§
Resolution reported
That it is expedient to make provision for the increase of certain pensions and to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of increases as from the first day of April, 1920, in the pensions payable to persons in receipt of pensions—
(a) under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914;
(b) under the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 to 1912, or under the code of Regulations for public elementary schools, or under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908;
(c) under the National School Teachers' (Ireland) Act, 1879;
(d) under the enactments relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police
§
so however that,—
(1) An increase shall not be allowed unless the following conditions are complied with:—
(a) The pensioner must reside in the British Islands;
(b) The pensioner must have attained the age of sixty years, or have retired on account of physical or mental infirmity, or in the case of a pensioner who is a widow and is in receipt of the pension in respect of her husband's service, must have attained the age of forty years;
(c) The pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, including his pension, are less than one hundred and fifty pounds a year, if unmarried, or two hundred pounds a year, if married.
§
(2) The increase in the pension shall be subject to the following limitations:—
(a) Where the existing pension does not exceed fifty pounds a year it shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent.
Where the existing pension exceeds fifty pounds a year, but does not exceed one hundred pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person or one hundred and thirty pounds a year in the case of a married person, it shall not be increased
596
by more than forty percent.
Where the existing pension exceeds one hundred pounds a year, but is less than one hundred and fifty pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person, or exceeds one hundred and thirty pounds a year, but is less than two hundred pounds a year in the case of a married person, it shall not be increased by more than thirty per cent.
§
Provided that—
(i) if the amount to which a pension may be increased under the above scale is less than the amount to which a smaller pension might be increased, it may be increased to the latter amount;
(ii) no pension shall be increased by an amount greater than is sufficient to bring the total means of the pensioner, including the increased pension, up to one hundred and fifty pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person, or two hundred pounds a year in the case of a married person;
(b) When a pensioner is in receipt of two pensions, such pensions shall for the purposes of the above scale be treated as one pension of an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the two pensions;
(c) Where an existing pension is a pension granted on or after the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and is larger than a pre-War pension by reason of an improvement in the pension scale or an increase in the pensionable emoluments made since that date, the pension shall not be increased by an amount greater than is sufficient to make the increased pension equal to the amount to which the pre-War pension might have been increased under the foregoing provisions.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. HOGGEIt is making a very large claim on the House to take the Report stage of this Resolution to-night. This Resolution is necessary, of course, before the Bill which follows it can be introduced 597 into the House, but, as a matter of fact, it involves on the face of the Resolution an immediate expenditure of something between—if I remember rightly—£1,500,000 and £2,000,000 per year, and, in view of the state of the finances of the country, it does seem treating the matter not quite seriously enough to enter upon the discussion of the Report stage at this hour of the night. There are other criticisms about the Resolution which have not been answered by the Government. We had a debate last night on the Committee stage in which a number of questions were put to the Minister without Portfolio which had not been replied to. I take this position, and I hold it quite strongly, that in this effort on the part of the Government to deal with a matter which has been in the minds of Members for a great many weeks, which has been the subject of a great many questions in the House, they are not tackling the problem on any ground of principle. Obviously the Government ought to make up its mind as to what a pension really is. I think the House will agree with me that a pension in every case is nothing more or less than deferred pay, and that a Civil Servant or any of the other classes mentioned in this Resolution, such as the employees of municipalities, the teachers in England, Scotland and Ireland, work at the present moment at a figure which is not the correct market value of the work they are performing, but is at the value at which it stands because of the fact that there is a pension. If this is to meet, as it is pretended to meet, the new conditions which exist with regard to the increased cost of living, then the Government ought to address their minds to the problem from that point of view. When they pay, as now, civil servants a war bonus which is more than the wage or salary paid in 1914, it is perfectly obvious, if they are bringing pensions into line with the increased cost of living, that a comfortable increase should be made in the pension. The times are now more difficult for the pensioner.
In the first place he is often over 60, and secondly he very often is invalided, and consequently it is much more difficult for him to deal with the new situation that arises as the result of the increased cost of living than for the active civil servants. I have yet to learn what justification there is for the Government approving their minds to this problem in 598 a partial way. Why, if they are attempting to do justice to these aged civil servants, do they not aim at justice on the same basis as they administer it now to existing civil servants?
