OLD AGE PENSIONERS

HC Deb 23 November 1953 vol 521 cc153-62

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

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Dartford)

We have had a debate on the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is my task to talk about the army of old age pensioners who seem to be getting the worst of all that is bad. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, winding up a debate earlier today, mentioned that, with the exception of one speaker, there had been no party politics during the discussion. I reflected as he said that how he had mellowed from the time when he was one of the worst—or the best—sharp shooters of the Opposition. It is wonderful how when hon. Members are in Government they like to think that social services should be treated on a non-party basis.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that about an hour ago I got a letter from an old age pensioner quoting from the "Surrey Advertiser." The heading was: Tories have done more than Socialists for pensioners. This was a speech made by a junior Minister who said that old people were naturally still in straitened circumstances; that while the Socialists had been in power from 1946 to 1951 they had been given no benefits at all but that under the Tories there had been a 25 per cent. increase. I shall try later to show that that is a dishonest statement.

Today at Question time and last Monday it must have been obvious to hon. Members that there is little chance of making any impression on the Government by Question and answer. Last week the Minister got away with a lot because of the limitations of Question time. There is one other matter which has been obvious not only at Question time but during recent debates. It is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be completely oblivious of the real hardship which exists among old age pensioners.

One of the great tragedies of the time is that the Minister depends upon statistics which obviously do not fit in with the facts. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Minister of Food seem to claim in debate and at Question time that old age pensioners are better off now than ever before. This makes the old people angry because it is not true. During the last fortnight I have spent some time making first-hand investigations in the homes of old age pensioners.

I have been appalled at the stories I have heard from the old people. Not only is it difficult for them to get fuel, and not only have they to save on the basic necessity of food, but many of them are unable to raise the money to have their boots and shoes repaired to keep out the wet. There is no question at all of their getting new boots or shoes. Many of them have been to the National Assistance Board for money to pay the bills so that they can get their boots and shoes from the cobblers, but they have been told that that expenditure is covered by the ordinary scales.

Last week the Leader of the House wound up the food prices debate for the Government, and he seemed to treat the hardship of the poorer old age pensioners as a huge joke. How different that was from the attitude of the Conservatives when in October, 1951, they were seeking to win votes by hook or by crook. Then they tried to woo the old age pensioners. I have here a document sent out by the Tory Central Office especially for old age pensioners. It is headed: Retirement pension order book. Due on Fridays. Inside it says: Hard times for old age pensioners. This is not a real old age pensions book. But to every old age pensioner it is a bitter reminder of the hard times they are having to endure. Rising prices and the high cost of living hit every one, but it is the old age pensioners who suffer worst of all. The next bit is very illuminating: Even the new rate of 30s., introduced this month… That was under the Labour Government— …for those who qualify, has been left behind by galloping prices. If the 30s. was left behind by galloping prices in October, 1951, how much more has the 32s. 6d. been left behind by the increase of 15 per cent. in food prices which the Chancellor mentioned earlier this year in debate and the subsequent increase, which, although small, is still an increase.

Then I come to the final page. This is no doubt designed to win votes. It says: When a Conservative Government is returned the position of all pensioners—including war pensioners—will be reviewed. It is part of Conservative policy to see that help goes to those who need it—and that it goes in time. Those who need it most will get it first. The document was designed to reassure old age pensioners that under a Tory Government they would be at the top of the list for benefit.

During the food prices debate last week the Leader of the House made fun of the use by the Opposition of the phrase "rationing by the purse." He said: Under a system in which money enters into all transactions, rationing by the purse is inevitable, and has been all down the years…."—[Official Report, 10th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 899.] He went on to say that the dress of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) was rationed by the purse, that the suits of male hon. Members were also, and so were tobacco and other commodities. I wonder how this applies to old age pensioners who are trying hard to obtain the bare necessities of life. It is felt by many that this sort of approach is not good enough at the present time in view of the plight of the old age pensioners. This is a wicked change from the attitude of the Tory Central Office before the 1951 General Election.

It is no use the Minister saying that the real policy was in the policy document "Britain strong and Free." I have not met a single old age pensioner who has read that document, but I have met a surprisingly large number who listened to the political broadcast a few days before the 1951 Election, given on behalf of the Conservative Party by the Chairman of that party. He said: One false rumour was that if the Tories came to power they would cut the food subsidies—a charge in which there was not a word of truth. They cannot appeal to your reason and so they arouse your fears. Well, do not be misled; do not let them pull the wool over your eyes. There were many old age pensioners who, because of the bedside manner of Lord Woolton, believed that. They feel, therefore, that they are not getting a square deal in view of the attractive statements that were made by Conservative spokesmen and in Conservative documents.

It is the breaking of that promise that has had the effect of raising the price of food at a time when world prices should have meant that the price was falling. The miserable increases that have been made under the Tories are certainly not sufficient to justify the bright prospects that were handed out prior to the Election.

