OLD AGE PENSIONS. (Hansard, 25 February 1931)

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)
The Supplementary Estimate before the Committee is for £350,000 on account of old age pensions. The Committee will realise that under this Vote we pay old age pensions to those who reach the age of 70 years, or, in the case of blind persons, those who are over the age of 50. It is a Vote which is regulated by Act of Parliament, but it operates automatically so far as the Treasury is concerned in the matter of payment. Where a man or woman proves his or her claim to payment, we are compelled by the provisions carried through Parliament to provide the pension. The only variation in the amount, therefore, is due, not to policy, but to the number of people who are able to prove their claims for pensions during a particular year. Estimates are made as carefully as possible, but it is inevitable that these Estimates may be either in excess or in default. In the present instance, the sum for which we are asking, though a very large sum in itself, is less than 1 per cent. of the total original Vote, which was for £36,500,000. The reason for the discrepancy between the Estimate and the result lies in the additional number of people who have come on to the fund. It was anticipated that there would be 190,000 new pensioners who would begin to draw pensions in the 2206 course of the year, whereas the number will approximate more nearly to 220,000. After allowing for the various factors concerned, that involves an additional provision of the £350,000, which I am now asking the Committee to sanction. No question of policy is involved in this instance. It is simply that we are dependent on circumstances which it is only possible for us to estimate at the beginning of the period, and at the end of the period we are compelled, if the Estimate has been in default, to come to the Committee to increase it.

§ Sir K. WOOD
We are indebted to the Financial Secretary for the very careful and painstaking statement that he has made. It is true that the original sum for old age pensioners and pensions under the Blind Persons Act reached the colossal figure of £36,536,000. It is a tremendous figure, and it shows the provision which is made in this country for old people and blind people, which, I suppose, is exceeded by no other country in the world. One hears criticisms of the cost of the social services, but I am making no suggestion so far as these pensions are concerned. It is right that we should carefully scrutinise Supplementary Estimates of this character, because unless we do so these amounts may rise steadily year by year and reach such sums as will render the provision for these old people difficult. It is no good disguising the fact that many people think some of our industrial difficulties at present are due to the heavy cost of our social services.
We are presented here with a Supplementary Estimate for a very large sum, and the Financial Secretary says that it is due to an under estimate of the number of people entitled to pensions under the Statutes. I fully agree with him. There can be no question of policy arising in connection with this Supplementary Estimate. It is perfectly true that, if a person complies with the statutory provisions and is able to satisfy the necessary conditions and qualifications, then under the Act of Parliament the Treasury has to meet the bill and the pension has to be paid. It would be a very wrong thing if on account of either an overestimate or an under-estimate it should be suggested that the one per cent. who are affected should in any way have their pensions interfered with or reviewed. No 2207 one could contemplate a greater injustice than that.
While I make no particular criticism of this Estimate, beyond saying that it is unfortunate that we should have this extra Vote presented to us, it is desirable that the utmost care should be taken in the presentation of these Estimates. It is true that it only amounts to a difference of one per cent., but that means a very large additional sum of £350,000. It is, in my judgment, Supplementary Estimates like this which, when they are presented to the House of Commons, provoke criticisms of the heavy cost of our social services, and also criticisms that we vote all these social services and then later get a bigger bill which the House of Commons is bound to meet, and by that means the House is losing control over one of its paramount duties—the provision made for the financial services. One constantly sees these criticisms made outside by people who are disappointed with Parliament for various reasons, personal and otherwise; and I daresay that you, Mr. Dunnico, have observed that criticisms of this kind generally come from people who are failing to get their own way, or, perhaps, are not occupying the position which they think they ought to have on the Government Bench or elsewhere in Parliament. When one sees criticisms of this kind one wants to note the position which the people who make them occupy at that moment.
But when that has been said, and due discount has been made for criticisms about the control of the House over financial business, I still maintain that efforts ought to be made by the Treasury to get their original Estimates for services as nearly accurate as possible. We have a most competent Government actuary to make these Estimates, Sir Alfred Watson—no one would venture to criticise his technical skill; but we all know the difficulties in the way. I only refer to that by way of illustration, and in view of the fact that the Estimates in connection with transitional benefit have been exceeded by many millions. While I would not ask any Member to lift a finger against voting this sum for those who are entitled to pensions under an Act of Parliament which all of us would desire to honour to the full, yet 2208 this additional amount is something which we cannot pass over without comment and without asking the Treasury to take note of the aspects of the matter which I have put forward. Looking at the original Estimate, I see that provision was made there for the expenses of pensions committees, and it occurs to me to ask whether, as there has been so large an addition to the number of old age pensioners, some further expenses may not have been incurred by the pensions committees? Some years ago 1 was associated with the old age pension authority for London, and was chairman of it for one or two years, and I remember that an increase in the number of claimants added to the costs of the committee.