There is another point that has not yet been cleared up. In Committee last night I pointed out that there is a difference between the Resolution and the Memorandum which explains the scheme. I made it clear that there is not a definite rate of increase in the first case of the 50 per cent. This means that it may be left to some body or other to determine whether or not the full increase shall be given. We are entitled to know who this is? As I pointed out last night many of us have had painful experience of the inquisitorial methods of Government Departments in discovering the circumstances of the recipients of old age pensions. I gave examples. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—and this is my point—who is going to be charged with the administration of these pensions. What is the Department?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat refers to the machinery which will appear in the Bill. This Resolution is only the Money Resolution on which the Bill will be founded. We cannot really now discuss the smaller matter.
§ Mr. HOGGEOf course I always accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out that we were allowed to discuss this in Committee last night.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI was not then in the Chair.
§ Mr. HOGGEThat is true, Mr. Speaker, and your larger experience makes every one of us bow to your ruling. Might I, however, say that this is the kind of difficulty we are in: the House does not mind granting money for the purpose asked, but, if we have no kind of assurance that the money when granted is to be administered properly, what is the use of granting the money?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf hon. Members do not like the machinery of the Bill, it is open to them to propose other machinery.
Captain BENNMay I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Money Resolution is a singularly long and detailed one, and no Amendment will be in order which violates the conditions of this Resolution. 599 In view of these facts and the extreme length of the Resolution, may I suggest that a certain amount of latitude might be permitted in regard to it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI should have thought that the argument was just the other way. The Resolution is set out at length, and, therefore, does not require so much latitude. If hon. Members do not approve of the machinery for administering the Bill, it is open to them to move Amendments in the direction of making the machinery better.
§ Mr. HOGGEWhen the Bill is printed, it will be out of Order if we propose anything that means an increase in the charge. Therefore, we are greatly circumscribed in this way. I think we ought to have an understanding that the money is properly administered. In the Memorandum the age limit was placed at 60, but it has never been explained by the Minister why the age limit was put at 60. The White Paper explains, in the case of service pensions, that no man is to be in receipt of the increase unless he is 60 years of age, but every man who has a pre-War service pension is entitled to it on his terms of service. I should like to know why those men are not entitled just as much as the men over 60.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI understand that this Resolution covers all Government servants, the employés of local education committees such as elementary school teachers, the employés of municipalities, and many other classes of persons of that kind, but there is no specific mention in this Resolution of any assistance being given to the pre-War pensioners who were the servants of boards of guardians. They are a small and limited number, but they are a deserving class, and I want to know if it is the intention of the Government that their scheme for increasing the amount of pensions can be applied directly by the local committees to the various classes of public servants, or is it their deliberate intention to cut out the employés of boards of guardians? We often notice, in connection with Bills of this kind, that the unfortunate people who administer the poor law appear to be an unpopular class. Why, I do not know. Why, if workhouses themselves are unpopular, should the matrons and other people have their just claims ignored?
600 I ask for an assurance that under this Resolution superannuated officers of boards of guardians all up and down the country will be advantaged. They are a small but deserving class, and I hope that their interests will not be overlooked.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI wish to repeat the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) which has not been answered. If we vote the money to provide these pensions will a supplementary estimate be brought in? The position should be fully explained to the House. With other hon. Members I strongly object to the attitude taken up by the Government on these resolutions. Some time ago we had under consideration a resolution regarding police pensions; only last week we had one affecting the aged blind; now we have one regarding other classes of pensioners and on each and every one of them we have been told that we must accept the Resolution or we will get nothing at all. It is a sort of blackmail. We are put in this position: If we vote against the Resolution there will be no increase of pensions. The Government tell us that half a loaf is better than no bread at all and I think we have a right, speaking as we do in the interests of a deserving class of people, to resent such an attitude. If we do not approve of the amount the Government propose to provide for the relief and sustenance of pensioners, we ought to be allowed to make out our case, without being brow-beaten and blackmailed. Some of us feel very strongly on this point, and I rise therefore to make this protest.
Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANSOn this Resolution several questions have been raised with which I should like to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who asked whether the servants of Boards of Guardians would be included, will see, when the Bill is introduced, that it contains a provision which does enable local authorities to increase those pensions if they so desire. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) complained that the Government are not treating this as a serious matter, because we are asking that the Report stage shall be taken to-night, after a discussion of three or four hours in Committee yesterday. I cannot agree with 601 him as to that. The circumstances are serious, and require that there should be no undue delay. These pensioners are waiting for the increase which this House yesterday decided to grant them, and it would be unbecoming on the part of the Government to delay the completion of the various steps necessary to ensure that the pensioners get their increased money at the earliest possible moment. I cannot understand why the hon. Member should desire that they should be kept waiting, when, with a little trouble after eleven o'clock, this House is able to facilitate the proceedings. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that the Government had no principle in these increases. He declared that a pension was deferred pay, and that, as a war bonus had been granted on the pay of Civil servants, a similar war bonus ought to be granted on pensions. If he had done me the honour of being present when I replied last night, he would have heard me reply quite fully to the argument which he and other hon. Members put forward on that ground. I agree, generally, that a pension is deferred pay, but it must be remembered that each one of these pensioners is getting to-day exactly the amount of deferred pay or pension which he bargained to get when he entered the public service. The House is being asked to-day, because that pay is not of the same value as it was, to grant an additional sum of money, because of the hardships which these pensioners are suffering.
My hon. Friend also asked why the age limit was fixed. The age limit and the income limit are fixed for the purpose of selecting those cases in which there is real hardship. Although, fortunately, it is not always so, yet, generally speaking, pensioners who are over sixty may be considered to be unable to supplement their somewhat meagre pensions by their own earnings. That is not the case with younger men, who have been pensioned and retired at, perhaps, forty or even thirty-five. Their pensions were never intended to be subsistence pensions, but were granted as a recognition of service—perhaps short service. Consequently, those men have not so great a claim as older men, seeing that they are earning now, and are getting the benefit of the higher rates of wages which are now in force. The point of administration which was raised is, as Mr Speaker said, one with which it will be more proper to deal 602 when the Bill is introduced. The Bill, I may say quite briefly, will provide that the various Departments which are now paying the pensions will make the necessary inquiries, to see whether the conditions are fulfilled which entitle the pensioner to the bonus or increase of pension, and that work will be co-ordinated by a Committee under the Treasury.
§ Sir NEWTON MOORECan the right hon. Gentleman give some information as to the position of inspectors of police who are pensioners and have contributed to superannuation funds?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIn the case of an inspector of the English force, if he is, as I imagine he would be, pensioned by a local authority, the Bill will authorise the local authority to increase that pension; and, in the case of pensions to which there is a contribution from the central fund, that contribution will be continued on the increased scale.
§ Mr. D. M. COWANCan the right hon. Gentleman say why, in the case of the first of the three grades into which these pensions fall, there is no distinction between single and married people, as there is in the other two grades?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThere is not, because no one in Grade I. can come up to the limit either of the married man or the single man.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANSThe top limits of £150 for a single man and £200 for a married man naturally only apply when the total income and increased pension or bonus come up to £150 in the case of the single man and £200 in the case of the married man. If my hon. Friend will look, he will see that it is one limit which is required, not three limits, and that one limit is provided by the conditions under the Resolution.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMight I have a reply to my question about finance?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe hon. and gallant Gentleman asks if we have got the money or how we are going to raise it?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs this money in the Estimates or will a Supplementary Estimate be brought in?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe question does not arise at this stage.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI believe that I have answered all the other questions which have been asked me. The House, I think, it highly desirous that this Resolution should be passed and that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment, and I would therefore ask hon. Members to give me the Report Stage of the Resolution now.
