CLAUSE 1.—(Additions to percentages by which pensions may be increased.) (Hansard, 11 July 1924)

Mr. GRAHAM
I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out front the word 2674 "date" to the word "greater" in line 17, and to insert instead thereof the words no addition shall be made to his pension by virtue of the increased percentages authorised by this Section. There are on this Bill one or two drafting Amendments, of which this is the first The House will recall that in the Act of 1920 there is no overriding maximum, but in this Bill we propose an overriding maximum, and it really means that anyone participating in the benefits under this Bill shall not be brought up to an amount exceeding what would be obtained by anyone in the service retiring with a similar length of service. This Amendment merely makes it perfectly plain that, those who have already got the increase are not to be subject to this overriding maximum which is only to operate from the date of this Bill. It is a drafting Amendment in the interests of the pensioners under the 1920 Act, and I trust that the House will agree to it.

§ Sir JAMES REMNANT
I do not propose to oppose this Amendment, but I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will explain another matter which is rather affecting these old pensioners. He will remember that under the Schedule of the 1920 Act there were two scales, one net exceeding £50 and the other not exceeding £100, and the second scale gave the equivalent in the case of married couples of £130. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the second scale in the schedule of the 1920 Act is to continue to operate, and, although in the Act the prescribed qualification is not exceeding £100, that £100 is only in reference to the single man and its equivalent for the married couple is £130? I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me it is an important point, as many of these old couples are in distress, particularly in those cases where the pensioner is an old inspector who has secured his position by loyal work in the past, and whose present position compares very unsatisfactorily with that of a man of similar rank to-day, the latter being of course very much better off although he has not contributed to the Pension Fund either so much or so long as the old pensioner. The older these couples get the more necessary it is that they should have as much as we can give them. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he cannot make it clear in the present proposal that the definition of the married 2675 couple under the Act of 1920 shall be extended so as to include cases where the wife of the pensioner has died and he has had to engage a housekeeper to take her place. Since this Money Resolution was moved I have had many letters from old men. I had one this morning. It represented a very sad case, because the man had just lost his wife. He is 76 years of age, he will have to get a housekeeper to look after him, and, of course, he cannot expect her, like the wife, to study economy in his household arrangements. She is bound to be far more expensive, and yet under the Act is to cease to reap the benefit of being treated as a married man in regard to his pension. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Act should be so interpreted as to allow the increased scale to apply to that old pensioner as if he were a married man.

Mr. GRAHAM
The position is that this Bill makes no change in the law with regard to the sum to be paid between £50 and £100. The provision we are making at the present time stops at £100.

§ Sir J. REMNANT
When the hon. Gentleman says there will be no change does he mean that the married couple on the £100 scale will be entitled under the present proposal to get this increase?

Mr. GRAHAM
I should imagine that the increase will stop at £100. That is the effect of the Bill. As to the other point of making provision for a housekeeper in the event of the death of the pensioner's wife, that would involve a change in legislation and we are not proposing anything of the kind at the present time.

