister have some inquiries made in the regions of Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland, and try to find out what is actually happening?

The hon. Gentleman is, I think, misinformed, because the Board tell me that references of these types of case to regional offices are fewer than ever before.

On a point of order. In view of the apparent complacency and the high degree of stupidity on the part of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the total weekly benefit, including family allowances, now payable to a married man with three children who is sick or unemployed; what was the corresponding rate at the start of the National Insurance Scheme in July, 1948; and how the increase compares with the increase in the cost of living since that date.

The total at the existing benefit rates is 99s. 6d., as against 59s. 6d. in July, 1948, representing an increase of about 67 per cent. Between July, 1948, and October, 1955, the Interim Index of Retail Prices rose by 41 per cent.

While this is certainly very satisfactory, in comparison with what was done by the party opposite, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will make certain that the officials of the National Assistance Board take great care to ensure that, where there are young children in a family, they always have adequate nourishment and clothing?

It, of course, depends upon the age of the children, but, broadly speaking, a man on National Assistance would get more than the 99s. 6d. which I have mentioned if he were a householder.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by what criteria he reaches conclusions regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the present level of National Insurance benefits.

As I stated in my Report last December, there is no scientific way of deciding what rate of benefit it would be appropriate to provide under an insurance scheme. In the last resort the selection of rates must be a matter of judgment, and in arriving at them various considerations must be weighed up and balanced against each other. The main considerations were dealt with in my Report.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman bring something more definite before the House as an explanation of the basis upon which he judges the adequacy of these National Insurance pensions? Surely, it is time that he got away from the Public Assistance mentality of the Beveridge Report and considered the present level of pensions more in relation to the level of wages than to the basic necessities of life? Will not the right hon. Gentleman bring to bear on this problem a progressive Tory view, if he has none other to put before the House?

My statutory duty was imposed by the Act of 1946, which was passed by the Government then in power. My Report to Parliament under Section 40 was a fairly lengthy document, and I do not think I could undertake either to repeat it or to explain it at this Box this afternoon.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when he defends himself from any criticism he always refers to the cost of living? Is that the sole criterion, or does he take wages into account as well?

My duties, as regards the rate of benefit I recommended in that Report, are set out in Section 40 of the 1946 Act, and I had to comply with my statutory obligations under that Act. I can only add that the benefit rates and the pension rates at the basic figures command a higher purchasing power today than at any previous time.

Would not the Minister agree that he is in no way tied to the terms of the original Act; that there was a review of the National Insurance Act in December; and that it was within his power to put into that new Act anything that he thought fit and proper in the interests of the recipients?

I did my best to carry out my statutory duties, but we must recall that there is a relationship in an insurance scheme between the rates of benefits, on the one hand, and the rates of contribution, on the other.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will conduct a sample survey of the domestic expenditure, living conditions, and general well-being of retirement pensioners and report his findings to this House.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in order to provide this House with factual and up-to-date information regarding the adequacy of the present rate of payment to meet the needs of aged pensioners, he will direct his local offices to undertake visits to an agreed percentage of aged pensioners in their respective localities to collect details of expenditure upon essential needs.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will move to appoint an independent committee of inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining by what amount old-age pensions should be increased to compensate them for the loss in purchasing power of their pension resultant upon the increases in price of food, rent, rates, and increased taxation.

I appreciate the motive behind these suggestions, but I do not think that such inquiries would assist us, having regard to the considerations set out in my Report last year on the statutory review of the rates and the amounts of benefit.

May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman can know how old-age pensioners live unless he takes steps to find out? If he will not listen to the old-age pensioners' associations, how does he know what privation the old-age pensioners are suffering? When will he bring before the House some enlightened evidence obtained by himself and his Department upon which the House can judge the adequacy of the present level of pension?

One must recall that more than three out of four retirement pensioners have other resources, but so far as my information is concerned we have, for example, the Report of the National Food Survey as to their nutrition. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Report of the National Assistance Board published in July last, he will see that the Board, which had the opportunity to make domiciliary visits, produced a most interesting section on how old people are getting along at present.

As the Minister continually criticises the cases brought from this side of the House, will not he agree that it would be much more satisfactory to the House if an official investigation were made, because my information about cases that have come before me from the borough which I have the privilege to represent in this House shows that very considerable suffering and hardship exists among these people, and I believe that these facts cannot be put before the Board, otherwise it would certainly pay attention to them?

The Assistance Board is continually making inquiries and paying visits to the homes of aged pensioners, especially those who live alone; but if the right hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, has an individual case where he thinks that the allowances granted by the Board are inadequate, he can bring it direct to me or to the Chairman of the Assistance Board.

Was not the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) addressed to the general question of the cost and standard of living for a certain group of the community? Is not it true that the Phillips Committee said that it would have made such a survey had it had time? In view of that, will not the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider making a survey of this kind?

I pointed out, I think, a week ago that a survey undertaken by the National Assistance Board into the condition of 120,000 retirement pensioners of over' 80 years of age, living by themselves, was undertaken subsequent to the Report of the Phillips' Committee.

