HC Deb 17 July 1961 vol 644 cc858-62
4. Mr. Hannan

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what adjustment in the National Assistance scale rate for a husband and wife, both of whom are blind persons, is necessary to give that scale rate the same percentage increase over the period from July, 1948, as in the ordinary scale rate for a husband and wife.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

To preserve the same proportionate differential as in 1948, an increase of 18s. 9d. in the special scale rate referred to in the Question would be necessary. In real terms the value of the current level of this special rate is approximately 22s. 8d. above that in effect in 1948.

Mr. Hannan

Since, in 1948, there was a differential of 62½ per cent. over the ordinary scale and today it is only 41 per cent., is this not a problem to which the Minister should apply greater energy and attention to re-establish the former differential?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

No, I do not think so. I do not think that the differential as such has any great importance. What is important is to preserve, maintain and improve the actual value of the scales, which, as the hon. Member knows, we have done. Indeed, the differential itself is a good deal less significant now that the National Assistance Board makes such full use of its discretionary powers.

Mr. Hannan

Surely, in these days, particularly in view of the cost of living to an incapacitated blind couple, it is the 18s. 9d. that matters and not the figures quoted so easily by the Minister?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

What matters to them is not the differential but the 26s. increase in the purchasing power of the scale since 1951.

16. Mr. Manuel

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many blind persons in receipt of a weekly assistance allowance have been granted a weekly discretionary allowance; what proportion of such blind persons this is; and what is the average weekly discretionary allowance in such cases.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)

I regret that no recent figures of the discretionary allowances granted specifically to blind persons are available.

Mr. Manuel

Does the right hon Lady not think that the number of these discretionary allowances is fairly highly applied over the whole number of blind people receiving assistance? If that is the case, would she not agree that there is good evidence that the basic pension should be increased?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

There are, of course, already the additional special allowances which go to blind people. In the case of a married couple of whom one is blind the rate is 22s. 6d. above the normal rate; in the case of a married couple of whom both are blind it is 37s. 6d. above the normal rate. I do not think the hon. Member can have it both ways. The National Assistance Board exercises, I believe with great humanity, the discretionary allowances, and it is just not fair to say that if they go up then the system is wrong, and if they go down still the system is wrong. I believe that the Board deals with these matters most sympathetically and generously.

Mr. Ross

Surely the right hon. Lady appreciates why this Question is put down? In answer to Questions about the percentage last week the Minister told us that we had to bear in mind that the discretionary allowances were paid by the National Assistance Board. Unless she can provide us with the figures of the number of persons who get this help and the average amount—because the average amount, overall, is 7s.—we can hardly be satisfied with the Minister's answers.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

On top of the fact that the blind receive allowances in accordance with a special scale, there is the fact that they also form a reasonable proportion of those who obtain the discretionary allowances. I think the hon. Member will realise that there are many people on National Assistance who do in fact get discretionary allowances. There has not been an inquiry individually for some years into the proportion of those getting discretionary allowances who are blind.

Mr. Lawson

How does the right hon. Lady know what people are getting when she has just told us that the information is not available? Is it not a fact that a couple, one of whom is blind, ought to he getting 11s. 3d. more at present and 18s. 9d. more where both are blind? Is not this very substantially more than even the discretionary allowance of which the right lion. Lady is speaking?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

The hon. Member is once again completely overlooking the fact that the present value of the standard rate of National Assistance is far higher in real terms than ever it was before. The additional allowance is paid for those who are blind, 22s. 6d. for one blind person in a couple, 37s. 6d. for a couple both of whom are blind. On top of this, a reasonable proportion of those who are receiving additional allowances—

Mr. Ross

How many

Miss Hornsby-Smith

—discretionary allowances are blind people.

Mr. Ross

It is no good the right hon. Lady saying it is a reasonable proportion when she cannot tell us how many there are. If she cannot tell us how many there are, how are we to judge whether it is reasonable or not?

Mr. W. Hamilton

Answer.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

Even if I gave the hon. Gentleman the percentage, it would still not necessarily prove possible to judge the merits of the individual case.

Mr. Manuel

Would the right hon. Lady appreciate that the whole point of my Question is that these amounts being paid in National Assistance and discretionary allowances lead me to believe that the basic pension is too small? I wish she could give us the proportion of blind people getting these allowances, in order that we could build up the evidence to prove very clearly that the basic pension needs some further boost.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I think the hon. Member is overlooking the fact that the whole purpose of discretionary allowances is to aid people who for various reasons need that additional help. I do not find it a criticism of the National Assistance Board that it is able to find out these cases who require that extra, additional discretion exercised on their behalf, nor do I think it is against the Board's record that the number of discretionary allowances may increase rather than lessen.

18. Mr. Lawson

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the total cost of raising the National Assistance scale rate for husband and wife, one of whom is a blind person, to such level as would give that rate the same proportionate differential over the ordinary rate for husband and wife, as was established in July, 1958.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

About £500,000 a year.

Mr. Lawson

Does this not indicate that blind people are in fact being denied the equivalent of the £500,000 which they would have received if they were being paid now on the same differential as they were paid in 1948? Would not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The fallacy of the hon. Member's argument is that the same differential would be maintained on the present blind scale rate if the ordinary rate were lower. That, I think, does make it clear that what is important is the actual purchasing power of this particular provision, which, as I told the hon. Gentleman last week, in real terms is 24s. 6d. above what it was in October, 1951.

Mr. Houghton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that blind persons feel and are entitled to feel that by the abolition of the differential they have been written down in the scale of the social services? Does he not realise that the change in the differential is bound to give rise to a feeling of resentment even though there has been an increase in the net purchasing power of the allowance made to them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

There has also been an increase in the absolute amount of the differential itself, but there is certainly no question of the blind people being treated with less care and consideration than formerly. Indeed, the contrary is the case. What, I think, modern thinking in this connection does emphasise is that there are other disabilities of a crippling nature, which makes it impossible to pick them all out for special rates, and that it is much better to leave the Board to deal with each case on its individual merits.