In the debate on 10th November, the Food Minister, as is reported at Col. 812 of the Official Report, quoted from the National Food Survey and made the case that the old age pensioners were taking up as much of the rationed goods as any other class, including the wealthy. The Leader of the House, winding up the debate, went even further and said that in the first quarter of this year old age pensioners took up more than the other classes. That indicates that the statistics in this case are not speaking the truth and that some other method must be used if the truth of the present circumstances is to be known. For example, the Minister of Food said that old age pensioners were taking up 100 per cent, of their butter ration. That is not the case in my constituency, and I am convinced that if an investigation was made the general position would be found to be vastly different.

Last week, in the "Daily Herald" there was a report headed Food too dear for these old folk. It mentioned that in South Wales many of the old people are now as badly off as the unemployed were in the 'hungry 'Thirties'. This information was given from responsible people of the Glamorgan County Council, and the report continued: Mr. D. H. Davies said that the Port Talbot Medical Officer had reported that the old people's situation was becoming steadily worse because of soaring costs. The "Farmers' Weekly" of 28th August makes it quite clear that in their opinion the food prices are too high for many of the people to make purchases; and that applies particularly to the old age pensioner. I have a number of other similar quotations, but time does not permit of my using them.

The claim seems to be prevalent that it was the Conservative Party who were giving the 6s. 6d. increase on the basic pension. As the document from the Conservative Central Office pointed out, the increase from 26s. to 30s. took place under the Labour Government. The announcement was made in the 1951 Budget, but because of administrative difficulties it was not until 1st October, 1951, that it was possible for the increase to be put into effect. It is thoroughly dishonest, as the Minister himself has claimed, to disregard completely that the biggest percentage of old age pensioners obtained the 30s. during the period of the Labour Government.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West challenged the point about old age pensioners buying 100 per cent. of their butter raton, the Minister of Food asked by what other method could it be known how much they were taking up than by the National Food Survey. Those who have studied the matter know very well that it is a phoney statement that old age pensioners are taking up the whole of their butter ration at the present price.

Last week I asked the Minister if he would come to my constituency and meet some of the old age pensioners in order to get first-hand information about their budgets. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had plenty of his own. Is the Minister, then, going to see old age pensioners in his own division to get that information? One of his constituents is not waiting for that. I have authority to quote her as having challenged the Minister to visit her in her own home to get the facts. She is Mrs. Florence Mattison of 27, St. Martin's View, Leeds, 7. If the Minister will call there, he will know a lot more than he knows now about the position of these old people.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the Minister that the National Food Survey does not show the true position of these people and, if he is serious, I ask the Minister to make another survey. Since, however, speed is necessary, I suggest that it be made in a single Parliamentary constituency, if necessary that of the Minister himself in Leeds. I am certain that it would reveal some startling information calling for action.

I am trying to be fair, but up to now the attitude of Ministers to this question is that they could not care less and that they use all kinds of statistics in a doubtful way to evade the main issue. I ask now that they will get down to finding out the facts and that they will take action necessary to implement their pre-Election promises as they have done for their friends the bankers, the brewers, the road hauliers, the steel barons and, before long, the large landlords.

10.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) for his choice of subject to night. As the hon. Gentleman said, the important thing in this matter is to get evidence, and reliable evidence. Hon. Members on all sides of the House are equally anxious to do that. We have tried to do so by means of the National Food Survey, a method which was employed by our predecessors in office.

Mr. Dodds

It is not good enough.

Mr. Turton

The hon. Gentleman says it is not good enough, but the figures in the National Food Survey are revealing ones. The surveys were instituted at the beginning of 1951. They deal with the calory intake of the old age pensioners. I want to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to those figures because, although they do not show a very bright picture, they show a considerable improvement. They show that in the months of January and February, 1951, the calory intake of the old age pensioners was 7 per cent. below the requirements based on the British Medical Association scales. That was at the time when the Sheffield survey was being instituted. They also show that when we introduced the increase in retirement pensions last year, the level rose to just over 100 per cent. of the requirements of the B.M.A., and the most recent figures show that for the first quarter of 1953 it was 4 per cent. over those requirements.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for the trouble he has taken tonight but also for the trouble he took during the Summer Recess to advertise in the provincial Press asking pensioners in distress to write to him. He said he expected to get a large number of letters, which he would send on to the Ministry. That advertisement received great prominence in one of the London evening papers. The hon. Member has sent my right hon. Friend all the letters that he has received.

Mr. Dodds

No, I have a great many more.

Mr. Turton

The hon. Member has sent 15. I thought that they were all the letters. We examined them very closely. I can tell the hon. Member the results of our examination. Of the 15 letters, three were general letters which did not give any specific instances and, consequently, we could take no action on them. One letter was from a war widow. She remained anonymous and we could not trace her, but she said that she knew that she could obtain Assistance but did not wish to claim it. One letter was from a man who was not yet an old age pensioner and who complained about the earnings rule.

