HC Deb 28 June 1944 vol 401 cc759-68

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."[Mr. Adamson.]

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)

The point I wish to deal with arises on a Question which I put to the Minister of Health on 25th May. I asked the Minister if he was aware that the payment for rent under the supplementary old age pension is, in the case of the single person living in lodgings, being calculated as being two-thirds for rent and one-third for heating, lighting and crockery; and will he state if this is in accordance with the Assistance Board's ruling."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 25th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 931.] The Minister of Health in his reply said that it was so, that the Assistance Board in attributing the amount to rent take into consideration the circumstances of the individual case; that is to say, if a man pays a certain amount for his lodgings then it can be sub-divided under certain heads. I will give the House an illustration of that point.

Some time ago I was in the public library at St. Helens. I would like to advise hon. Members who may want information about people who are hard up and in difficulties, to go to public libraries because these people congregate there to let off their views and to give others an idea of what is happening to them. This man asked me whether I was aware of his position. I said I was not. He said, "I am living in a common lodging house and am getting 22s. 6d. per week from the Assistance Board and my old age pension, that is, 12S. 6d. from the Assistance Board." I said, "What do you pay for your lodgings?" He said he was paying 5s. I said, "You are entitled then to 25s." That was my idea but, to be quite sure of my position, I put a Question to the Minister of Health and asked whether I was in order in giving that information. He said that this man was entitled to look upon himself as a single man living alone and was entitled to rent plus the £1 per week, but did not say definitely what the amount should be. I assumed from that answer that what the man was paying in lodgings—whatever the sum might be—would be under the heading of rent, and he would get that in addition to the £1per week which is his old age pension and supplementary pension. He might be paying 5s. or 6s. and that would be called rent. I told old age pensioners of the ruling from the Minister of Health.

Later I met an old man and in the course of conversation I asked him his circumstances, being moved to pity for he had not a decent suit of clothes on, and his shoes were worn down, yet I knew he was respectable. I asked what he was getting by way of old age pension and he said 23s. a week, that is, 10s. old age pension and 13s. supplementary pension. I asked him where he was living and he said he was living with a woman who took in lodgers, paying 6s. a week for his lodgings. I said, "You are entitled to more than 23s. Go to the Assistance Board and tell them from me that in my view you are entitled to 6s. for rent, that is, 16s. in all from the Assistance Board." He said that he had had so much trouble over it that he did not like to face these people. However, that did not satisfy me so I took up the matter myself and I wrote to the area officer of the St. Helens district and told him that in my view, on a ruling of the Minister of Health, this man was entitled to 6s. per week for rent. He said they would examine the case again and they sent for the man and increased his allowance from 13s. to 14s., making it 24s. in all, but the officer said I was wrong in my calculation that this man was entitled to the full 6s., that the Assistance Board ruling was that this should be sub-divided and that a certain amount of the rent he paid for lodgings should be applied in other directions. He said, "In this case the ruling from my Board is that 2s., or one third of 6s., shall come under the head of lighting, heating and crockery, therefore this man is entitled only to 4s., which we are giving him. We have recommended another 1s. on your application, and have made it 24s."

I said I should have to raise this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons because I was not satisfied, but before I did that I would like to see him personally to discover the point of difference. So we met in his office and talked, and I asked if what he was doing in St. Helens was typical of the whole of the country. He said: "I believe so. I think that is the ruling of the Assistance Board, and therefore what we are doing is in keeping with the rest of the country." I could not believe it was so, and I said, "I want to give you warning that I shall raise this by Question and answer, and if in the House of Commons we do not get full satisfaction in reply to a Question, we raise the matter on the Adjournment." This I have done, so the matter is now before the House to find out exactly what is meant. This position is deplorable. Many of these people have no regular homes, either because their homes have been broken up or because they may not have married. They may go into a common lodging house, or live apart from relatives, and have to pay 5s. or 6s. a week. I always understood that in such cases it would be said that such payments would come under the heading of rent, and would be paid by the State. I do not want it to be thought that if a man pays 10s. a week, or some such relatively high sum, he would get all that money from the State, but a reasonable sum like 5s. or 6s. should be repaid as rent. It is hard that this odd shilling or two should be taken away from supplementary pensions. I find that what I have said is the generally-accepted rule in the country, and if that is so I appeal to the Ministry of Health to review the whole position. Men who are in dire need should not be deprived of a few shillings a week which they are legitimately paying for lodgings. I have brought this matter forward in order to get the light of publicity thrown upon it. As I sat here listening to the Debate on the Finance Bill—I was not paying great attention to it because the Amendments on the Order Paper did not cause me to do so—I became aware that the Chancellor gave way on a number of points.

