DEATH GRANT

HC Deb 02 November 1972 vol 845 cc479-90

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty)

My concern with the problem of death grants arises from experience of a constituency case, and I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment so that by this case I may illustrate the gross deficiencies of the present system of death grants and the accompanying benefits.

A constituent came to see me in July. She is a lady in her late 50s with a husband aged 62 who has been out of work for six years because of a chronic heart condition. This couple had cared for my constituent's twin sisters, who were deaf, dumb and blind from birth. They had cared throughout their married life for the twins for 30 years. One of the sisters died at the beginning of the year. The couple were provided with the £30 standard death grant to meet a bill for the funeral costs of £78. They thus had £48 to find.

For a family in such economic circumstances this meant desperation. My constituent came to see me and on her behalf I wrote to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. She stressed to me that she did not want to provide her sister with what she called a pauper's funeral, but at the same time she was worried almost to distraction by the prospect of finding the £48 for the funeral which she knew she had no hope of paying by herself.

I wrote to the commission and received a reply from Lord Collison, the chairman, which proved what I already believed—that for the poor in our society the distress and sadness of death of a loved one also brings the anguish and fear of bills which simply cannot be paid. That is a justifiable generalisation from my constituent's case.

We think in terms of the fact that most deaths occur among the old—that is obvious. Many old people in our society are poor. Indeed, 2 million of them claim supplementary benefit and many more could do so if they went about it the right way. In not making the concessions which have been appealed for from both sides of the House, successive Governments have condemned poor people to a burden of worry which accompanies the misery of their bereavement.

Lord Collison told me of the general powers which the Supplementary Benefits Commission has when it is approached by a citizen requiring assistance with death expenses. In his letter of 27th July he said: As far as the Supplementary Benefits Commission is concerned, there is I am afraid no specific provision under the Ministry of Social Security Act for the award of supplementary benefit to cover funeral expenses. This follows from the fact that the responsibility for arranging burials or cremations where it appears that no other suitable arrangements have been made rests with local authorities and hospital management committees …If, therefore, a person does not act through these bodies but makes private arrangements we feel that it is reasonable to expect the expenses to be met privately. Nevertheless, in very special circumstances, the Commission does sometimes use its general powers of discretion in order to help with such expenses…Before making such a payment however the Commission would need to be satisfied that the expenses could not be met privately, by the person who arranged the funeral or by close relatives of the deceased, or from other sources such as charitable organisations. The attitude held by the Commission, whatever feelings may be held by Lord Collison, who is an honourable man, is determined by the brief from which it has to work. It is conditioned by that terminology: Before making such a payment however the Commission would need to be satisfied that the expenses could not be met privately by the person who arranged the funeral or by close relatives of the deceased, or from other sources such as charitable organisations. The letter added: …in considering what help may be expected towards a funeral bill from close relatives of the deceased, the criterion is their ability to contribute and not their willingness to do so". I therefore make three submissions in appealing for an urgent review of the death grant. First, I submit that the current grant of £30, last revised to this figure in 1967, bears no relation whatsoever to the real cost of death in 1972. Secondly, I submit that the criteria employed to decide whether an exceptional needs payment should be made are unrealistic and inhuman. Thirdly, I submit that the reliance on provision for death expenses from private funds such as insurance, trade unions, burial clubs and so on is clumsy and inadequate.

I want to concentrate my attention on the first two submissions because the deficiencies of private provision are self-evident. The fact is that if there were adequate and universal provision of private finance for meeting the expenses of death we would not need State benefit at all.

Death is a very expensive business, and the £30 grant would not buy any kind of funeral anywhere in the United Kingdom. In 1949 the National Association of Funeral Directors agreed with the Government that a "simple funeral" would cost £20. The 1949 Act provided that the death grant would be £20. The NAFD now reckons the cost of a "simple funeral" to be £69.75, which was also the figure mentioned in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) some months ago by the Department of Health and Social Security. In spite of the fact that the Government and the professional association recognise that the cost of a simple funeral is £69.75, the death grant is £30.

