HC Deb 29 April 1909 vol 4 cc484-5

A reduction of the age limit to 65 would cost an additional 15 or 20 millions a year to the Exchequer. I will not say that is beyond the resources of a rich country like this, but it is much the most wasteful way of dealing with the question, for whilst it would afford relief to many thousands and hundreds of thousands probably who neither need nor desire it, and whose strength is probably more happily and profitably employed in labour, it would leave out of account altogether far and away the most distressing and the most deserving cases of poverty. What are the dominating causes of poverty amongst the industrial classes? For the moment I do not refer to the poverty which is brought about by a man's own fault. I am only alluding to causes over which he has no control. Old age, premature breakdown in health and strength, the death of the bread winner, and unemployment due either to the decay of industries and seasonable demands, or the fluctuations or depressions in trade. The distress caused by any or either of these causes is much more deserving of immediate attention than the case of a healthy and vigorous man of 65 years of age, who is able to pursue his daily avocation, and to earn without undue strain an income which is quite considerable enough to provide him and his wife with a comfortable subsistence. When Bismarck was strengthening the foundations of the new German Empire one of the very first tasks he undertook was the organisation of a scheme which insured the German workmen and their families against the worst evils which ensue from these common accidents of life. And a superb scheme it is. It has saved an incalculable amount of human misery to hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people who never deserved it.