HC Deb 03 November 1949 vol 469 cc758-66

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

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)

I make no apology for introducing the subject of the National Insurance Regulations at this late hour. I have been waiting patiently for a number of months, and had it not been for the long period of waiting I might have considered at this late hour postponing raising the matter. I feel convinced, however, that I must take this opportunity of raising it. At the outset I wish to state quite definitely that I am criticising neither the Minister of National Insurance nor the chairman of the Assistance Board. While I have some misgivings about certain actions of the Board, I am not going to criticise them.

The background of my battle for some alteration in the National Insurance Regulations began on March 15th, 1948, when I was disturbed at what was taking place on the administrative side of the National Assistance Board. Despite the fact that I attempted in every conceivable way to plead the case of those people who were in receipt of national assistance, the situation became worse. Fifty-four weeks later I approached the National Assistance Board with a deputation from the people who were affected and aggrieved at what was taking place. While it is true that on that occasion we did get some little alleviation of the sufferings and poverty of those people who unfortunately had to seek assistance from the Board, I remained, and still remain, dissatisfied with what was taking place.

On 5th July of this year, I put a Question to the Minister of National Insurance asking him to consider the advisability of reviewing the National Insurance Regulations, and their application to the old people of this country. Since that date we have had two Debates on the economic position of this country, which revealed difficulties confronting the nation in many aspects. I have always remembered that I was taught at school that difficulties are a means of progress if tackled in the proper way, and I am firmly of the opinion that something could be done to help the old folk of this country, if there was the will to do it.

I am not unmindful of the difficult times through which we are passing, but we cannot—I will go further, and say we must not—sit by and allow the veterans of industry and commerce, who are now feeling the full and severe economic blast which has blown upon us during the past two years, to suffer in this way, without doing something. A former Prime Minister of this nation, Lord Asquith, in 1908, when face to face with a similar set of circumstances to those with which we are faced today, gave expression to these words, which I want to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance. This is what he said in this House: But are we, because of the difficulties, and because of the complexity of the task, to sit still with dumb lips and bewildered brains and palsied energies, while this great procession of the poor and necessitous and unfriended linger out the last days of their lives of strenuous service given to industry and the State? These are the words uttered in 1908, 41 years ago. In that year, there were approximately 1,750,000 people over the age of 65. Today, there are over 4,500,000 people over the age of 65, so that the need for further consideration to be given to the needs of these people is greater today than ever it was in the history of this country. Not only from my day-to-day experience of and contact with them, but from the many distressing letters that I have received, as have other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, from old age pensioners, I am convinced that many of the old folk, if not living in abject poverty, are living very austere lives and are forced by sheer economic circumstances to live such lives.

I see them every week in various parts of my constituency, which is well-known to this House as an industrial area, where great industries have been built up and have gone down, and are now being built up again, and where large numbers of people are suffering, as I have said, from the economic blizzard which has blown over this country. The thought of their suffering week by week, tears out my heart. I cannot rest until they get something like justice. They are suffering. Although I am aware of the perilous state of the country, we must make sure, as Britishers, that the old folk do not suffer.

I am fully aware—no man more so, than myself—of the improvement that has been made by this Government in the direction of the increase in the basic rate, but I am not going to deal with that. It came into operation on 6th October. What is disturbing me is the rise in the prices of many commodities over the last 18 months, which has completely cancelled out the concessions made by the Government in an increase in the basic rate of pension from 10s. to 26s. for a single pensioner, and from 20s. to 42s. for a married couple.

Many items of food have increased by 8.2 per cent.; rents and rates have been increased; clothing has increased by 16.1 per cent.; household and durable goods by 8.8 per cent.; miscellaneous goods by 9.3 per cent.; services by 5.1 per cent.; drink and tobacco by 10 per cent. Roughly, therefore, the cost of living has increased by over 9 per cent. That was before the devaluation of the pound—and that fact alone warrants the consideration that I am asking should be given to the revision of the regulations which govern the supplementary pensions now being paid to those who have to seek them.

The rise in retail prices has been faster in the last few years than for a long time past. If we take the White Paper on National Income—Command Paper No. 7371—issued by the Treasury in connection with the Budget, it shows that the average prices in 1947 were 10 per cent. above the average prices in 1945 and that prices continued to rise, so that by December, 1948, the new Index of Retail Prices of the Ministry of Labour showed a rise of 9 per cent. above the prices of June, 1947. So there was a rise of about 20 per cent. above the 1945 prices.