A simple funeral—and I think that everyone has an interest in what is meant by a simple funeral—means an elm coffin, the delivery of that coffin, bearers, a hearse and one car. That is what the NAFD told the Poverty Action Group, which has been very helpful in assisting me in the collection of the necessary figures and statics for this debate.

The grant does not cover the provision of flowers. Flowers bring solace to the bereaved, and are also an inescapable social requirement in many communities and families. It does not provide for obituary notices, which have a vital cultural and social significance in many communities and families.

There is no provision in respect of removal charges of the body, which are applicable in most circumstances and in all circumstances in the eventuality of death in hospital. The grant does not provide for the opening of graves or for cremation charges. The charges for cremation itself are usually in the region of £9 or £10. In addition the British Medical Association has laid down that doctors should charge £4 each for examination of the body, and by law two doctors must examine a body which is to be cremated after death.

It is no exaggeration to say that a "no frills" funeral in 1972 will cost £80. A consituent of mine—Stan Vind—happens to be the chairman of a trades council, and he advises me that value added tax will have to be paid on coffins, shrouds, memorial services, wreaths and tombstones I do not advance this as an argument for not entering the European Economic Community, but it is an additional cost to be taken into account on top of the already forbidding bill for death.

Alternatives exist for the bereaved who are too poor to meet the cost of death. First, they can have burial by the local authority or by the hospital management committee. It is an inescapable fact that for generations to come many people in this country will associate a publicly provided funeral with a pauper's grave. I do not think that anyone would be inhumane enough to want to saddle people with the feelings of guilt and recrimination that go with that. Secondly, the bereaved quite simply remain in debt to the undertaker—which is unfair to the undertaker and to the bereaved. It also depends upon the sense of charity of the undertaker. Many are very compassionate and generous men. Thirdly, the bereaved can appeal to the Supplementary Benefits Commission for an exceptional needs payment.

That brings me back to Lord Collison. In the letter to which I referred earlier, he said: Nevertheless, in very special circumstances, the Commission does sometimes use its general powers of discretion in order to help with such expenses. This must be the most exceptional of exceptional needs. It is certainly the most exceptional means test that is employed among the many and growing number with which our society is already burdened. Whereas other means tests usually take into account only the income of the family unit that is applying for assistance from the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the various other authorities which provide additional finance, this particular means test apparently is applied to just about any member of the family that the SBC feels should contribute towards the cost of a funeral. The SBC makes no scientific or supportable moral judgment but simply a presumption about the ability of the remainder of the members of the family to pay, and not even their willingness.

When I read that, I was not sure whether the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission was Pontius Pilate or Mr. Bumble the beadle. It appeared to me to be the most outdated, self-righteous and insular disregard for people's feelings and family relationships. That certainly does the commission no good. It does the Government no good. This is a black mark against our whole sector of social priorities.

I have great regard for Lord Collison as a man and for individual civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Security who are faced with the unenviable task of meeting the distressed public and explaining these things to them. But they need to have liberalised powers of discretion and they must be told by the Government that when applications are made for exceptional needs allowances only the income of the immediate family should be taken into account; and that means the family unit who have taken the responsibility for burying the deceased person.

The Supplementary Benefits Commission will use that criteria in another direction. Let it use it in a progressive direction. It has already said that it identifies those who have taken responsibility for attending to the burial arrangements.

There are some who continue to think that a large death grant would be squandered on spectacular funerals by the irresponsible poor. There are some who think that if we were to introduce a more liberalised system of discretionary allowances for those who cannot afford the funeral expenses, the family would conspire in order to qualify for the exceptional needs allowance. But those fears can easily be set at rest. An increase of the basic death grant to £70 could well leave large debts unpaid in what people call a "decent funeral", a "simple funeral" in the words of the NAFD. The cost would be about £14 million on top of the £l1 million already paid in death grants. If, however, the Government cannot be moved to such generosity, may I appeal for a more civilised approach to discretionary allowances as an interim concession to the poor who are bereaved?