§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT
The expenses of the committee may be included in this sum.

§ Sir K. WOOD
It may be included, but I hardly think it will be, because if the hon. Member looks at the original Estimate he will see that Subhead A deals with pensions, and the expenses of pensions committees come under Subhead B. The expenses of pensions committees are put at £35,000 in that Estimate, and as there has been an addition of 1 per cent. to the number of claimants probably extra provision has had to be made for the committees in the matter of extra clerks, stationery and the like. I hope the Committee will understand the motives which have led me to make these observations. I am making no attack upon the payment of this money. All I am asking is that the Financial Secretary shall exercise his considerable influence in trying to get these Estimates drawn up as accurately as possible when they are originally presented to the House. so that when Parliament does vote the money for any service it will know that, so far as is possible, it has a full presentment of the situation, and that we shall not have application made to us later to grant additional sums.
A large sum like £350,000 is even more important than ordinarily in view of the position of the Exchequer. A most serious statement was made the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is true that he has since whittled it away a great deal, but he told us that we were approaching a Budget deficit, and when we are faced with 2209 Supplementary Estimates totalling £1,858,500 I am sure the Treasury and the Financial Secretary must feel very apprehensive of the position. Whilst we are glad to know that these old people are getting pensions under an Act with which my party has been so honourably associated, I hope the Financial Secretary will have some regard to the opinion, humble as it is, which I have expressed, and that, so far as it is possible to avoid it, we shall not in future have the Treasury coming to us for these large extra sums.

§ Mr. MARCH
I desire to ask one or two questions in connection with the administration of pensions. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) need not fear that there is not now the same sympathy for the people who apply for pensions as there has been hitherto. I have been a member of the old age pensions authority in London ever since it began.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
The money asked for in this Supplementary Estimate does not include expenses of administration.

§ Mr. MARCH
What is the £350,000 for, if it is not for administration and the paying of old age pensions?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
The Minister has explained that the £350,000 is required to meet extra charges arising from an increase in the number of claims, and not for expenses.

§ Mr. MARCH
But no claim is settled until inquiries have been made by pension officers. An old age pensioner cannot apply for a pension and get it straight away.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member would only be justified in raising questions of administration if further money had been asked for administration expenses. In this Estimate no money is asked for that particular purpose, and we can only discuss the purpose for which the additional money is required.

§ Mr. MARCH
I would like the Minister to explain how many additional people have been making claims and have had their claims allowed. You allowed the right hon. Member for West Woolwich to go into the question of com- 2210 mittees and their expenses. The right hon. Member knows better than I do that there are no expenses for committees.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) went just as far as he could.

§ Mr. MARCH
He knows better than I do that members of committees are not paid for their attendance.

§ Sir K. WOOD
Forgive me, I never made any such suggestion.

§ Mr. MARCH
Oh, yes, you did.

§ Sir K. WOOD
If I did, I want at once to correct it. The point I put was that, as the number of old age pensioners had increased by 1 per cent., did it not follow that there would be some corresponding increase in the outlay of the pensions committees? I do not want the hon. Member or anyone else who may have misunderstood me, perhaps from the imperfect way in which I expressed myself, to think that I ever suggested that any member of a pension committee is paid, or has anything to do with the increase in the number of claims.