On directorships, he said that where there were two or more directors the increase in their fees should be excluded from Supertax. He said it would cost only £600,000 a year. If the House of Commons can grant £600,000 to well-to-do people, is it too much to ask the same House of Commons, later in the day, to give, say, £50,000 to these poor people? This House of Commons should not be a rich man's Parliament; it should be a Parliament for all our people. I imagine that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has come here to-day primed with what she has to say. I know she is sympathetic in her heart, but she has not the power or authority to do what we would like her to do, and I wish that her chief, the Minister himself, had been here to answer this case. I am always more at home when fighting the male rather than the female. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because the hon. Member is a bachelor."] Perhaps it is that, but at any rate I am sorry that the Minister himself is not here. If the hon. Lady refuses to accept our plea I shall be indignant, but I should be far more indignant with the Minister if he were here.

Mr. Ness Edwards (Caerphilly)

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put forward his case with his usual sincerity and eloquence, a type of case that must appeal to the hearts of every Member of this House. I am in a little difficulty about the matter, because if this contribution is to be treated wholly as rent what happens to such a contribution in the case of a lodger who is living with old-age pensioners? I then become hoist with my own petard. If the rule is that half the lodger's payment is to be regarded as rent contribution is that all the old-age pensioner is entitled to when he is living with other people? Conversely, if it is all to be treated as rent and the lodger is living with old-age pensioners, the whole amount will be deducted from the rent before they get the rent allowance. That is my difficulty. In the case of old-age pensioners who are living in lodging-houses there ought to be no question about meeting my hon. Friend's case, because it is a special type of case, in which the amenities provided are very small. After all, they will not get such a warm welcome in an ordinary lodging-house as in a private house, and there ought to be a concession as regards that part of my hon. Friend's case, especially after all the concessions we heard of earlier to-day to coal owners and directors. This concession will cost much less than the concessions to coal owners and directors.

Now I come to the point of the pensioner who was living with other people, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend. I admit there is a difficulty in that if you say if he pays rent and is living with a non-pensioner it is good for him, but that once he goes to live with a pensioner it will be bad for them all. I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary will get out of the dilemma, but I hope she will endeavour to meet the case of old age pensioners who are living in lodging houses.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)

I, too, would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider sympathetically the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). When people live in model lodging houses—I have never been able to understand why they are called "model"—a definite charge is made for rent. It may well be that they get a little light or heat, but we are getting very near to the Micawber attitude when we start to sub-divide these little things. When we get to that stage we are becoming pernickety and miserable. Nobody can divide these things with accuracy. Not being good at anything, I always find difficulty in adding, subtracting and dividing, and most of these poor people find difficulty, too. When they come to me I say, "I cannot follow these mysteries myself, but I do know that after I have argued the case the Ministry will prove that what is being done is according to scale, and that is the end of the matter."

These people feel that in some way or other they are not getting what they are entitled to get. These pin-pricking deductions do not make anybody any happier, even the officials. I would be the last to say that the Assistance Board officials were bad men and women; they must feel the irksomeness of all this, and that what they are doing is not quite right. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Lady to make a new approach to the matter. When the Regulations were introduced the Minister of Labour made a case for abolishing the winter allowance. Few of us are as smart either as the Cabinet Ministers who pilot these Regulations through or the officials who run them. We can launch out millions at times on a particular object but, in dealing with these people, we apply the narrowest and meanest of tests.

There is another point I wish to raise with the hon. Lady. I doubt if much can be done, but I would ask her to look at this again. Under the Savings Clause, money put into a Trustee Savings Bank up to a certain figure is exempt. Will she see if she cannot get the term "Trustee Bank" extended? One or two cases have come to my notice where people have saved money since the war but instead of putting it in a Trustee Savings Bank they went to a branch of the Clydesdale Bank or the Union Bank, where the teller was civil and courteous. The rate of interest does not matter. What they want is security and, above all, a readiness to help in little matters, so they put their money into an ordinary bank. Then the husband dies and the widow has to make a claim. The sum, though it is used in the same way as money in a Trustee Savings Bank, is treated differently. I know that it is possible to use cute dodges to get over the difficulty, by lifting the money and transferring it, but they should not have to go to that length to get what is obviously intended by the Regulations. I hope the hon. Lady will deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend about persons in lodging houses. Possibly, if the Government were more generous to old-age pensioners, we might not worry about such a little point, but it is because the margin is so narrow between want and terrible misery that we raise it. I hope the hon. Lady will look at these issues again and try to get them readjusted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh)

I know the difficulty about the Savings Bank, but, as the hon. Member knows well, the point about these savings is that it must be new money lent to the Government. The difficulty is the difference between a Trustee Savings Bank or the Post Office Savings Bank and the banks the hon. Member has mentioned. To change it would mean legislation, but I think one can get round it. I am certain that the teller in the Clydesdale Bank would say that the money could be put into Savings Certificates or Bonds instead.