§ Mr. GREAVES-LORD
I am not quite clear if it is possible to raise the point I desire to by the Amendment on the Paper, but it is a matter which should be considered by the Financial Secretary and by the Government, because obviously the intention of the Government is that the increases we are now proposing should be real increases, and that nothing should occur to prevent the pensioner getting the full benefit of them. Under the principal Act the means limit of a pensioner is subject to regulations. The word "means" 2676 is not defined in the principal Act, but there is a limitation by which a single pensioner will not get any increase where his income is over £150 or, if he be married, over £200. But there is no definition of means and the word "means" is to be dealt with entirely by regulation. Regulations were made immediately after the passing of the 1920 Act, which provided the way in which means were to be assessed and one part of the assessment of means included the annual value of any land or dwelling-house which was owned by the pensioner. Cases have occurred of pensioners living in their own houses, and for the purpose of arriving at means they have made a return each year of the annual value of the house, and that has been taken as part of his means for the purpose of limiting his opportunity of getting an increase. If it should happen that the assessment on that house is increased, then, while all the advantages he is getting are exactly the same, yet, by reason of the increase in assessment, his means are increased when it comes to a question of assessment under the regulations.
Perhaps I may take a concrete case which has actually happened. It is the case of a man whose income is said to be £195, and that includes the annual value of a house which the man owns and occupies. The assessment is put up by £7 a year, and the result of that, so far as the pensioner is concerned, is that he is out of pocket by seven times the amount of the rates in the £. Clearly, therefore, he is out of pocket by the assessment of the house being put up, and so has less for his sustenance. But the result of the increase in the assessment is that, when he comes to make his return of means at the beginning of the next year, he has to include it as though his income had increased by £7 as compared with his income during the previous year. The result is that this man, whose income the year before was put at £195, now has to return an income or means of £202, and is shut out from any increase of pension, although, in fact, the real position is that he is worse off than he was the year before, since, by reason of the increased assessment, although his house is the same house as it was the year before, he has to pay increased rates upon it. In these circumstances I venture to think the Government 2677 should take this matter into consideration, and, if it cannot be done in any other way, I suggest that it can be done by altering the regulations, which, as far as I can see from the principal Act, are entirely within the discretion of the Treasury.
These people, after all, are not in the position of people who have a house which may be said to have increased in value to themselves, through their having bought their house or built it at a time when things were very much less costly In the case which I am considering, the house is the same house, and, merely by reason of an artificial state of circumstances which increases the assessment, the man, although he is worse off, is shut out from the increase which he ought to have. I venture to think it is within the power of the Treasury, by altering the regulations, to deal with that matter, and if it can be dealt with in that way it would be far better than by a Clause in the Act of Parliament. We know that the process of increasing assessments is going on from day to day, and these pre-War pensioners are likely to suffer very much by reason of it.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I rise to reinforce the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). When the Money Resolution in connection with this Bill was before the House we all expressed disapproval of it, and, now that I see the Bill before me, I have no reason to alter my view. I think the Bill as a whole is a contemptible Bill. We were all pledged to see to it that pre-War pensioners who had rendered distinguished service to the State should be looked after as well as possible during the remainder of their lives, but now we find a typical instance of the Government's attitude towards the pre-War pensioners in the later Amendment in the name of the Financial Secretary, in which he is seeking to insert the words "in Great Britain." There was no attempt in the Financial Resolution to insert these words. Why were they not openly put into the Resolution, rather than dragged in now in the Bill itself? The effect of the introduction of these words will be that distinguished servants of the State like the Dublin Metropolitan Police will, once and for all, have their case—and it is a good case 2678 —settled against them. If that be the intention of the Government, we ought to have been notified of it in the Money Resolution, but it is left for us to find out at the last moment, when we have no chance of getting it altered, that the Government are coming forward and for all time ousting that body of men.
I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he cannot now give us a guarantee that the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be completely covered. I know that a good deal has been done for the Royal Irish Constabulary, although not as much as I should like, because, the moment their services were no longer required, these loyal men were left to look after themselves, and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are in an even worse plight. The pre-War pensioners of that service were definitely promised certain things by Government after Government. That promise has not, been fulfilled, and now, when the Free State has come into being, the Imperial Parliament tends more and more to forget these loyal men who served it in the past. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he cannot now reconsider their case, and let them have, at least, a small increase in their pensions, so as to make it possible for them to live a life of more contentment and ease than is likely to be possible under present conditions.

§ Sir J. REMNANT
I hope the Committee will allow me to support what hits been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in reference to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary. There is no better authority on their needs than my right hon. Friend himself. I hope that the Amendment of the Financial Secretary will not be approved.

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle)
It is not in order to refer to an Amendment which we have not reached. That Amendment has not yet been moved, and we cannot argue it until we come to it. It is on another Clause.

§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON
Do the words "Great Britain" bring in Ireland at all? I understood that it was always "Great Britain and Ireland"?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I understand that the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) was referring to the Amendment to Clause 3, to insert, after the word "authority"—the words "in Great Britain." That was the reference which I said could not be made on the question that Clause I stand part of the Bill.

§ Sir J. REMNANT
I only referred to that in passing. What I really meant was that I hope that that Amendment, when it does come on, will not be accepted. I think that this is a suitable time at which to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can answer the questions put to him when we were dealing with the provisions of the Money Resolution. He was asked as to the position of the Government in regard to their obligations to the pre-War pensioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and he said he was going to look into that matter and let us know. There are two points. The first is whether they could hand over the contracts made with the pre-War pensioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, without the consent of the other contracting party—that is to say, the police themselves—to the new Government; and the second was whether, if they could do that—which I very much doubt—they had taken steps to see that these pre-War pensioners would be treated in the same way as their colleagues the police pensioners in the rest of Great Britain, where any increases were allowed to them. I think the hon. Gentleman will remember saying that he was going to look into that question and let us know. These men are very apprehensive as to whether they can get any increase in their miserable pensions from the Free State Government, and it is very important to them that it should be settled whether provision has been made which will ensure their getting this small increase. There is no doubt that, in consequence of the work they had to do, they are not viewed favourably by the Free State Government, and, unless the Government of this country responsible for the Treaty took the necessary steps to ensure that they should be fairly treated, it is very doubtful if they will get the increase which they so richly deserve. I hope the hon. Gentleman, before this Clause is accepted by the Committee, will give us some satisfactory answer on these two points.