§ Mr. MARCH
I probably knew what the right hon. Member meant, but I also know what he said. As one who has been a member of the London Central Committee for a number of years I may tell him, as well as others, that we have never received a penny for our services, they are all voluntary. If the right hon. Member had said expenses are incurred by the officers of the committee, that would have been a straightforward statement, but he left an impression on my mind, and probably on the minds of others, that Members of these committees are paid for their services. We hear enough of that from people outside, who tell us that we would not be doing the work if we were not getting well paid for it; and I do not want it to go out from Parliament that we get paid for our services. It is only the officers who get paid. I repeat that I would like to know the additional number of old age pensioners who have been granted pensions, and also the difference between what is paid to them and to the officers for administration. The right hon. 2211 Member knows full well that old age pensions officers are paid per capita of applicants dealt with, whether it is a case in which a pension of 1s. is granted or one in which the pension is 10s. My trouble, and the committee's trouble, lies in the strict scrutiny of so many of the investigators who are trying to debar, as we call it, old age pensioners from getting 10s.—trying to see how much lower they can make the pension. It is in that way that a vast amount of administrative expense is incurred which never ought to arise.

Viscountess ASTOR
I am not at all surprised that there has been a much larger number of people asking for old age pensions. My surprise is that hon. Members are not enraged at the action of the Government in not keeping the promises which were made at the last General Election to the old people—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lady must understand that she is not in order in discussing promises which were made at the last General Election. The only question before the Committee is the additional sum which is being asked for to pay these old age pensions.

Viscountess ASTOR
When a Front Bench Member addresses the Committee, he is generally a Member who is accustomed to the ways of the House and knows how to avoid difficulties in regard to our procedure. That enables him to get in a great deal more than simple Members like myself. I think back bench Members ought to have the same leniency shown towards them—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lady must not suggest any partiality on the part of the Chair. It is my duty to enforce the Rules of Order and so long as she remains within those Rules the Noble Lady has the same freedom as other hon. Members.

§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL - MAITLAND
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that a much larger number of people have claimed pensions than were estimated for, and I should like to ask if it is not within the Rules of Order to ask how it has come about that there has been such a large increase in the number of applicants.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am not concerned with the Act of Parliament now; that cannot be criticised at all. This Estimate deals only with those people who have qualified for pensions and for whom this extra money is required.

§ Mr. McGOVERN
I think you have just ruled, Mr. Dunnico, that the Vote we are discussing does not deal with the expenses of administration. May I point out that the words of the Supplementary Estimate are: for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I understand that that is the ordinary formula which is adopted in the original Estimate.

Viscountess ASTOR
I was under the impression that we should be allowed to ask for the reasons which have led a larger number of old people to apply for pensions. I think hon. Members have reason to congratulate themselves upon the fact that all the promises which were made by the supporters of the Government at the last election have not been kept. I do not think that the whole of this increase is going directly to the old people. I do not think that there is a single hon. Member who begrudges all we can give to these poor old people. I know that many of these old people would not vote for me at the last election, because I would not promise them pensions like the Labour candidate promised.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would like to point out to the Noble Lady that this Vote is for pensions paid to people who have qualified for them.

Viscountess ASTOR
How are they qualified?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
They are qualified for pensions under the provisions laid down in the Act.

Viscountess ASTOR
I congratulate the Front Bench upon being so well protected by the Ruling of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I am not making any attack upon the Deputy-Chairman, and I would like to say that I have always found him fair and more than polite, but I say that the Government are very lucky in this Debate. Speakers on the Front Bench are allowed 2213 to go on for hours and hours talking about nothing, and what they say in this House is nothing compared with what they say outside.

Miss LEE
I think it would be a much better course for hon. Members opposite to take if they would make their criticisms and then finish up with a Division in the Lobby on an Amendment. I have listened with a considerable amount of admiration to the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has engaged in his favourite entertainment of Minister baiting at Question Time, and on this occasion he and also the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) have exhibited a considerable amount of skill in that direction.

