§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year finding on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.
§ 9.6 p.m.
§ Captain WallaceI do not know whether there is any hon. Member in any part of the Committee who is looking forward to the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate in order to discuss general questions in connection with Old Age Pensions, but perhaps I shall save the time of the Committee if I say at the beginning that this Supplementary Estimate, which I shall explain very briefly—although, of course, I shall endeavour to answer any questions upon it—is a purely mechanical Estimate. It gives authority for paying out money to the number of people who happen to be alive in any given quarter or any given day when payment is due, and who are entitled to the pension. The main Old Age Pensions Vote is simply a calculation that is originally made each year in January of the prospective number of persons who will be entitled to draw a pension during the next financial year. It has nothing to do with contributory pensions proper which come under another Vote. This Vote covers three different kinds of people: First, non-contributory people over 70 years of age. Secondly, the people who have been in the contributory scheme, but who have passed the age of 70; from 65 to 70 these people are paid under the contributory pensions Vote and on reaching 70, although they are still drawing a pension in virtue of their right under the contributory scheme- and do not have to 1857 pass a means test, they pass on to this Vote. And thirdly, blind pensioners.
§ Mr. RidleyDoes this mean that there are more people alive than you had expected?
§ Captain WallaceThe hon. Member has put the whole matter in a word. I was wondering whether I might go on to explain the whole thing in that way.
§ Mr. RidleyYou thought that they would not survive your Government, but they did.
§ Captain WallaceWe are obliged to frame an Estimate every year in January, and as a first step, the Government actuary estimates the probable number of people who will be alive and eligible to draw a pension at the beginning of the next financial year, which begins on 1st April. This is based on the ascertained number whom we know were drawing a pension on 31st December, adjusted on the one side for the people who will become 70 during the next quarter and on the other side for the people who are expected to die. When the Estimate was made for the current financial year, in January, 1938, it was followed by a quarter—the first quarter of last year— in which, perhaps owing to the beneficial activities of this Government, mortality among old people was less than had been expected. In consequence, this Vote started off very badly on 1st April by having 4,207 more pensioners entitled to payment than we had calculated there would be. That excess was due to the unexpectedly low deathrate during the first quarter of last year. The deathrate continued to be low during the year; people were living overtime, as an hon. Member said, and it was particularly so in the December quarter; and the number of pensions in payment at the end of December, 1938, was not 4,207 in excess of the number we had expected, but 9,500. We are bound to make up the Estimates for these Votes in January— unfortunately perhaps, in the sense that between January and March we have the quarter which is most difficult to forecast. Usually it is this quarter in which there is the heaviest mortality, but it is also the quarter in which there are the most violent fluctuations.
As an indication of the fineness of precision required for this forecast, I have 1858 discovered that a variation of one-tenth of 1 per cent. between the forecast and the actual facts results in a difference of about 1,800 pensioners. It would be absolutely true to say, as the hon. Member said, that this Supplementary Estimate is due to the fact that a good many old-age pensioners have exceeded their actuarial expectation of life. As they have exceeded it, the Government obviously have to pay the pensions, and this Supplementary Estimate enables them to do so.
§ Mr. G. GriffithsThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman made a very interesting statement about contributory pensions, that when a person is 65 he gets the pension, and that when he becomes 70 and a day, he draws an old-age pension.
§ Captain WallacePerhaps I may make it clear——
§ Mr. GriffithsI am clear about that, but there is another point that I want to put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Suppose that an old-age pensioner has a wife who is six years younger than he is, when she becomes 65 does she get a contributory pension when he is drawing an old-age pension?
§ Captain WallaceWhat I said in the earlier part of my remarks was that when people who have been drawing a contributory pension between the ages of 65 and 70 reach the age of 70, simply as a matter of accounting convenience, instead of being paid under the Contributory Pensions Vote, they are transferred to this Old Age Pensions Vote. Of course, on a Supplementary Estimate I cannot discuss whether or not those people would have a title to a pension. It is purely a question of paying them out of this Vote.
§ Mr. GriffithsThe question I asked was this: If a wife is not 65 years of age and her husband is transferred from the non-contributory pension to the old-age pension, and she becomes 65 after he has become 70, is she then entitled to 10s. a week contributory pension because of her husband, or is she not entitled to it because she is not in the contributory scheme?
§ Captain WallaceIt does not make the slightest difference. If she was entitled to a contributory pension on reaching the 1859 age of 65, the fact of her husband being paid on this Vote would not deprive her of her title.