Mr. GRAHAM
It may be convenient if at this stage I try to clear up two points which have been raised. First of all regarding the increase in the income of an individual which comes from the higher assessment of the property he occupies. I think the hon. and loyal Gentleman appreciates that the Clause which he has on the Paper at a later stage would increase the charge, but whether or not, he took occasion on this Clause to raise the matter and I think we can dispose of it now. After all, the difficulty is inseparable from a means limit of any kind and it is true that under the regulations by which the Treasury calculate the means limit it is laid down that the value that will be taken is the annual value of that property for the purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax. It is true that on the face of it there is apparent hardship to the individual occupying his own house who by reason of this revision of the assessment is credited or debited—it is difficult to say which—with a rather larger sum, but quite clearly one cannot make an inroad on the principle of the means limit under that heading without giving similar concessions to very large numbers of other people. I could not say more on that at present because it all resolves itself into the abolition of the means limit. As I indicated when the Resolution was under discussion, the abolition of the means limit would be a very costly thing and we are not able to face that at present. I rather disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) when he said this was a mean and contemptible measure because after all we are providing in the present financial year in addition to enormous commitments in other directions, £300,000 for the scale increase, £250,000 for the retrospective effect and £60,000 to bring in people who reside over the seas. In other words we are providing more than £600,000 this year—not a bad beginning for people who are under the obvious handicaps from which we suffer.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
The whole House would agree.

Mr. GRAHAM
By handicaps I mean something very much wider than the balance of parties in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has all kinds of claims upon his resources and 2681 it is fair to pat in this connection what we are doing under Old Age Pensions and what may be done later and what is being done for this class of pre-war pensioners, who after all got their contract and are now getting something ex gratia—I do not press it but it is the fact—in respect of increased cost of living and reduced purchasing power.
As regards the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan police, the position is perfectly plain. I shall show later with regard to the words "in Great Britain," that that Amendment is really to clear up a matter affecting local authorities. The Royal Irish Constabulary are clearly within the provision which is being made and I trust the House will accept that assurance. There can be no doubt whatever on the point. However, the situation is different as regards the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who fall now within the Irish Free State. All the arguments for and against the inclusion of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were very carefully considered by our predecessors in office but on high constitutional grounds, and keeping in view that this was a transferred service, they and we were compelled to the conclusion that there is no jurisdiction as far as this House is concerned.

§ Sir J. REMNANT
Does that apply to the old pensioners?

Mr. GRAHAM
It is a very ticklish problem as the hon. baronet knows, but as regards the Dublin Metropolitan Police I have no doubt whatever that we have no jurisdiction, and accordingly we could not include a provision in this Bill.

§ Sir J. REMNANT
Can the hon. Gentleman teat me between whom was the contract made in the case of the prewar Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
There was a definitely clear contract between His Majesty's Government here and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as well as the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Mr. GRAHAM
It is very difficult to make a definite statement on a problem of that kind to-day. There have been all kinds of adjustments as between the Irish Free State and the Government of this country, and I 2682 imagine much will depend on the views taken by the Irish Free State as regards any application from these men. More than that I could not say at this stage, but it is clear on constitutional grounds that they could not be included here.

§ Lord EUSTACE PERCY
I must pull the Financial Secretary up on one thing he has said. He said that this was not a bad beginning. We have had that out before. We have been told by him that this is only a beginning and we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is the last word. If the Government say, as the Chancellor says, this is all that ought to be done and all that we need to do, I do not agree with him, but it is an arguable position. But do not let us have the hon. Gentleman continually saying this is a beginning. It is not a beginning. It is all the Government think can be, or ought to be done in the matter. Let us understand that clearly. I am very sorry the Financial Secretary has not been able to go further to meet my hon. and learned Friend who raised the question of increased assessment. It was never the intention of Parliament, and I think it was never the intention of the Treasury, that the re-assessment that took place last year should affect the position of the pre-War pensioners. I agree that a means limit is always a thoroughly illogical thing and you cannot make it logical, but that is no reason why you should refuse to make discriminations which are in fact, although they may not be in theory, reasonable discriminations. If a pensioner has an investment which has appreciated in the last two or three years, if his income from that investment remains the same, you do not take into consideration the increased capital value for the purpose of calculating means. Why should you take into account the increased capital value of the house he lives in?