Viscountess ASTOR
I have not wasted a moment of the time of the Committee, and I protest against that statement.

Miss LEE
I will continue with my serious points. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich takes a great deal of pleasure in asking Ministers first one thing and then another—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Lady is not in Order in referring to matters of that nature at this moment.

Miss LEE
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite scrutinise Estimates of this kind in minute detail with a view to discovering whether there has been the slightest laxity or extravagance in order to find out where some small economy can be enforced. They are placed in an extremely awkward position when they discuss an Estimate of this kind. In speeches outside this House, hon. Members opposite frequently ask for economy, but, when the Estimates are under consideration in Committee, those hon. Members are extremely careful not to mention the details on which they desire a reduction of expenditure to take place.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
What view did the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) and her party take in regard to the question of the payment of Members' travelling expenses?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That question could not be answered, because it is out of order.

Miss LEE
I will not follow the hon. Member upon that subject. Hon. Members opposite talk a great deal about economy, but they generally want an increase and not a reduction in the expenditure on the Fighting Services.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
May I remind the hon. Member that the only point before the Committee is whether the extra money asked for in this Vote is justified or not?

Miss LEE
I would like to get some explanation as to why the Labour party are being criticised for spending too much on the social services—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That question does not arise on this Vote.

Miss LEE
On this particular Estimate, hon. Members opposite have a chance of voting against this Estimate if they desire to reduce the expenditure on social services. All I say is that if hon. Members opposite desire to see the expenditure on our social services reduced, if they believe that items like the one which we are now discussing are a bad thing, then they ought to have the courage of their convictions and go into the Lobby against this Estimate. I think we ought to apologise to the old people in the country, not because we are spending too much—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must not persist in discussing policy on this Vote.

Miss LEE
I shall postpone to a more appropriate occasion what I think ought to be done in the way of apologising to the old people outside instead of bandying words about concerning this inadequate Estimate.

§ Captain BOURNE
I sympathise with the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) who on this occasion has not been able to make the speech which she desired to make. When the hon. Lady has had more experience of the House she will realise that Supplementary Estimates are, owing to the Rules of the House, not a suitable occasion on which to deliver a Second Reading speech. If I attempted to follow her argument, I should undoubtedly be ruled 2215 out of order. The Supplementary Estimate says that the amount required is: for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920. On this point I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question. Under the Supplementary Estimate, it is difficult to make out whether the increase comes under the Act of 1908, which I think is the original Act, and under which the age is 70 and where there is a means test; or whether it comes under the Act of 1925, where the means test was removed and where the age was 65. I want to know whether the actuarial estimate of the number of people reaching the age of 70 and thereby qualifying under the Act of 1908 was too low or not. That is my first point. My second point is whether a number of people provided for under the Act of 1908 would be excluded by the means test or entitled to lesser pensions because of their private incomes being exhausted through industrial depression or other causes. [Interruption.] I should also like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think I had better make it clear that the hon. and gallant Member is quite in order. He is simply trying to ascertain what is the cause of the increase, and that is a question that he is perfectly entitled to ask.

§ Captain BOURNE
I am much obliged, Mr. Dunnico. I should also like to ask the Financial Secretary whether the increase under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, is larger than was estimated. Owing to the form of the Estimate, it is difficult to see under which of the headings the increase comes, and I think the Committee is entitled to know.

§ Major COLFOX
If I may be allowed to say so with very great respect, I should like to offer to you, Mr. Dunnico, my sympathy in your difficulty in keeping certain hon. Members within the bounds of order. I hope that I shall not add to your difficulties in that respect. I believe I am right in thinking that the only point that can be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate is the reason why, this year, more persons are claim- 2216 ing pensions under these various Acts than the Government estimated in the early part of the year, and I should like a little information from the Government on that point. It seems to me that this Estimate is a very severe condemnation of the action of the Government in the year which is now drawing to a close, because it seems to me that the increase is very probably due to the fact that there are a great many more people this year whose incomes have been reduced, largely by the action of the Government, below—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member must not pursue that point; it raises the whole question of the Government's policy. If hon. Members were permitted to deal with that question, I should have to allow a right of reply.