§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGI should like to ask whether it is proposed to make these payments retrospective. The Leader of the House on many occasions has been pressed for an answer to that question, especially in connection with police pensions, and we have never yet had a definite assurance. I should also like to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman was apologetic in introducing this Resolution. We want to congratulate the Government upon doing it. There are many of us here who are most anxious that it should be done. It is very fortunate that the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of the Resolution to-night. He has an extra ordinary facility for dropping into the shoes of any Minister and arguing all the points which arise with marked ability, and he occupies with remarkable skill the same position in the Cabinet, as the cuckoo does in the aviary. We should like to know whether this payment is to be obligatory upon the local authorities, or whether it is to be optional. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that these local authorities will be able to increase these pensions. Surely it should not be left in the power of any local authority to act in opposition to the will of the House. Surely it is not outside the power of the Government to insist that these pensions shall be payable to a certain date retrospective to all these pensioners. As to the pension being a matter of contribution, the right hon. Gentlman expressed his surprise that any increase of these pensions should be necessary or just, but if these men have contributed to a pension when the purchasing power of a pound was 20 shillings, they contributed a certain part of that pound each year to get in return a proportionate amount of pension. If, through circumstances over which they have no control, that 604 purchasing power decreases, surely it is not too much to ask that they should get at least sufficient to live upon. That was the idea of the pension, that when a man's faculties left him or decreased through service to the State, he occupying the position that he could not make a fortune in the outside commercial competitive market where he could set aside something for his future, but occupying the position of a State servant, he should have given him in return for certain payments a pittance anyhow sufficient to live upon. I would ask first of all whether it is retrospective and if so to what date, and also whether it is compulsory upon local authorities to make these payments to the police a common payment throughout the country, and if not whether the right hon. Gentleman would, before the Bill passes, take such powers as will enable the Government to make it compulsory upon all local authorities to fulfil the meaning and the sense of the Act from which they take their powers, which is the wish of the Government.
Mr. PALMERI should like to enforce what has been said, and to protest against the absence of any representative of the Treasury. We raised last night a question of the capacity of the Government with the money at their disposal to increase what some of us regard as the miserable proposal of this financial Resolution, and although we regard the right hon. Gentleman as a man of remarkable ability and one whom we hope to see soon taking the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, still to-day he cannot speak with the authority of the Treasury, and we want someone from the Treasury to tell us whether it is really possible that this financial Resolution might be put forward in a more generous spirit. I see my hon. Friend opposite who has done more than any man in the House to get generous treatment of the pre-war pensions. I hope he will join with me, and I congratulate him on the measure of justice he has obtained in this Resolution, but in our opinion it is not sufficient—[HON MEMBERS: "Whose opinion?"]—In the opinion of myself and those for whom I have a right to speak-my constituents who sent me here. This is a mean and measly proposal which is not sufficient in the interests of these pre-war pensioners, and I ask my hon. Friend, to 605 whom I pay a tribute for the energy and persistency with which he has brought up the matter before the House, to join with us in pressing upon the Government even at this moment to withdraw this financial Resolution and bring forward a more generous and more English proposal.
We have heard to-night that the miner has been getting in wages 250 per cent. more than he got before the war. I say that these Civil servants, these elementary school teachers in England and Scotland, these national teachers in Ireland, these members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and these members of other police forces, have a right to be treated on terms equally as generous as the miners. These men and women have done good suit and service to the country. They were pensioned on the idea that the pound was worth a pound. When I am asked where the money is to come from, I would point to the Minister of Education, and say that if he would not bring forward his extravagant schemes for education, which we do not want, if he would save some of the millions he is going to spend on keeping girls and boys at school until the age of sixteen, a little more money might be given to these unfortunate people, who have struggled and done good service to the country in the years that are past. These unfortunate people have to meet the higher cost of living, and it is only right that they should receive adequate assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" "Divide!"] Do those Gentlemen who cheer me so enthusiastically realise that the proposed scale of increases provides that pensions not exceeding £50 a year are to be increased 50 per cent.? What does that mean? Many a miner to-day is getting £8, £10, and £12 a week, and here we are proposing that these men and women who have spent their lives in the service of the country should have this paltry increase of pension. The Minister of Education, who