§ Colonel NathanThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House that there are three classes of pensions in question—non-contributory pensions, contributory pensions, and blind persons' pensions. He has given us figures showing the increase in the number of old-age pensions. I should like to ask whether there has been an increase or a decrease in the contributory pensions and the blind persons' pensions; in other words, how is the £200,000 distributed among the three classes of pensions?
§ The ChairmanI would point out that contributory pensions do not arise on this Vote.
§ Mr. DunnMay I put a question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Suppose that a wife has passed the age of 70 and her husband is under 65, and up to the age of 65 she has contributed to the National Health Insurance scheme, what exactly would be the position of the wife, as far as the pension is concerned?
§ Captain WallaceI do not think I can answer the last question which has been put to me, except to say that the mere fact that on the day on which the wife becomes 70 the actual mechanical process of payment is transferred from one Vote to the other does not make any difference to the title of her husband to a pension. As regards the question that was asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Wands worth (Colonel Nathan), I am sorry I cannot give him the actual division of the money between the different classes of pensioners. What I can give him are the figures of the total number of pensioners at different times of the year; but I think the Committee will probably be satisfied if I undertake to let the hon. and gallant Member or any hon. Member who cares to put down a written question on the subject, have those details. I am sure it would be possible to get out the figures but I have not got them with me.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithMay I ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis, in regard to the statement that this Vote does not cover contributory pensions? The footnote 1860 states that the additional provision is required to meet the payment of pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act and, it adds, "the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act." Is not this provision also required for purposes of contributory pensions?
§ The ChairmanI think the words "contributory pensions" only come in as part of the Title of the Act referred to.
§ Captain WallaceAs I tried to explain already, people who have been under the contributory scheme between the ages of 65 and 70, when they become 70 continue to be paid in the same way as previously but for purposes of accountancy the payment, instead of being borne on the Contributory Pensions Vote, is borne on the Old Age Pensions Vote.
§ Captain WallaceOnly in so far as people who come on to this Estimate at the age of 70 do so by virtue of having been contributory pensioners.
§ Mr. RidleyWould the Minister make the matter a little more clear by dealing with the question of the proportion of the contribution which the State has to bear, namely, one-fifth in the case of men, and one-seventh in the case of women? If that is not related to contributory pensions, to what else can it be related?
§ Captain WallaceIn dealing with this Supplementary Estimate we are not dealing with contributory pensions at all, but merely with certain recipients of pensions who have passed out of the realm of contributory pensions into that of old age pensions. This Vote simply represents a method of paying people who have acquired titles to pensions, either by having paid contributions or who, not having paid contributions, have qualified for the old-age pension under the Statute.
§ Mr. RidleyThen what was meant by the reference to the proportions of one-fifth and one-seventh?
§ Captain WallaceI have not mentioned those proportions.
§ Mr. TinkerThis is rather confusing. The sum required is £200,000 which is to be added to a sum of £47,000,000, and I thought that covered both contributory and old-age pensions. The Financial 1861 Secretary tells us that it does not, but I wish to put several questions to him. I would like him to give the Committee the total number of old-age pensioners who are drawing this money. He tells us that the extra number of people is 9,000, but the total amount is £200,000, and assuming that each person is getting £26 a year, I work that out at under 8,000 persons. That leads me to ask whether some of these people are not entitled to the full amount. If so, are they being paid less than the full amount as a result of the application of the means test? In that case it is to be assumed that some of these people have means of their own. On the other hand, if these people are all entitled to the £26 a year that brings us to another point which is perhaps more important namely that £26 a year brings them on to the poverty line. The figures which we have had before hand, tell us that at least 10 per cent. of those in receipt of the full amount of old-age pensions have to go to the poor law authorities——
§ The ChairmanThe hon. Member is now going into a matter which is quite outside this Vote. The Financial Secretary has explained very clearly that this Supplementary Estimate arises simply and solely from the fact that an estimate which in the nature of things could only be an estimate, has turned out to be short of the amount actually ascertained, though only by a relatively trifling amount. The reason for this is that there was an increase over a certain period in the number of persons entitled to pensions. We cannot go into the whole question of the original Vote.
§ Mr. Arthur HendersonMay I put a question to the Minister which may make this point clear? Do the 9,000 persons referred to in the Estimate, draw their pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or is their right to pension based on the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act? Is this, in other words, merely a book-keeping transaction, or a change in the basis of these claims to pension?
§ Captain WallaceMay I deal first with the point just raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He must not think that this is only a question of 9,000 people, because the number is very much more than that. The 9,000 is the excess 1862 of the actual number over the estimated number. This also enables me to answer at least a part of the question put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The total number who come under this Vote, that is the people in the three classes, namely, contributory pensioners over 70, non-contributory pensioners and the blind were expected to number on 1st April, 595,000 non-contributory and 1,189,000 contributory, making a total of 1,784,000 persons. The actual numbers however turned out to be 597,147 non-contributory and 1,191,060 contributory, making a total of 1,788,207. The actual numbers on 31st December, which is the last date for which I can give figures, were non-contributory 589,217 and contributory 1,262,146, making a total of 1,851,363.