Mr. GRAHAM
Has not the Noble Lord confused the capital value of the house with the increased assessment? The latter is in fact a kind of increment of the annual value property occupied by the owner. I am afraid it is increment rather than capital value.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Your system of assessment is based upon annual value. In regard to a person living in his own house, his assessment on that house is increased. 2683 It is an increase in the assessment of his capital, out of which he is getting no income.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think that I can permit this discussion. The point to which the Noble Lord is referring is in regard to the new Clause on the Paper, which is out of order. Clause 1 is simply altering the scale of pensions. I do not think that I can permit on the question that Clause 1 stand part a discussion relating to the means limitation contained in the principal Act.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I will not pursue that subject further. With respect to the position of the police pensioner, I know that it is a difficult matter. I hope the Financial Secretary will realise how very unfortunate it is that the police pensioner is precisely the class of pensioner who gets least under this Bill. It is a very unfortunate thing that every police pensioner, the Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioner and every other police pensioner should always be just the one person who cannot he dealt with by the Government. I do not want to go into the whole police question. To start with, there is a big gulf between the post-1918 and the pre-1918 pensioners. That creates a great deal of dissatisfaction. Then by the age limit which is fixed, the police pensioner is usually rather better off, and is more likely to be near the means limit, so that he does not benefit at all by the improvement of the old age pension. I do hope that the Committee will realise and that the Government will realise that you cannot go on, in the long run, dealing with pre-War pensioners in a way which appears to differentiate against one particular class of pensioner, namely, the police pensioner. While I cannot move an Amendment to deal with that point, I hope the Government will take steps to deal with it.

§ Mr. WILLISON
When this Bill at an earlier stage was before the House I spoke with regard to the police pensioner who had been badly treated by certain local authorities, and of the distinction that was drawn between the word "shall" and the word "may". The Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised that he would sympathetically consider the matter, but he pointed out that it had been dealt with under the 2684 first Clause, as from the 1st day of July, 1923, and that it was not advisable to go back further than that, because of the difficulties that would be created with local authorities owing to the period having gone by when they had levied their rate to deal with the matter. I understood from what he said that he intended between then and to-day further to consider the matter and to see whether anything could be done for that particular class of man. I do not know whether he has done so, but if he has probably we shall hear from him with respect to it. I do want to call attention to the position of that particular class of pensioner. Under the Act it was intended that he should have this particular increase awarded to him. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) distinctly stated on the part of the Government that the word "may" meant "shall." That assurance was accepted by the House and the House agreed to the word being left in the Bill. The majority of the authorities loyally abided by that, but certain authorities refused to accept it and said that the word "may"—

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member will look at Clause 3, he will see that his argument applies to that Clause. That Clause makes it obligatory to pay these pensions. His argument would be in order on that Clause.

§ Mr. WILLISON
I noticed the Amendment to that Clause and I foresaw that it was possible you might raise that point. I should not have intervened at this stage but for the fact that I was afraid that if I waited until then I should not be able to deal with the argument that I wish to put before the Committee. It is true that this argument might be brought forward in regard to Clause 3, but in that Clause the only point that will be before the House will be the proposed Amendment by the Financial Secretary. We shall only be able to deal with it in that way.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I was not referring specially to the Amendment to Clause 3. The argument of the hon. Member is relevant to the question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. That would be the proper place to raise the argument that he is now making.