§ Major COLFOX
One of the qualifications of people who are entitled to pensions under these Acts is that their means shall be below a certain sum, and I want to ask whether this increase is due to the fact that a larger number of people have fallen below the means limit than the Government actuary imagined earlier in the year—in other words, whether there are many more necessitous people below the income limit than was anticipated? Alternatively, or, perhaps, in addition, is it that the average length of life is increasing? It may be that many more people are living to an older age than formerly. If, as I anticipate, both of these causes are operating, can the Financial Secretary tell us how much of the increase is due to the one cause and how much is due to the other? I should like, further, to ask him how much of the increase is due to increases of pensions payable to blind persons. Are we to be led to believe that there are more blind persons in the country than the Government anticipated, or that they are living longer, or what is the cause under that head? [Interruption.] I quite understand the reason for the interjections of hon. Members opposite. They obviously take no interest in old age pensions—[Interruption]—beyond the party political advantage which they hope to get at election time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member must not disobey my Ruling by persisting in that argument.

§ Major COLFOX
I apologise for being led away by interjections which I imperfectly heard. I merely wanted to ask the Minister the reason why the number of beneficiaries has increased beyond what was anticipated. It seems to me that probably all of the three causes I have named are in operation, and it is quite possible that there may be other causes as well. Therefore, I shall be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me the information for which I have asked.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I want to put one or two points to the Financial Secretary. I understand that he is going to reply, and it will probably save him trouble if we put all the points that we want to put, so that he may not be called upon to reply more than once. He claimed for this Supplementary Estimate that it was much smaller than it looked, because, although the absolute sum seemed fairly considerable, it was only about one per cent. of the total amount involved. May I, however, put to him one consideration on that point? This Estimate deals with a subject which is more susceptible of minute and accurate calculation than almost any other that comes within the purview of the Government. In the case of Customs and Excise, and Estimates of that kind, there must obviously be a very considerable margin of error, according to the prosperity of trade or otherwise, but when it is merely, or very largely, a matter of estimating the probability of persons living, it is one of those subjects on which the most accurate estimation is possible.
What has happened is that, in a subject-matter of that kind, the estimate has been for an increase of £1,000,000 over the previous year, and that estimate has been exceeded by £350,000. In other words, if the total amount of money involved—[Interruption.] The estimate of pensions for this year is £36,500,000, as compared with £35,500,000 for the previous year. Clearly, therefore, whatever the actual out-turn of the previous year was, the estimate for this year was that old age pensions would cost about £1,000,000 more, instead of which they are costing about £1,350,000 more. That means that the increase is more than one-third greater than it was estimated to be, 2218 and I think that any argument as to the accuracy of an estimate of that kind must be based, not merely on the total amount involved, but on the degree of accuracy with which the increase was estimated. There is one point which comes in materially as regards the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) as to the classes. I made a rapid estimate while the Financial Secretary was speaking. He said it was anticipated that there would be an increase of 190,000 in the number of persons, whereas the actual increase was about 220,000.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not quite appreciated the point. The figure at the beginning was 190,000, but, as regards the figure of 220,000, it must be remembered that some are dropping out at the other end.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I see; it is not a net increase of 220,000 as compared with 190,000. But, surely, that means at the same time that not only must the entry have been greater, but the number of survivors must be considerably greater also, because an entry of 220,000 means an addition of less than one-sixth to the Estimate. [Interruption.] I think that my figures are right now. On the Financial Secretary's own showing, there entered as recipients of pensions into the pension-receiving age, whether it was 65 or 70—

