OLD-AGE PENSIONS. (Hansard, 28 May 1908)

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
said that if ever a financial Resolution contained a demand for an open cheque the Resolution now before the House contained such a demand. The Resolution committed Parliament to provide "any expenses." There was no limitation beyond the explanation which had been given by Ministers on the previous stages that the Resolution had already passed through, and there had been no indication as to what amount Parliament was committed to, or what the country had to provide, and what they were now asked to do was to pass a Resolution authorising Parliament to provide out of the taxation of the country "any expenses incurred for that purpose and connected therewith." His first objection to the Resolution in the shape in which they found it was this. The whole of the moneys to be provided for old-age pensions was to be provided by Parliament, and it seemed to him that that entirely disposed of any suggestion that these old-age pensions were to be contributory. He had not been prepared to contend that under any circumstances, the only old-age pensions should 1390 be contributory. On the contrary, he at all events, was prepared to admit that it was a fair thing under certain circumstances that old-age pensions of a kind, and applicable to certain people, should be entirely provided, as suggested in this Resolution, by Parliament. But it appeared to him that there was a matter of principle which ought to be incorporated in a Resolution of this kind without which it should not be accepted by the House if the whole of the moneys for old-age pensions of the kind suggested were to be provided by Parliament. The matter of principle was that if the whole of the money was provided by Parliament and the old-age pensions were non-contributory, they ought to be universal in their application If the money provided by Parliament was to come out of the general taxation of the country, then, as a matter of principle, of justice, and of right, every man and woman attaining the age of seventy ought to be able to participate. But the effect of passing this Resolution would be that thrifty people would be taxed to provide old-age pensions for the unthrifty. It was a gross injustice that the man who had saved sufficient to yield him 9s. 11d. a week should have it increased to 14s.11d., while the man who had saved sufficient to yield him 10s. 1d. was to remain at that figure. He was glad hon. Members opposite approved these principles. He took it that a wave of common-sense, if not a sentiment of justice, would appear suddenly to have broken out on the opposite side of the House. The two principles to be applied were, first, if the pensions were noncontributory they should be general in their application; and, secondly, if they were contributory they should be restricted to the people who contributed. The effect of passing the Resolution ii its present shape was that the thrifty people would, be taxed to provide old-age pensions for the unthrifty, and he was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should submit such a Resolution to the 1391 House. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they relaxed any of the restrictions and widened the basis of persons entitled to receive pensions, sufficient money could not be provided. When an old-age pension scheme calculated to fall upon the whole of the taxpayers of the country was proposed it seemed to him that that was a subject which ought to be thoroughly threshed out. He was in hopes that, having regard to the effective criticism which had already been passed upon this scheme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government would have seen their way to have modified it so as to make it reasonably just; but notwithstanding all the protests, many of them coming from the opposite side of the House, the Government deliberately stuck to their original suggestions and declined to accept any modifications to remove the most unjust anomalies with which their proposition teemed. Consequently he felt quite justified in standing up on behalf of the taxpayer of the country and in a very few words making this protest against the proposal. If a man and woman happened to be married and living together their total income under this pension scheme was to be restricted to 7s. 6d. per week, whereas if they were not married and living together they would get 10s. per week. In bringing forward a scheme like that the Government were putting a premium upon irregular connections and immorality. [Cries of "Order."] Unless that could be explained and unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to assure them that the effect of his proposal would not be what he had tried to point out, that was an effective reason why this scheme should not be accepted and why no Government ought to put such a scheme before the House of Commons. The appeal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for fear of increasing the burden the House should not suggest the removal of any of these anomalies 1392 was one which appeared to him utterly unfounded. If the Government were not prepared to bring forward a scheme which did not lay itself open to criticisms of that kind they should have kept their proposal back until they had thought it out a little more. He gathered that this old-age pension scheme was to cost £6,000,000 per annum. Criticisms had been brought to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which it had been pointed out that only £1,250,000 was available for this purpose this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in reply that they had only to deal with three months of this year and that next year must look after itself. The suggestion was that that was a complete answer to the criticisms which had been passed upon the scheme. The reply to that was that this particular scheme of old-age pensions demanded £6,000,000 a year at least, and the mere fact that they had only got a quarter of the year to provide for did not reduce the £6,000,000 per annum which would be needed in the future. Although he agreed that they had no right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he was going to do next year, they had a right to say when the Government were bringing forward a scheme involving the expenditure of £6,000,000 per annum the Government ought to give the House of Commons some idea as to where they proposed to get that money. [Cries of "Agreed," and "Divide, divide."] He was one of those who for many years past had given considerable attention to this subject of old-age pensions, and he felt very deeply upon the matter. He had made a very careful study of it, and he thought he was entitled when the House of Commons was about to deal with such a subject to say a few words upon it.

§ MR. J. MACVEAGH
Give Banbury a chance.

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said he could suggest a very easy way of securing an excellent system of old-age pensions under the Resolution they had before the House. Inasmuch as there were in this country not more than 8,000,000 children between the ages of five and fourteen and as it was an actuarial fact that 3d. a week paid for every child between the ages of five and fourteen would provide 5s. a week at the age Of sixty-five for all those children who survived he thought a scheme of that kind would be better than the one they were discussing. Six million pounds a year would be required in order to equal these weekly payments, and if that amount were Set aside now and accumulated, say, at 2¾ per cent., all the inhabitants of these islands would, on attaining the age of sixty-five find they had 5s. a week for the rest of their lives. If they only began to insure children now in this manner there would be old-age pensions for everybody. The only possible objection to that scheme was that it would not come into operation for fifty years, but fifty years was a very short time in the life of a country. But the fact that everybody would get a pension was to be taken into consideration, especially if that scheme could be accompanied by, say, £1,500,000 being put aside every year by the State and added to contributions from the employers and the workmen, so that there might be some addition to the 5s. at sixty-five. Five shillings under a non-contributory scheme would be a fair thing if accompanied by a contribution which would make the old-age of the people comfortable. He objected strongly to this Resolution on the ground that it had not been fully considered. It seemed to him that to fix the age at seventy was not decent. There were in many parts of the country few working men of that age who were not already in the workhouse, and the right hon. Gentleman's scheme should not be accompanied by 1394 such restrictions as to bring it about that these decent old people could have no part of the pension. Why should they be disqualified? It was not because it was right that they should be excluded, but because this precious scheme in order that it might work required that they should be excluded. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman either wait till he had got the money necessary for old-age pensions or boldly provide it now? He ought to do one or the other.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that he was indulging in great repetition.

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
apologised for having been betrayed into repetition, but pointed out that in order to facilitate the passing of an old-age pension scheme hon. Members had stood aside on former occasions, and that now when the Government had elected to take this Resolution after Eleven o'clock they were entitled to have their say, and give their opinion. He was quite prepared to go into all the details, but would only say that if the Government now would put aside £500,000 a year additional—

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is again repeating himself.

§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said he was not conscious that he had referred to that part of the subject before. All he desired to say was that if the Government would put aside something to add to the money they already proposed to give so as to enable these different anomalies to which he had referred to be removed, and enable the incomes to be made up to a sum not exceeding 15s., instead of the hard and fast 10s., with a maximum of 5s., there would not be the gross injustice which arose between the person who had 9s. 11d. and another 1395 who had 10s. 1d. Moreover, the restriction should be removed as to married couples receiving less. It would not cost much more.