I have been searching to find some impartial body—leaving on one side the Ministry of Labour's index figures—and I have turned my attention to the London Co-operative Society, which is not a political body by any means, but an impartial body. Figures given by the Society reveal that 30 articles of food have increased in price; 21 articles of clothing have increased; and that five main articles of furniture have also increased.

I then turned my attention to another well-known authority, but before I quote from him, let me say that if we were to accept for a moment the Ministry of Labour's cost-of-living index, replaced by the Index of Retail Prices of 17th June, 1947, then these two indices showed a rise in retail prices which meant that between September, 1946, and January, 1949, the cost of living rose by 9 per cent. On the basis of these very unsatisfactory figures, it should be noted that, compared with September, 1946, the value of the spending power of the pound has fallen considerably and that makes it more difficult for the old people to buy the ordinary comodities they need to keep life and soul together.

I turn very hurriedly to quote from another impartial inquirer into these things, Mr. Donald Sears, who, writing in the "Oxford Bulletin of Statistics," said: Some of the items are seriously over-weighted and others under-weighted. According to his investigations, the over-weighted items are rent, meat, bacon, coal, soap and men's clothing. The under-weighted items, he says, are fish, vegetables, electricity, furs and entertainment. He makes one further point—that a number of items which affect the cost of living of working-class families have not been included at all. In a very long list that he gives, and which can be found in the "Oxford Bulletin of Statistics," he includes special bread, fish, dried eggs, invalid food, furnished lodgings. Even the Minister's index at present, when compared with the old index, does not give the prices of representative articles which change in price from month to month.

I beg of this House and of the Ministry of National Insurance, who to a large degree control these regulations, to bear these facts in mind. I should like to point out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the future increases in prices. He said on 27th September, 1949: There will undoubtedly, in the course of time, be some increase of prices, especially in articles made mainly of dollar raw materials.… We must, therefore, expect, as I have already said, some gradual increases in the prices over the next few months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th September, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 24.] Speaking on 4th October, he gave this warning about increased costs: There will, of course, be same decrease in consumption due to the fact that the cost of living will rise without, we hope, any rise in personal incomes. That will be a burden which will fall almost entirely upon the wage-earner, and will be felt most heavily by those with the lowest incomes. There is no section of the people in this country with lower incomes than the old folk who have to seek assistance from the Assistance Board.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should get this matter in its true perspective in relation to the increase which has taken place and which is bound to take place in the cost of living. There are three Departments concerned, in the main: the National Insurance Department, with their high-level officials; the National Assistance Department, with their high-level officials; and the Treasury, with their high-level officials. I suggest that these three Departments should get together with the will and determination to bring about some alteration in the National Assistance Regulations before the winter of 1949–50 becomes more severe upon these old people.

11.48 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

I want to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), but perhaps in a different application. He has dealt with the increased cost of living, and I want to deal with the subject as it affects the aged persons who are admitted to hospitals or institutions throughout the country.

To my knowledge there have been two surveys, one of them made by Dr. Sheldon of Wolverhampton, on the admission of aged persons to hospitals and why they were admitted. The figures show that three per cent. of the aged persons were being admitted because of malnutrition. At my request there has been completed in Liverpool a report on the admissions of aged persons—over 50—to one of the hospitals in Liverpool. The period is 1948. Of the total admissions to hospital it was found that 3.7 per cent. were because of malnutrition alone. I have no reason to doubt those figures. In Liverpool I am a member of the aged persons sub-committee dealing with these peculiar problems.

If that is the position in an industrial area, I think the Ministry of National Insurance should request an immediate survey and report from other industrial areas of the incidence of malnutrition among aged persons who are being admitted to hospital. I believe that the incidence of malnutrition has now been completely removed from the child life of the country, but has been replanted in the aged people who are going to hospitals. That is a very serious state of affairs, a state of affairs which this Government at any rate cannot allow to continue without taking some very definite notice and calling for reports of various sorts from various places.

On this matter local authorities now have the responsibility. The National Assistance Board pay supplementations, but the local authorities have the responsibility for the welfare of the aged. They provide any additional services which are required. We in Liverpool, on a survey taken of people living alone, or perhaps two together, find that the situation is so serious that we are compelled almost immediately to make provision for the supply of meals because these people are definitely going short of the actual necessities of life.