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
It is 70 in all cases except for the blind. I think there is some confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's mind between the pensions paid on this Vote and the pensions paid on the Health Vote. So far as this Vote is concerned, these pensions are only paid on attaining the age of 70, except in the case of blind people.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
My point is quite a good one, and is not affected in the least by what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are entering into pensions of this class, whether the recipients are blind people or others who have reached the age of 70, 220,000 instead of 190,000. That is 30,000, or rather less than one-sixth, more than was contemplated; but the actual increase in the money involved over what was contemplated is one-third. What I should like to know is how the Financial Secretary 2219 reconciles this difference. It is quite clear from the figures so far as he has given them that that is the inference which ought properly to be drawn.
8.0 p.m.
With regard to the larger point which was dealt with by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee), the Financial Secretary spoke as though this was an inconsiderable sum, only about 1 per cent., but it is a very large sum indeed, and it occurs in a service in which such an error is the less excusable. When one carries one's mind back to Budgets before the War, it is enough to convert a surplus into a deficit, or a deficit into a surplus. What is more, it means this: The hon. Member for North Lanark said that we on this side of the House scrutinised these Estimates with minute care to see if there was any fault in them, or any lack of economy. I say that that is the duty of everyone in this House, and more particularly the duty of the Opposition; and the inference that for that reason we want to vote against this Estimate is a wholly and absolutely unjustifiable inference. So far as pensions are given by law, we want pensions to be given and enjoyed. We have not the least hesitation in voting for them, and we have no wish to vote against them. What we do want is to have as accurate an estimate as possible of the bill that we are to be asked to pay. It is quite right to pay it; of that there is no doubt; but no one wants to have a bigger bill than he has been led to anticipate.
We have had expressions of opinion with regard to the financial situation of the country from the Government Front Bench, and we have been led to believe that we are in very great difficulties and have to be careful as regards expenditure. We have to cut our coat according to our cloth. Here is an under-estimate of about £350,000. If we had known that we were going to be let in for that Estimate, surely it would have been right, not only for the Opposition, but for the Government, to see whether they ought to have expended all the money that they propose to expend under other projects of legislation. [Interruption.] I am not discussing any of those other projects, but I think I am well within the Rules of Order in saying that a definite result of an under-estimated expenditure of very considerable sums, like this of 2220 one-third of a million pounds—a direction in which accurate estimate ought to have been possible—does seriously disorganise and prejudice the proper attitude of the Committee in other respects.
I am not dealing with the merits of the other respects or of any one of them in particular. There might be many items. I am not going to transgress the Rules of Order if I can help it. If the Government had known that the Committee were to be faced with this under-estimate it ought to have been rather more cautious in other projects which they have let loose upon the country, and for which the country is going to be asked to pay the debt. We think that this bill should be paid, because it is a bill which is due, and rightly due, to the recipients. At the same time we think it perfectly right to criticise the Government for giving us an unanticipated sum of very nearly a third of a million pounds to pay for this single Estimate, on an item in which a much closer Estimate ought to have been possible.

§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
The Liberal party is intensely interested in this Vote. [Interruption.] I am speaking for the five and a half million voters in this country. Either there has been a gross waste in the administration to the extent of this Vote, or else there are 14,000 persons—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member should know that the Minister has stated not a penny of this money is involved in administration, and that it is therefore out of order to discuss that aspect of the question.

§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
I am doing my best to pick up the points made. If none of this money is concerned in administration, assuming that these are all old age pensioners, it means that 14,000 persons are living longer than they did when the Government Actuary made his calculation. We cannot tell how many of these people have got the old age pension by reaching the age of 70, and how many are blind persons. I have worked out 10s. a week, for 52 weeks in the year, and roughly it means that 14,000 persons are living longer. Perhaps they are living longer in the hope that the Government will be turned out and a Conservative Government will come in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a Liberal Government!"] 2221 Yes, or a Liberal Government. Has the Financial Secretary any reason for saying that these old persons are living longer, and why they are enjoying this expectancy of life?
What is the percentage of error, and how is it that a very skilled person like the Government actuary—I presume he is consulted—can make an error of this extent? On what livelihood does he work? His own, or the four or five life-tables used by the well-known insurance companies? I should like to know whether the Financial Secretary has the information? It is a very grave thing that this error should spring up, but the Liberal party is delighted that 14,000 persons have lived a little longer on the old age pensions started by the Liberal party. Is there no means of telling where these old people are living? From what part of the country do they come? Are there many East Anglians? Does it mean that in East Anglia they live longer than they expect to live in Islington or the North? Is there any means of telling their occupation? All these points want clearing up. I do not believe the Financial Secretary has made out his case up to the present.

§ Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL
I want to ask a simple question of accounting. I myself had to go into these points two years ago and, in my opinion, this is not an accountant's problem. It is a perfectly unjustifiable inaccuracy. These figures of the people who require to be provided with money are susceptible of minute and accurate calculation. This is not an actuarial problem at all. I happened to take up an Estimate two days ago in the large book of the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1930. There I found, so accurately had the figures been estimated for that year, that out of the £35,000,000 for more people who were entitled to money under this Vote for the previous year, every voucher was accounted for, and every payment with the exception of £24 was known.
The Government had a perfectly good basis for making its calculation, yet they ask for an increase in the first Vote of £1,000,000. Now they come down and say that they need to ask the Committee for a further third of a million. I will not go into the merits of how the money has been spent, or in what divisions or 2222 categories it has been spent, but I say that unless the Financial Secretary can give a very good reason for the blunder we shall take the view that this is a very unskilful calculation.

§ Mr. DIXEY
The hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches, from among the Government's co-partners in the administration of affairs, seemed somewhat perturbed at having no detailed explanation of this item. I take it that the Financial Secretary is going to reply on the Debate, and I would like to point out to him that there is a note at the bottom of this Estimate saying that the additional provision is required owing to the increase in the proportion of the population claiming pensions. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) has quite properly asked whether it is due to the fact that people are living longer. Speaking for myself, I welcome that. It is an encouraging sign that even under the present administration, people, with all their worries and troubles, are surviving in larger quantities than before. If that is not so, it is proper for us, whose duty it is to scrutinise all these Estimates very carefully, particularly an Estimate of this sort which can be so easily accurate, to know what is the Government's explanation for this increase in the population who are obtaining pensions. I take it that it is quite proper to suggest, until we have a better explanation, that the reason for it is the bad trade in the country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is quite entitled to ask a question, but he is not entitled to assume a reason and then to make a long speech upon that assumption.

§ Mr. DIXEY
I bow to your Ruling. If I transgressed it was due to my genuine desire for information. I want to ask the Minister what is the reason for this increased grant. Is it the longer lives of the people, or is it owing to the fact that a large number of people are becoming increasingly "hard up" and therefore have to apply for these pensions? I think that is a very proper question to ask the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government to-day. I am sure the hon. Gentleman who is acting for the Liberal party will welcome an answer as much as the hon. Members sitting on these benches.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am aware of the conditions under which these Supplementary Estimates are discussed, and I think I have shown myself in the past to be willing to answer all the questions that are put to me, but it is departing a little from the rules of the game that hon. Members should accuse me of having given no explanation when they were not present when my speech was made and the answer for which they are asking was given in the course of that speech.

§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
If I said anything unjust, I withdraw it. My reason, although I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, was the extreme dissatisfaction of the Opposition, and, therefore, I concluded that the hon. Gentleman had not said much.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The hon. Member must have argued backwards from the dissatisfaction of the Opposition to a speech which he has not heard, because I answered all the points made in. the last two speeches in my original explanation, and it is not quite playing the game to say that I have given no explanation when, in fact, I did give an explanation and definitely answered the points that were raised. However, I will answer what I believe to be all the points that have been put forward.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
You will answer the same points again.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
There are a few new ones.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
That will be repetition.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
Perhaps it will be as well, in view of the number of Members who have come into the Committee, that I should break the rule to that extent. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked me whether there has been any increase in the amount of expenses of the committees, and the answer is "no." The original amount voted is quite sufficient to meet that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) asked me a number of questions relating to the proportions of these people, and he thought I ought to give him an exact answer. This is still only an estimate. 2224 No doubt in a few months' time, if he puts a question, to me, I shall be able to give him the exact number of persons who obtain pensions under each of the categories. I cannot be as meticulous as that now, but I can tell him that there are, roughly, 900,000 people drawing pensions under the Act of 1908, that is the non-contributory pension, and 441,000 under the 1925 Act, and, broadly speaking, the proportions are the same throughout.

