§
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th November],
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution:
'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £559,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons. Act, 1920.'
§ Question again proposed.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAt eleven o'clock on Tuesday night I was addressing a few remarks to the House on the subject of these pensions. I was dealing with the case of the woman who 2068 is drawing a small pension in respect of a son killed in the War. When she reaches the age of 65, under the contributory pensions scheme or 70 under the non-contributory pensions scheme, this pension is stopped. I was saying I was convinced that when these pensions were granted to mothers who lost their sons in the War the House had no intention that when they reach an age when they are really beyond earning capacity, and get the small old age pension, they should lose the other pension of 5s. or 6s. a week.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYOn a point of Order. I submit that this discussion is out of order. This Vote deals with old age pensions, and has nothing to do with widows' pensions.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn that point of Order. I was not talking about widows' pensions, I was talking about old age pension at 65.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYFurther to my point of Order. I submit that this Vote has nothing to do with pensions granted at the age of 65, but only with pensions at the age of 70.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)The Rule with regard to Supplementary Estimates is perfectly clear. The only subject open for discussion there is the reason for the increased Estimate—except, of course, in the case of a new service—and so far I have not come to the conclusion that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was discussing the reasons for the increase. As far as I followed him, he was suggesting some change in the law, and, of course, that would be out of order.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI was actually in the midst of a sentence. Part of this Vote is for administrative purposes, and I was arguing that if the investigations and correspondence about the protests which are always made could be avoided a smaller staff would be required and so less money would be needed.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member ought to raise that question on the main Vote. The only thing we can discuss now is the reasons why the increase has been brought about.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI think I can show that if the procedure were simplified, and if there were not all these inquisitions into the means of people and so on, the administration of the pensions would be cheaper.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe proposal says that the number of pensions is greater, not that the expenses are greater. Either the hon. and gallant Member is discussing the question generally or he is suggesting new legislation, and that is quite out of order.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI was discussing the expenditure of the Pensions Committee, and I was suggesting that there might be some saving.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI have just noticed that what we are discussing is the number of new pensions awarded, the payment of old age pensions, and the widows' contributory pensions.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYThe pensions referred to are old age pensions which are granted in lieu of and by virtue of the Widows' Contributory Pensions Act, and they merely refer to the number granted in excess of the previous number by a removal of the means disqualification.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not dispute the proposition of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), but the Vote deals with old age pensions and not widows' pensions. I only mentioned widows' pensions, and I endeavoured to show that they were administered by the same Committee. I also rely on a very old Parliamentary procedure, namely, that one attempts to reduce the Vote in order to draw atten- 2070 tion to the fact that perhaps more money should be spent. I know that that is one of our Parliamentary anomalies. I need not speak at any length on this question, but if the Ministry would simplify the whole system, and try and avoid all this cheeseparing and saving at the expense of these poor women I am sure the country would not lose in the end. What is more, a smaller staff would be needed and this extra £9,000 a year would not be required. It is common knowledge that in some parts of the country the officials, and more especially the lady officials, who go round making inquiries about the means of these people, whether they have any savings, and whether their sons are helping them or not—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is entirely irrelevant to the Question which we are now discussing.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI now come to the only other point that I want to make. Part of this money is not to go in pensions at all, but is to go to the repayment of sums advanced by Poor Law guardians. Some of this extra £500,000 is to pay the guardians and the Poor Law authorities for the keep of old age pensioners, or people who reach pensionable age, in infirmaries. When the Act was passed, the Minister of Health gave an undertaking that such persons should not be compelled to refund unless they were in private nursing homes, but I find that this matter has been stretched—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat really has nothing whatever to do with what the hon. and gallant Member is talking about. I think I see what he is trying to point out, but this is not the occasion on which to point it out.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYShould I not be in order in protesting against part of this money, provided in a Supplementary Estimate, being paid to Poor Law guardians?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understand that this is due to an increased number of pensioners, and that it has nothing to do with Poor Law guardians at all.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI will make one last submission, and, if it fails, I shall have nothing more to 2071 say. I have known it to be the case that, when there has been a Supplementary Estimate of large amount—and I submit that £500,000 is a very large amount—a general discussion on the possible savings has been permitted. If, however, I am out of order in entering into even a brief general discussion of certain anomalies and hardships which might lead to extravagance in the long run, then I have nothing more to say.