Therefore, the total net increase for the first nine months of the present financial year was approximately 5,300 more than expected, and the number of deaths during this period was 3,000 less than we estimated; and the number of contributory pensioners transferring from the 65–70 age group was over 2,000 out. The people in that group who became 70 did not lose their title to the contributory pension, but were simply paid on this Vote instead of the other. It is, therefore, purely a bookkeeping transaction. If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I can give him the figures for 31st December divided between contributory and non-contributory pensions, and also divided between England, Wales and Scotland, but I think that to read out a great many figures of that kind would not be of much help to the Committee. I would suggest that if hon. Members would like any statistical information with regard to this Estimate they should be good enough to put down an Unstarred Question, and I should be glad to give the information in tabular form. I have not the slightest wish to burke discussion; it is only for the convenience of the Committee.
§ 9.26 p.m.
§ Mr. R. J. TaylorThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained that the pensioner receiving a contributory pension when he becomes 70 years of age goes on to the non-contributory pension fund. But if the wife is 68 years old, out of what pension fund is she paid?
§ Captain WallaceUntil the wife is actually 70 she is paid out of another 1863 Vote, namely, Class V. Vote 7, and it so happens that on that Vote this year we have not had to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.
§ 9.27 p.m.
§ Mr. RidleyA Debate on a Supplementary Estimate is necessarily very narrow and restricted, but there is one material point that I wish to make. There have been many general Debates in this House on old age pensions, and I do not now intend to reproach the Government on the inadequacy of old age pensions. The Financial Secretary has been at great pains to explain that old age pensions are not expected to cover all material requirements of pensioners —they are only supplementary to their income. This Supplementary Estimate to-night is required by the increase of longevity, which goes on year by year; it is not due to the beneficence of this Government.
§ The ChairmanThis Vote has nothing to do with anything connected with the increase of longevity. It is merely an increase above what a certain Department expected.
§ Mr. RidleyI understood the Financial Secretary agreed with me that the Estimate was required because more people managed to survive than this Government expected. That means that there has been an increase of longevity. I will not pursue the point, as I have made it to my own satisfaction.
§ 9.28 p.m.
§ Mr. BateyLast year we discussed a Supplementary Estimate on the same Vote of £187,000. This year it is £200,000. When I noticed how close these figures were I asked what was the reason of it, and I thought the reason was that it was difficult for the Government to give an Estimate of how many widows and other beneficiaries would be paid out of the fund during the year. But the Financial Secretary has swept that away altogether. He says this Vote deals, not with widows, but only with old age pensioners, aged 65 to 70, who are passing out of the class in receipt of contributory pensions into the non-contributory class over 70 years of age. If that is the case it seems to me that there should be no need for a Supplementary Estimate every year. We have been 1864 urging the Government to make an inquiry into this question. If they did so, they would be able to ascertain exactly how many old age pensioners would pass from one class into the other. That should not be at all difficult because they have got the ages of all pensioners, they know the time when they come into the contributory pension class, and they know exactly how many old age pensioners will reach 70 years of age. They ought to be able to deal in the original Estimate with the whole number of old age pensioners who would receive pensions during the year. One is beginning to feel that the Government are dealing with pensions, as they are dealing with one or two other matters, in too narrow a way. They want to cut the original pension down too finely and too low, and because of that they have to come year after year for a Supplementary Estimate. If the Financial Secretary would have an inquiry into this question of old age pensioners, these Supplementary Estimates would be totally unnecessary.
§ 9.32 p.m.
§ Mr. DunnI listened to what I thought was a very lucid explanation of this Supplementary Estimate by the Financial Secretary, and he did not leave me under any doubt as to the class of people to whom this Estimate would apply. It was clear that the pensioners have lived longer than was anticipated, and that a large number have passed the scriptural span. But I am a new Member of this House, and I am trying to find out something of Parliamentary procedure and practice, I wanted to move as an Amendment that the Estimate should be increased from £200,000 to £30,000,000. As I understand that is not possible, I move that the Vote be reduced by £100 in order to put forward my case.
§ The ChairmanI should be very glad to teach the hon. Gentleman something of Parliamentary practice. I understand that the Amendment he proposes is based on a question of policy, and as such it is entirely out of order. That could only come on the main Estimate and not on a small Supplementary Estimate, which is merely to correct the Estimate to the actual amount as ascertained.