Like my hon. Friend, I am not pressing for any increase in the basic amount. I do not believe that there should be a general increase, but to all these people who have nothing but their old age pension, the 26s. is quite inadequate to supply the whole of the needs of aged persons living in their homes. Same very extensive supplementation of the 26s., apart from the rent, must be considered as soon as possible. We in local government are finding it necessary, under Act of Parliament, to provide hostels for aged persons, and the cost per week of these hostels is about three times what we pay to the aged person at home. If we are talking about economies, is it not much better to pay the aged persons the amount that will keep them in their own homes that to build hostels that will cost eventually between £4 10s. and £5 a week for each person? Small hostels of between 35 and 40 beds are not particularly economic units; they need the whole of the attention services, and they are pretty expensive.

Having regard to these two features, the incidence of sickness and malnutrition and the need for hostels, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will think that some inquiry is necessary and also that increased supplementation is necessary.

11.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele)

I am sure all of us agree that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), over a long period of years, has taken a very great interest in the old people of this country, as many hon. Members have done on this side of the House. I am also sure that he has a great deal of satisfaction, as all my hon. Friends have, at the improvements which this Government have been able to make over the past four and a half years. In fact, from the legislation which we have been able to put on the Statute Book and actually to bring into operation, not only the old people, but many others who were suffering adversity have benefited greatly.

The other thing of which I should like to remind the House is that many Debates have taken place on the Assistance Board scales but most of them that I have read took place in an atmosphere much more heated than it is tonight. I am sure there has been a great change in the discussion of these regulations and scales. When I had the honour of moving the present regulations in June last year, there was a very thin House, no one spoke against them, and everyone warmly welcomed their introduction. They came in very smoothly, and the National Assistance Board have carried them into operation very well indeed. I should like to indicate what was the effect of these regulations when they were brought into operation, and I quote from the report of the National Assistance Board for 1948, which contains a wealth of information and shows the good work which the Board are doing. They say: Of the recipients of outdoor relief 8.1 per cent. had gained sums of more than 10s. a week, 22.7 per cent. had gained between 5s. and 10s. a and 36.9 per cent. had gained sums between 6d. and 5s. a week. Of the recipients of blind domiciliary assistance, 17.4 per cent. had gained more than 10s. a week, 27.6 per cent. had gained between 5s. and 10s. a week, and 29.1 per cent. had gained sums between 6d. and 5s. a week. I think we ought to get the position into proper perspective. The report shows that only a year ago when these regulations came into force, over the whole country, there was a substantial gain. These are the scales in operation. But another thing happened in regard to these regulations: there was added a number of disregards which had not been in operation before. And there is something else which is a valuable power in the hands of the National Assistance Board officers, and something that cannot be put into regulations, rules or directions, and that is the discretionary power which the Board's officers have and do exercise.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

What is the percentage actually affected?

Mr. Steele

I have the figures here, and it is interesting to note that in November, 1948, out of 963,000 recipients of assistance, 265,000 were in receipt of discretionary or added allowances; for instance, additions were made for laundry, domestic help, special diet, extra fuel, and many other things which are not even classified. For 1948, they amounted to a total sum of roughly £3 million. I want to bring that out, because it indicates that the Board are using this valuable discretionary power to ensure that where there is special need and an extra allowance is necessary it is put into effect.

The hon. Member for Ince indicated that there was a great deal of distress and dissatisfaction about the scales, and went on to mention some of the things that have been happening; but I should like to say that even in the question of a discretionary grant there is a right of appeal by the applicant to have his case reconsidered by an independent tribunal. All I want to say about that is that in 1948 there were only 5,350 appeals against the decisions of the Assistant Board's officers. Of those only 1,220 had their rate increased. I think that indicates that the Board's officers are carrying out the wishes of this House and reflects great credit on them.

All I can say on the question of scales—and I think hon. Members appreciate the position—is that under the National Assistance Act, as regards regulations dealing with the assessment of need, it would be for the Board to put forward to the Minister proposals for amending them if at any time they thought that in all the circumstances amendments were called for. I need say no more on this point—

Mr. T. Brown

Has that been done?

Mr. Steele

—except that we shall all study carefully the report of this Debate. I will convey to my right hon. Friend what hon. Members have said in the course of the Debate and ensure that the points which have been made are brought to his attention.

Mr. Swingler (Stafford)

Have they been put forward?

Mr. Steele

All I can say at the moment is that I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the wishes of hon. Members on this matter; further than that, I regret I cannot go. I am sure this Debate has been useful. It has drawn attention—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.