§ Major HORE-BELISHA
With the passing into law of this Clause, the hopes of thousands of men are being dashed to the ground. It is a question of supreme relevance as to whether this is only the beginning or the end of what is going to be done. If it is only the beginning, it would be far wiser and far fairer to indicate what the subsequent steps are to be, either as regards increases or as regards the removal of the means limit and other disqualifications. If we say that this is the end, it would be far kinder to let these old people know, once and for all, that they have to remain in the workhouse until they die. This proposal does not take a single man out of the workhouse. The type of person who is in the workhouse to-day is the type of man who has fought in every part of the Empire and in every part of the world. He is a person who looked to the Government to get him out of his sorry plight and to restore him to some kind of happiness in his old age by allowing him to live in his own home. These old men are still in the workhouse. I have seen them there.
Under this Bill, if a man now gets 1s. day, he is going to get 1s. I 3/5d.; if he gets 1s. 6d., he is going to get Is. 8d., if he gets 2s. 3d., he is going to get 2s. 5d.; if he gets 3s., he is going to get 3s. 3d.; if he gets 3s. 9d., he is going to get. 4s. 1d.; and if he gets 4s. 1d., he is going to get 4s. 5d. That is what the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench has described as niggardly and miserly in the extreme. They are not going to do anything for one single pensioner who has a low grade of pension, and it is only right that the Financial Secretary should tell us now whether this is only the beginning or the end, because these men are coming to the end of their lives, and they want to know if any further proposals are going to be made for them before they are put under the sod.
It is unjustifiable to play with the feelings of these people and to make pledges at elections to get votes and then do something which is quite niggardly and quite useless, and then for one hon. Gentleman to say that it is only the beginning, while his colleague says that it is the end. A pensioner who under the pre-War terms was getting £37 a year is going to get £42 10s. What is that going to do for him? If he gets £75, he is going to get £82 10s. What will that do 2686 for pre-War pensioners? In addition to that you are going to subject them to every kind of inquisition and inquiry, but you are not removing the principal disabilities. You are just giving them enough money to buy a few cigarettes, and enough hope to buoy them up a little longer so that if this is a sentence of death, I would be much obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will have the courage to say so here and now.

§ Mr. REMER
I desire to associate myself with the words which have fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha). The very first year that I was in Parliament I moved an Amendment to the Police Pensioners Bill with the precise view which my hon. Friend has put forward. The position is particularly anomalous in the case of police pensioners. In many cases in which one man retired a few days before the other the difference in the pensions of the two men is out of all comparison. These matters have caused grave dissatisfaction. There are differences, for instance, such as that between 25s. a week and £4 a week in cases in which one man retired a few days before the other. These two men have been friendly with each other while in the service, and the amount of this difference gives rise to a feeling of real grievance. I cannot see why there should be any differentiation whatever between them. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will impress upon the Government a sense of the grievance which is felt, and which is causing grave discontent, especially in view of the promises which were made by the party opposite, which have not been carried out. In view of these promises, the matter should be considered more sympathetically. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite, in view of what happened at the last, General Election, can come here and fail so completely to perform what they promised.

§ Major HORE-BELISHA
May I ask a question? The first provisions in Clause (1), which concerns those whose pension is one in which additional remuneration by way of bonus was paid on the 1st July, 1922, seeks to stereotype the pensions at the maximum figure at which they were on the 2nd July, 1923 Does 2687 this mean that a large number of men who would have got increases are not going to get them now?

Mr. GRAHAM
No.

§ Mr. REMER
Are we to have no reply to what has been asked? Is nothing further to be done?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member was not in the House.

§ Mr. REMER
I want an answer to my question. Am I not entitled to get some kind of reply. I solemnly protest.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot insist.

Mr. GRAHAM
My sole reason for not rising again is that I am obliged to make so many speeches, and, in any case, I have already dealt at length with the point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman, and other Members of the Committee, on the Financial Resolution and on the Second Reading. I hardly think that hon. Members remember exactly the position of affairs in this case. The facts are that there are about 100,000 people, and by a purely voluntary effort in 1920 in respect of the rise in the cost of living, provision was made to increase the pensions according to certain scales, and this worked out in practice at an annual cost of approximately £1,000,000. We are proposing already within the financial year to give a further amount of about £300,000 by the improved scale prescribed in this Act. There would be £250,000 with retrospective effect, with £60,000 additional for the people overseas who are brought in for the first time.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN
On a point of Order. Are hon. Members entitled, even in Committee in this House, to get a re-hash of statements that have already been made?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think that the discussion is developing into a Second Reading discussion.

§ Major HORE-BELISHA
Can I have an answer to my question?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The discussion must be on Clause 1.

§ Sir J. REMNANT
Is provision being made under this Clause, in the case of 2688 the pensioner who died between the 1st July, 1922, and the passing of the new Resolution? In such a case, will the money which he would have had, if he had been alive at the passing of the Act, or any portion of the increase, go to his representative?

Mr. GRAHAM
Quite frankly, I could not reply now on a point of that kind. As the hon. Member knows, the Regulations are very complex. There will be an opportunity between now and the Report stage to consider the matter, and then the point can quite easily be cleared up. I will undertake to look into the matter.