Yes, but is not that survey merely a survey—very good, I agree—of welfare, which says nothing whatever about the cost of living and the type of commodities which these people have to buy?

It says a very great deal about how these people are getting along at present.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of old-age pensioners undergoing treatment in our hospitals and mental institutions is far higher than ever before, because of their suffering through inadequate pensions? Will the Minister inquire of his right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he will find that hospitals are having great difficulty in supplying beds for remedial cases because of the number of old people receiving treatment for ailments brought about through lack of proper food?

I am rather surprised at those allegations, but I will have inquiry made into them.

Will the Minister look at my Question No. 55, where he will see that I am more concerned with the position arising upon the iniquitous Budget which will reveal a rise in rent, rates, cost of living and food? If he will not have an inquiry about what has happened in the past, will he have an inquiry now to see to what extent old-age pensions may be increased, if only to offset the rise in the cost of living which is inevitable as a result of the Budget that the Chancellor has just introduced?

Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, we know that the present 40s. pension is worth 9s. more in purchasing power than was the 26s. pension in the dying days of the last Socialist Government.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many men and how many women over retirement age were continuing in full-time employment at 30th June, 1953 and 1955, respectively.

According to information published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, the estimated numbers of full-time and part-time employees over retirement age at the end of May, 1953, were 537,000 men and 333,000 women. The corresponding figures for 1955 are not yet ready, but those for 1954 were 541,000 and 344,000. Separate figures for full-time employees are not available.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of special discretionary allowances paid by the National Assistance Board to persons in receipt of National Assistance, and what was the total and the average payment made, and in respect of what special needs, at the last convenient date in the London area.

The latest information at present available is based on a sample examination made towards the end of last year, when it was estimated that 621,000 assistance allowances included discretionary additions to provide for special circumstances, at an annual cost of over £8½ million. The Board regret that figures are not available for particular areas.

Is the Minister aware that almost all hon. Members can give him endless examples of people who come to them, at constituency "clinics" and on other occasions, with stories of very real hardship? Is the Minister also aware that, when questioned, many of those people say that when it comes to occasions of real hardship the officers of the Board exercise their discretion with extreme strictness, if not harshness? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Minister attempt to gather up the figures, both of the amounts which have been given and the matters on which discretion is refused, in order that he may, from the samples taken, discover the real extent of the hardship which exists among people who are granted National Assistance, but find it impossible to make provision for any unusual expense without further help from the National Assistance Board?

The statistical information available shows that there has been no restriction. On the contrary, the Board has been granting discretionary additions more freely, both in spirit and amount, for every year which has gone by.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will issue a directive to the National Assistance Board prohibiting it from referring applicants for assistance to voluntary organisations.

I do not issue directives to the Board, who tell me that they welcome the co-operation of voluntary organisations in cases presenting special problems.

Does the Minister realise that the old people dislike going to these voluntary organisations even more than they dislike going to the Assistance Board, valuable as is the work which they are doing? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the number of cases being referred to these bodies by the National Assistance Board is on the increase?

I am afraid that, offhand, I cannot answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, but I would suggest, in this rather difficult field, that if the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of any case where he thinks that the National Assistance Board has made a mistake, I shall be very happy to investigate it.

Does the Minister not agree that one of the outstanding features of the Beveridge Report was that all forms of charity should be eliminated from the administration? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this principle operated under the old chairman, and that, as a result of the appointment of the new chairman, this kind of thing is creeping in more and more?

I must completely refute that allegation. In exceptional cases of peculiar difficulty, the Board has found it advantageous under any chairman to be able to call upon a voluntary society to help.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has received from the National Assistance Board following recent representations made by organisations on behalf of the old-age pensioners of this country.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what representations the National Assistance Board has now made in regard to the scale of allowances to old-age pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has now received from the National Assistance Board following the representations made by old-age pensioners' associations.

I presume that the hon. Members refer to the submission of draft regulations under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948. I have not received any such draft regulations.

As the Minister is charged with the responsibility of seeing that the needs of these poor people are attended to, and as representations were made to the Board last week when we were promised that the views which we then expressed about the poverty and dire need of the old-age pensioners in receipt of National Assistance would be dealt with, has the right hon. Gentleman any information of a specific character to give to us today?

I see from the Press reports that the hon. Gentleman's deputation was received by the Chairman of the National Assistance Board last week, who promised to lay the views of the deputation before a forthcoming meeting of the Board. That meeting has not yet taken place, but I am quite confident that the Board has this matter under close and constant consideration.

Will the Minister bear in mind that over a million of the poorest old-age pensioners did not receive the increases of 7s. 6d. and 11s. given in April, but received only the miserable increases of 2s. 6d. and 4s.? In view of the recent increases in the cost of living—it went up by 2 per cent. last month, and goodness knows what is going to happen in the next few months—will the Minister not do something to avert tragedy before it is too late? It is no use the Minister saying that he has no obligation in the matter. He has an obligation.

