§
What about the balance? There is the pauper disqualification for Old Age Pensions. The Government are pledged to remove it, and they intend to give effect to that pledge. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but I should rather like to put to them the express terms in which this pledge was given last year. I said:—
I cannot recommend Parliament to undertake the whole financial burden of putting this transaction through. It would put too heavy a Chargé on the Exchequer, and there is no reason why it should fall entirely upon Imperial funds. At the present moment these paupers cost something like £2,000,000 to the local rates of the country. If we received a contribution from local funds which would be a substantial equivalent to the relief which would be afforded by withdrawing such a large number of paupers from the rates then something can be done to remove this crying hardship.
§ I added that the President of the Local Government Board and I had entered into some negotiations with the local authorities with a view to effecting an arrangement which would enable us to add a contribution to the rates next year and wipe out that pauper disqualification. There are something like 270,000 old people who come under this category, and who are just as deserving and just as meritorious as the present recipients of the old age pension, and the House of Commons will fully realise the fact that it adds a good deal to the cruel conditions of the present system that one man who has worked all his life is receiving half a crown from the 1139 parish, while another man who has worked no harder, but perhaps has been able to keep himself for an extra six weeks, receives a 5s. honourable pension. That in itself adds to the cruelty of the position. We stand by the pledge which we gave last year. We are prepared to do it with the aid of the local authorities, and we ask nothing from them in the way of an additional Charge. We only ask of them the sum by which the rates will be relieved by the removal of the paupers to the pension list, and we undertake to find the whole of the balance and to make a beginning from 1st January next year. What that will cost it is very dim I cult to compute, and for this reason. I am sure those who have experience in Local Government will realise the difficulty. There are a good many persons disqualified who are not now in receipt of poor relief. It may be their wives have received something in the past. It may be that at some period of distress they themselves had resort to the Poor Law, but they are receiving nothing from the parish now, and, of course, the whole burden of this class of pensioner will fall on the Exchequer. It is only in respect of those who are now actually a Charge on the guardians that the guardians will be asked to make a contribution. It is very difficult to know how many there are. It is also difficult to compute how many will leave the workhouses, but my own estimate is that in a full year this will add something like £2,500,000 to the burdens of the Exchequer, and in the last quarter of this year it will amount to £450,000. I wish it were possible to undertake the whole burden.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy hon. Friend does not quite realise. All the paupers are taken off. I do not think he realises that. All the paupers who would but for this disqualification be able to claim a pension can apply for a pension. It is purely a question of bookkeeping between the local authorities and the Exchequer. The pauper will have nothing to do with the guardians; he will go with other pensioners to the post office to receive his 5s. It would be quite impossible for me to undertake this responsibility at this stage unless the local authority take their share of it.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is rather a futile observation. You have to find the finance for the transaction. I want hon. Members to realise what it means. Supposing the Exchequer were to undertake the whole liability, what would happen? This is not the only claim of the local authority. Only as I came into the House to-day a letter was put into my hand calling my attention to the demand from the education authorities for an increased Special Grant. [Cheers.] I have had many applications from the county councils with respect of roads, of police, and of other services. If every penny the Exchequer can pay is to be given to the local authorities in this form, you would prejudge every claim. It is of supreme importance that when we come to deal with the readjustment of local and Imperial finance—I do not believe it will be possible to postpone that question beyond this year; I think whoever stands at this box next year will have to deal with that problem, and deal with it thoroughly—it would be a fatal mistake—I cannot conceive anything more impolitic than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment should prejudge the whole question of these rival claims by picking out one even if he had the money. Voting it in this form is a most wasteful, extravagant method of doing it—thoroughly injudicious. Another thing. If you did it, there would not be a penny left for starting unemployment and invalidity insurance next year. Therefore we say to the local authorities, "We shall simply invite you to contribute to the Exchequer the amount by which you benefit—not a penny more—the amount by which the rates are relieved, and the liability for the balance will be left entirely with the Exchequer." We also say, "It is purely a provisional arrangement until the whole question of local and Imperial finance is reconsidered by the House of Commons."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that the pauper disqualification will cost the Treasury in the last quarter of the present year £450,000. How much does he anticipate that the Treasury will receive in addition for this purpose from the local authorities?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the amounts by which the rates will be relieved will be something between £300,000 and £350,000. It is difficult to say; it depends, so much on the guardians themselves.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIs the £450,000 gross or net?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is net. That is the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to find. That leaves me with a balance of £309,000 for contingencies, which is none too large. I have been asked a few questions even to-day with regard to certain expenditure which I have to face in the course of the present year —in respect of which there is no provision in the Estimates—the expenses of the King's funeral and other expenses. I do not think I am going beyond precedent in setting aside at least £309,000 for the purpose of meeting these inevitable contingencies.