feels so sincerely in regard to education, must realise that the great work that has been done by teachers in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, who have spent the best years of their life in teaching the younger generation, deserve better treatment than is proposed in this Resolution. It is proposed that pensions exceeding £50 but not exceeding £100 in the case of an unmarried person, or £130 in the case of a married person, should be 606 increased 40 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" "Take it as read!"] I appealed to the Government last night without happy result, but it is the duty of every man who comes to this House with a settled feeling that he should do his best to right wrongs that are perpetrated, and in that sense I intend to fulfil my duty, and to make a final appeal. If the Government curtailed some of the ridiculous extravagance in other ways we could find something more than this miserable allowance which is proposed to be given to these men and women. The other day, at a time when the Minister of Health should have been advocating the cause of the blind, we had the Financial Secretary to the Treasury telling us that we could not afford another penny, and last night we had the right hon. Gentleman (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), who has been described as the cuckoo of the Government, declaring that we could not afford another penny, and that unless we took this Resolution as it is, these pre-War pensioners would not get a farthing. Someone said blackmail. I do not like the word. Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are in an invidious position. They know as well as we do that money spent on military expeditions abroad is against the spirit of the British people. The British people want to see the Government advancing these humane policies, and are prepared to support them with all their power. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that we had to take this or leave it. That is putting the House of Commons in a position which is not quite fair. We recognise that the Government have done more than any other government to try to meet the case of the blind.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are not now discussing the question of the blind.
Mr. PALMERI was giving that as an illustration of finding money for these humane policies. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Financial Resolution, and to bring it forward in a more generous spirit, so that we can support it wholeheartedly.
Dr. MURRAYI can well understand why the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Palmer) does not desire the young people of this country to be too well educated, as they might then get somewhat fastidious 607 in their taste in the matter of journalism. I hope that the suggestion will not be adopted by the Minister of Education. I protest against the farce of bringing this Resolution before the House, because the Government come down with the full intention of not accepting any Amendment.
Captain BENNI do not think that any spectator of our proceedings would imagine that this debate was adding a permanent charge of £1,750,000 to the expenses of this country, because in addition to the £850,000 involved in the increase of pre-war pensions there is the corresponding allowance which must be made in the case of the Army and Navy. I am not complaining of that. I will not discuss the details of the resolution, but I repeat my protest made in Committee last night. I asked the right hon. Gentleman then did he intend to take the Report stage of the Resolution after 11 o'clock and while saying that he could give no pledge he did not say that he meant to take it after 11 o'clock. This is a growing habit on the part of the Government. In the old days a Money Resolution was very properly regarded as a very serious part of the proceedings of the House because it is the control of the purse which has given us most of the powers which we possess. In the interests of efficiency and with the desire to make the machinery work more smoothly the standing orders were recently amended so that the Report stage of a Money Resolution need not be interrupted by the Rule as to 11 o'clock. I suggest that it was not intended when the House accepted this change that these resolutions should always be taken in the middle of the night, as has become the unbroken practice of the Government since the rule was amended. It has become an abuse of the privileges of the House of Commons.
I would remind the House of what we have done this very week in excess of the supply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided in his Budget. This same week in which I am speaking. We are now speaking on Wednesday evening. On Monday we voted the money for the Government of Ireland Bill not provided for in the Budget. On Tuesday we voted a credit of £26,000,000, and we voted this sum of £850,000. To-day we have set up a new Ministry the charge for which no man can possibly foresee and 608 to-night we are adding a permanent charge of £1,750,000 to the expenditure of this country. [Interruption.] I may tell hon. Members who interrupt me that I am seriously in earnest in my protest against the way in which the money control of this House is being frittered away, and hon. Gentlemen who were returned in the interests of economy might believe that we are honest in making this protest and are doing the best we can to restore the important power filched away from the Members of this House.
§ Mr. LANE-MITCHELLWe should remember that we were on this matter for four hours last night. These Gentlemen talk as if we were only starting it now. There are over one hundred thousand people waiting to get this thing now. If these gentlemen are going to defer it day by day and hour by hour we will never get it through. Let the people get the money.
§ Mr. BILLINGMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot make a second speech.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Ernest Pollock, and Sir John Baird.