§ Captain BOURNE
The hon. Gentleman means that the extra amount that he is asking for is really in that proportion?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
Yes. I endeavoured to find out before the Debate began. The figures cannot be given, but they are roughly in that proportion. May I come to the two last speeches. I gave the answer at the beginning. This addition is due to the fact that about 30,000 more people than were expected have entered upon pension rights. It is not due to longer life, but to the fact that a larger number of people have substantiated their claim to pensions—to the number of about 30,000. The number anticipated was about, 190,000, and the number who have actually succeeded in establishing their claims is about 220,000. I come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). He developed what is rather dangerous inside this Chamber, an arithmetical argument. He said 190,000 people had been expected to enter the fund at the lower age limit, and that in fact the number had been 220,000, and he argued that, as that was about one-sixth more than was expected, and £1,000,000 had been estimated as the probable increase, there ought only to have been an addition of one-sixth in the expenditure. But he forgot this simple fact, that, while 190,000 people were estimated as entering the fund at one end a certain number, roughly about 140,000, were anticipated to disappear owing to death, or possibly other causes, and the increase of 30,000 is, therefore, an increase upon the net figure found by deducting those who leave from those who enter and is not an increase that must be taken in proportion to those who enter alone. That is why I shook my head when he said the arithmetical argument was irrefutable; it was an entirely unsound argument.

§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
How many dropped out, and was that different from the estimate or not?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The number that dropped out is 145,000 owing to death, or, occasionally, to other causes, and that is approximately what was anticipated. I have dealt with all the points except the statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman and so much emphasised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), that this was a very great failure in correct estimation. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument on the ground that, while this was in appearance only a 1 per cent. error in the Estimate over the whole figure, it really was something like 33 per cent. of the estimate for the increase. That is a very fallacious way of attempting to look at these facts. The Government Actuary, who has to go into these matters and on whose estimate our figures were based, has to take the whole range into consideration, and there are all sorts of circumstances which may increase or diminish the amount that will be required under this fund. Deaths have to be taken into account and there are the actuarial figures of those who attain the age of 70 during the year in question, but there are a great many other considerations. There is the question of people who are already on the fund, or who are not on the fund because their means limit has hitherto been above, and yet are over 70 and come on to the fund.
There are a large number of points that have to be taken into account, and it is on the balance of all these points that the Actuary makes up his mind. The real figure with which he is dealing is the cost of the charge and, taking the pluses and the minuses and working them all out, he could arrive at the conclusion that there was likely to be an increase. In fact, the increase has been exceeded, but the percentage of error cannot be taken on the increase. It must obviously be taken on the gross total. The hon. Member for Farnham waxed very eloquent and adopted a tone of considerable castigation at the present occupant of this office for failure to estimate correctly. I have only this to point out, that in the year when he was in charge of this Vote, he was not content to come to ask for a miserable £350,000. He asked 2226 for £550,000 because his estimate was nearly twice as much out in proportion as the present estimate.

§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
That was in 1928, before we had experience of the Act of 1929. We have lived three years since then. We have had the 1929 Act in operation, and we know the amounts which have actually been paid out. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has given a sufficient answer.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am afraid that the hon. Member really does not thoroughly appreciate what it is that the Actuary had to decide. When he tells us that all the facts must be in the possession of the Treasury and that there is no reason why there should be any doubt over the Estimate, it really must be that he cannot appreciate the points at issue. It is perfectly clear that there are a large number of points which can only be estimated actuarially with regard to this Vote. I still maintain that although he makes these disparaging remarks of what we have done, his own Supplementary Estimate was nearly double as large in proportion.