I think that we can rely upon the Board to do in the future, as it has in the past, the right thing and to carry out the statutory duties laid upon it under Section 6 of the 1948 Act. I should like to endorse the suggestion made at Question time a week ago by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) who suggested that we might leave this matter to the Board and not attempt by Question and answer to influence its decision.

As the right hon. Gentleman himself altered the constitution and the personnel of the Board, is it not really a little sanctimonious to say, "Leave it to the Board"? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind on this extremely important matter that a real Minister of Social Insurance for the last three-quarters of an hour would have been putting to the House the figures and facts which have been put to him?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what I commented on last week was his own use of figures which I was afraid might prejudice consideration by the Board? Is the Minister further aware that hon. Members have only one way of making their views known to the National Assistance Board, and that is by asking the Minister Questions about them, whatever he may say?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making himself perfectly clear. The National Assistance Board has this matter under close consideration at the present time, and I am afraid that I cannot add to my answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent the extra amount of retirement pension earned by postponed retirement is disregarded for the purposes of granting National Assistance.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will agree to have the additional sums payable to old-age pensioners, in respect of the period they continued in gainful occupation after reaching retirement age, added to the disregards when their income is assessed for National Assistance.

Increments of pension were not included in the list of disregards put into the National Assistance Act, 1948, and I am not prepared to introduce legislation to do so. One of the advantages of the increased pensions men can earn by continuing at work after 65 is the better prospect they offer of remaining independent of assistance.

In view of that answer, will the Minister also issue a leaflet through the local post offices to the effect that it is only in circumstances where a man can be positively certain that he will not have to apply for National Assistance that he is likely to get any benefit from working over the age of 65? In view of the very serious position which that creates, does not the Minister think that he ought to let people know what exactly is the situation in relation to the matter?

I do not think that there is much doubt in anybody's mind that the main purpose of the Beveridge Plan was to replace the necessity for recourse to assistance by the payment of insurance benefit as of right.

Is the Minister not aware that in 1948 old people were specifically asked to continue in industry owing to the shortage of manpower and that, as a consequence, they were to receive added increments? Many old people continued in industry for three or four years beyond the retirement age, and now when, because of the difference in the cost of living today, they make application for National Assistance they find—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am asking a question; I know that some hon. Members opposite do not like it. Many of these old-age pensioners responded to the call of the Government at that time, but every penny of the added increments is taken into account and deducted from their National Assistance payments. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware—

Order. This is becoming a rather long supplementary question, but hon. Members do not assist in getting a certain number of Questions answered in a certain time by interrupting. I hope that the hon. Member will now come to the point of his question.

Is not the Minister aware that the very large figures which he gave for 1954 will diminish when the pensioners realise that they will get no added benefit?

I cannot agree. One of the main purposes of the whole Beveridge Plan would be completely stultified if increments granted for deferred retirement were disregarded in calculating the National Assistance allowance.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will take the first opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the increase that is taking place in the cost of living, he will now give consideration to the raising of pensions of the war disabled; and what representations have been made to him by the British Legion ex-Service men's Association on the matter.

As the hon. Member knows, the war pension rates were increased substantially in February last. My right hon. Friend has received representations on a number of war pensions matters, including the basic war disablement pension rate, and will shortly be receiving a deputation from the British Legion to discuss them.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the minds of these people are seriously disturbed, especially when they read Press reports to the effect that they are now—[Interruption.] I should like my supplementary question to be heard by the Minister, Mr. Speaker, if we may have a little order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that reports are now appearing in the Press indicating that these people are now becoming known as the forgotten servants of the nation? Secondly, as it is now becoming a blot upon the conscience of the people, does not the Minister think that when the reports which are being made are taken into consideration, serious thought should be given to this question?

I could not agree with those remarks at all. The British Legion's claim is based upon a comparison between the value of the 1938 basic pension and its value today, but it takes no account of the big increases in the whole pensions code; improvements that have been made since the war in the introduction of special allowances; the great improvements which have been made in the pensions and allowances of very seriously disabled men who are unable to work, and the improvements in the social security scheme, which all affect war pensioners. I feel perfectly certain that the position of the war pensioner today is better than it has ever been.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in spite of what he has just said, British Legion branches, especially in the County of Durham, are dissatisfied with the present rate of war pension, and are making representations, if not to the Ministry, at any rate to hon. Members? They are not satisfied with the adequacy of the pensions. Can we be assured that when the British Legion shortly make representations upon this subject—as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just indicated will be the case—they will receive much more sympathetic treatment than the Government are apparently prepared to give them at present?

My right hon. Friend will certainly receive them sympathetically, as he always does, but I should point out, first, that in the big improvements which we have just made in war disability pensions, we gave priority to the badly disabled men who were unable to work—we have increased their emoluments by 32s. 6d. a week—second, we increased the pensions of war widows, and, third, we made the biggest ever increase in the basic rate.

On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In view of the fact that every hon. Member—indeed, every person in the country—would like to see the old-age pensioners receive an increase in their miserable pension, can you advise us upon what steps we back benchers can take to ensure that the will of the people shall prevail?

That is not a point of order.