Mr. Buchanan

If it was a sum of £200 and it was in the Post Office they could lift it to pay the rent, say £3 each quarter.

Miss Horsbrugh

If they do not want to put it in a Trustee Savings Bank does not the hon. Member think that, in most cases, there is a post office fairly near the home of the pensioner? There may be cases of difficulty, but I do not think there can be any very great hardship. They could get Savings Certificates or Bonds which they could lift, but, at the same time, there is the post office, if they wish to draw it out more quickly. The hon. Member also raised the subject of the winter allowance. There were sometimes difficulties in the beginning, but now that the scheme has been rearranged and the winter allowances are spread over the whole year I think the particular difficulties that the hon. Member refers to will have been got over.

I come to the main point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). We have to look at this from both sides. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) saw some of the difficulties himself. It has been said that these are pernickety things, and the hon. Member pointed out clearly that we want all these pernickety things in the case of a lodger living with pensioners. We call it "pernickety" and "Micawber" in one case, but if we did not do it in the other both hon. Members would be on Adjournment after Adjournment pointing out that we were not doing what we ought to do. Take, first of all, the straightforward case of an old-age pensioner getting £1 a week plus rent. That rent will be the actual rent paid for the house, but that old-age pensioner out of the £1 a week is paying for fuel, light and everything else barring the actual expenditure on rent. We have agreed to that and that is what is working nov[...] If we did not make this difference for the person who is paying an inclusive sum for rent, light and fuel, if we were being fair to one we should be unfair to the other, who would naturally feel that he was not getting a fair deal.

We have tried to get a fair scheme, and we hoped that this scheme with the actual rent—a reasonable rent—would help us. But if we are to put under the heading of "rent" the other things that I have enumerated, naturally every pensioner is going to say he is not getting a fair deal. The £1 a week is given for everything else except the actual rent. A person who is living in a lodging house pays a sum which includes certain other things besides rent, such as fuel and light; and if it did not stop there we should get on to food next. It would not be fair to the other pensioner who is having to use his £1 a week, which is given for those expenses. He would naturally say, "In addition to the a week and the rent I also should in fairness be given the money that I spend on fuel, light or any other things that are supplied." I think hon. Members will see what difficulties we should get into and that the £1 a week which is given separate from rent would have to be augmented if payment were given to other people in addition for fuel, light OT anything else charged in that sum. We want to get the thing fair and to treat people in such a way that they may see that it is fair.

The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out how difficult it is to understand the intricacies of the scheme. What we have to make clear is that in the case of the £1 a week plus rent the rent really means rent as he and I know it—the actual shelter afforded by the house. If we do what is now suggested we are going to make it more difficult for people to understand and the people who are paying for fuel and light out of the £1 a week will naturally say they are not getting a pension on the same scale as the others. I am sure that hon. Members will come forward with that exact case. I do not wish to labour the point of what it would mean if we went to that extent and then had to use the same scale when a person was lodging with a pensioner. In this scheme there is fairness between one and the other. If we depart from it we shall get into further difficulties and make it unfair and make it difficult for people to understand. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members. It is perhaps a good thing that the point has been raised. I am sure the hon. Member for Caerphilly sees the danger if we pursue this any further.

Mr. Tinker

I still think that where it is a small sum of 4s. or 5s. it ought not to be cut into.

Miss Horsbrugh

It all depends what the person is getting for his 4s. It is difficult to put the case with these hypothetical sums.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I think the hon. Lady is wrong in saying that old-age pensioners as a whole believe this to be fair. I hope she will not go back to her chief and report that she has had a controversy with three hon. Members and left them all perfectly satisfied. Things move so rapidly that even this, which is only six months old, is already out of date, and the old-age pensioners' conditions have deteriorated relatively since the House passed that Act. I was anxious to reintroduce the petition for a flat rate of 30s. a week for all pensioners. When I came to discuss it with one or two people who are interested in the matter I found that there was a general view that 30s. was not now adequate. I hope that the hon. Lady, in conveying a report of this discussion to her Minister and her Ministry, will tell them that in the House there is great discontent with the whole position of old-age pensioners.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.