That leaves 10 cases. Of these the first was that of a man earning £6 a week as a car park attendant. He complained about the earnings rule. The next two were from married couples with incomes of £5 a week from various sources. The next three were from married couples with incomes of between £4 and £5 per week. The seventh case was that of a couple receiving £3 6s. 6d. per week and living rent free. The eighth case was a single man owning his own house and running his own greengrocery business. He had an income from all sources of £2 7s., in addition to his profits from the business.

The ninth case was an old lady with an income of £2 12s. 6d. and £300 in savings. In view of a letter which we received from her, she has been invited to apply for Assistance. The final case was an old lady with an income of £2 1s., out of which she paid a rent of 6s. 2d. She has received recently a special grant from which to buy shoes.

Mr. Dodds

In view of what has been said, may I say—

Mr. Turton

I really have not the time to give way. I have only a little over 10 minutes.

Those were the 15 letters which the hon. Member sent as a result of an advertisement. I was grateful to him for sending them, but in not one single case was there a pensioner who was existing only on his retirement pension. If hon. Members have cases of constituents who are not receiving their rights under the National Insurance Acts, I beg of them to write to me. I shall be most happy to investigate those cases.

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

They are on National Assistance.

Mr. Turton

If there are people on National Assistance who are not receiving just and humane treatment from the National Assistance Board, I am certain that the chairman of the Board will be most anxious that hon. Members should write to him giving full details so that those cases can be properly investigated. We all have a duty to look after our constituents in these matters.

I notice that the lady mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford, who was a constituent of my right hon. Friend, had a mention in the "Daily Worker," and I have read that report. We each have our job in this House to look after our own constituents. Some have to administer Departments, and, of course, we have to attend the House and we cannot go about visiting each others' constituents. I appeal to hon. Members to do that part of the work themselves and send me the results.

Let us look at the main problem. To be successful, our social security scheme must have four main elements. First of all, there must be uniformity of benefit: secondly, the benefits received must have an unchanging money value; thirdly, the Fund must be in a position to bear its future commitments. Lastly, if the insurance scheme is not at a subsistence level—and I readily admit that our National Insurance retirement pension benefit has never been at subsistence level—then there must be adequate scales of National Assistance to relieve distress and destitution.

Those are the four points. When this Government came into office we found uniformity of benefit no longer there. For example, those who were sick and unemployed were receiving 4s. a week less than those retired with a birthday earlier than 1st October, 1951, and those with a birthday later than that date had to wait no fewer than five years for the extra 4s. Then, the money value of the pension. We found that under the 1946 Act, it had lost its purchasing power year by year so that, by September, 1951, about 4s. 8d. of its real value had gone. We found that the commitments of the Fund were such that there would be a deficit of just under £400 millions by the year 1977. As regards Assistance, there were these scales which had looked after the interests of pensioners ever since the National Assistance scheme was introduced. Admittedly, the scales had been raised. They were 20s. in 1946. Later they were 24s., 26s. and, finally, 30s.

The first thing we did was to review matters, and review them as we had promised in that very document which the hon. Member for Dartford has read tonight. We brought in uniformity of benefit, and raised all benefits to the level of 32s. 6d. and 54s.; and as a result of measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the real money value of the pension has been very nearly unchanged in the 18 months since it was introduced. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite brought in this interim index of retail prices, and they should know that, in the last 18 months, that has varied by something below 2 per cent. [Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to disagree; I will let them have the figures.

Mr. Dodds

I asked about the survey.

Mr. Turton

It is no use the hon. Gentleman interrupting me. With regard to National Assistance scales I am very glad to be able to say that, by the new arrangements, we now have them at a higher level than they have been at any time. Perhaps I might translate that into purchasing power. We find that the National Assistance scales which were introduced in 1952—the present rates of 35s. and 59s.—correspond in terms of the value of money in 1946 to 25s. and 42s., compared with the actual rates at that time of 20s. and 35s. In terms of 1946 values, the single man and the married couple on Assistance are respectively 5s. and 7s. a week better off than in 1946.

This matter of the level of pensions is one of deep concern to all hon. Members. I should dearly like to see the pension scale somewhere in the region of what would now correspond to the 1946 level. But in order to achieve that we have to solve the problem of the future deficit in the National Insurance Fund. For that purpose the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed the Phillips Committee to examine the financial provisions for old age. Next year we shall be having the quinquennial review of the scheme.

I can assure hon. Members that my Department and the Government care deeply about this problem and that we shall take all the steps in our power to correct it. Meanwhile, I beg hon. Members to help us in our responsibility to see that the old age pensioners in our care get just, decent and humane treatment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Eleven o'Clock.