§ The ChairmanNo, not after what the hon. Member has said.
§ Mr. BateySurely, Sir Dennis, we have a right to move a reduction in the Vote, and after what I have said with regard to the Government not being able to estimate properly, and because of the whole Government policy in regard to these people, I would like to move to reduce the Vote by£5.
§ The ChairmanWhen the hon. Member spoke before he sat down just at the time when I was going to rule
§ The Chairman—when I was going to rule that what he was saying was out of order. He has now entirely given his case away and shown that he is out of order, because he has referred to the policy and action of the Government. This Supplementary Estimate really has nothing whatever to do with the policy, the administration, or any action by the Government. It results simply and solely from the actual impossibility, which everyone must admit, of discovering the exact time at which one or more out of a million pensioners are going to die. Quite
§ frankly, I cannot see that anything much is in order on this Estimate, strictly speaking, unless it be to congratulate the Department on getting their Estimate within one-half of I per cent. of what actually happened.
§ Mr. DunnOn a point of Order. Then the only thing that appears to be wrong, according to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, is the fact that these people have lived to be over 70 years of age?
§ The ChairmanNo. The hon. Member puts it to me as a point of Order, which it is not, but in so far as it is a matter of explaining or correcting the hon. Member's impression of what I said, it is just the other way round. The mistake is not in the time these people live; it is in the calculation made by the Department which made the Estimate.
§ 9.38 p.m.
§ Mr. E. SmithI beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £5.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £199,995, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 146.
1867| Division No. 53.] | AYES. | [9.38 p.m. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Grenfell, D. R. | Noel-Baker, P. J. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Gosst, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Ammon, C. G. | Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Pearson, A. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Hayday, A. | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Richards, R. (Wrexham) |
| Batty, J. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Ridley, G. |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Hicks, E. G. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Silkin, L. |
| Benson, G. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Simpson, F. B. |
| Bevan, A. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Chater, D. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Cove, W. G. | Kirby, B. V. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Daggar, G. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Dalton, H. | Lawson, J. J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Leslie, J. R. | Viant, S. P. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Logan, D. G. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Ede, J. C. | Lunn, W. | Walson, W. McL. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Maclean, N. | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Marshall, F. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Gardner, B. W. | Mathers, G. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Messer, F. | |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Nathan, Colonel H. L. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Clarry, Sir Reginald |
| Adams, S. V. G. (Leeds, W.) | Boyce, H. Leslie | Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Bull, B. B. | Colville, Rt. Hon. John |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) | Burghley, Lord | Conant, Captain R. J. E. |
| Aske, Sir R. W | Butcher, H. W. | Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Cox, H. B. Trevor |
| Balfour G, (Hampstead) | Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Craven-Ellis, W. |
| Bernays, R. H. | Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. |
| Cross, R. H. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Scott, Lord William |
| Davits, C. (Montgomery) | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lees-Jones, J. | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Donner, P. W. | Leech, Sir J. W. | Shepperson, Sir E. W. |
| Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H. | Lewis, O. | Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | Liddall, W. S, | Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. |
| Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Lindsay, K, M. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Little, Sir E. Graham- | Somervall, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Llewellin, Colonel J. J. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Lyons, A. M. | Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. |
| Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) | McCorquodale, M. S. | Spens, W. P. |
| Foot, D. M. | McKie, J. H. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwish) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Gledhill, G. | Medlicott, F. | Sutclifle, H. |
| Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Grant-Ferris, R. | Moors, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. | Thorncycroft, G. E. P. |
| Gridley, Sir A. B. | Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Turton, R. H. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) | Munro, P. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Wallace, Capt. Rt, Hon. Euan |
| Hambro, A. V. | Owen, Major G. | Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Peters, Dr. S. J. | Ward, Irena M. B. (Wallsand) |
| Hannah, I. C. | Patherick, M. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Unlv's.) | Raikes, H. V. A. M. | Watt, Major G. S. Harvie |
| Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. | Ramsbotham, H. | Wayland, Sir W. A. |
| Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Rankin, Sir R. | White, H. Graham |
| Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| Holdsworth, H. | Rayner, Major R. H. | Willoughby do Eresby, Lord |
| Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) |
| Hopkinson, A. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. |
| Horsbrugh, Florance | Romer, J. R. | Womarsley, Sir W. J. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) | York, C. |
| Hunloke, H. P. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Hunter, T. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. | |
| Hutchinson, G. C. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Russell, Sir Alexander | Mr. Furness and Major Sir James |
| Jones, L. (Swansea W.) | Salt, E. W. | Edmondson. |
| Keeling, E. H. | Sanderson, Sir F. B. |
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.