I hope that the Minister will not shuffle around with words such as "We must get priorities right" or some of the half-promises he indicated when answering a debate on this matter earlier this year. He is a humane man and realises the problems attached to the business of burial and the expenses resulting from death.

If we really want to test our social priorities, here is a whole area of destitution in the most distressing possible circumstances. By the simple action of asking the Supplementary Benefits Commission to be more generous in its discretion, a significant degree of succour could be brought to those who require it at the time of bereavement.

10.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)

The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said that his particular interest in this problem of the death grant arose from a constituency case on which he has been corresponding with the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I am sorry that at one stage in his speech he felt it necessary to criticise the commission for the way in which it uses its discretionary powers. The most sympathetic of men serve on the commission but they do have regulations which they have to observe and which are laid down in this House. I hope that the hon. Member will feel that any criticisms he makes should be made to me and not to Lord Collison and the members of the commission.

Mr. Kinnock

May I take this opportunity of repeating what I think I said in my speech? They have to operate the rules which are laid down. My appeal was for more liberal rules.

Mr. Dean

The hon. Gentleman understandably said that death is a time for anxiety and fear. Indeed, it is a time of sadness and emotional strain for those who are involved, a time when a dark shadow goes over the lives of relatives and loved ones of the person who has passed away. It is a time when comfort and support are needed a great deal, and it is also a time of extra expense.

The National Insurance Scheme has tried to recognise this since 1948 when the death grant was introduced, over and above the arrangements which are now available through the Supplementary Benefits Commission and in certain cases through local authorities and hospital authorities.

The hon. Gentleman has stated a case for an increase and, of course, we shall consider sympathetically what he said. He said that he hoped I would not refer to priorities. But, of course, I must refer to priorities because it is one of the harsh realities which anybody standing at this Dispatch Box has to consider. It is very easy for anyone on either side of the House to make a very good case for increasing almost any social security benefit that one likes to think of. We would all like to increase all of them, but, unfortunately, we have to consider where our priorities should lie, particularly when one takes into account the fact that social security benefits as a whole are now costing about £100 million a week. All this money has to come from contributors and taxpayers, most of whom, of course, are the working population. More than 600,000 deaths occur in Great Britain every year, and about 75 per cent. of these are people over pension age.

Therefore, it can be argued that where a choice has to be made it is better to give elderly people more when they are alive than higher grants when they are dead. We have responded to this by no fewer than two increases in the pension in the last 13 months, which have amounted to a total of £1.75 single and £2.80 for the married couple. In addition, we have introduced the new pension for the over-80s who were previously excluded. We have introduced an additional 25p for pensioners when they reach the age of 80.

We now have an annual review of all these benefits and a guarantee that they will be improved before the onset of each winter at least enough to ensure that the value is restored. In addition to that, there are the new allowances for the disabled, many of whom are over pension age. I think these show clearly that we have responded to the needs of the elderly.

Another factor, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree we have to take into account, is that the expense of burial is not a burden which falls entirely on the surviving spouse. The cost of the funeral is the first charge on the estate, and in the majority of cases there are resources available from the estate, from insurance, from trade union funds and savings, which meet at least part of the cost. In addition to this, in many cases, although admittedly not in all cases, there are children or other relatives who are able and, indeed, often proud to bear part of the cost. Very often they regard it as their filial duty to do so. I put these points to the hon. Gentleman not to deny that there is a case for looking at the death grant, because of course there is, but to put to him that these are legitimate factors that we have to take into account when we are considering where the priority should lie.

Mr. Kinnock

I agree that those are all legitimate factors, but the fact is that the surviving members of pensioner families will not be able to pay any proportion of the expenses of death out of even the increased pensions of which the hon. Gentleman is so proud. Also, although one would in no way wish to interfere with filial duty, and one knows very well that many are proud to exercise that duty, a large number of people seem still to fall through the net, and an extension of the discretion open to the Supplementary Benefits Commission would cure that problem.

Mr. Dean

I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall be coming to it in a moment.

The rate of grant, as the hon. Gentleman said, was £20 in 1949. It was increased in 1958, to £25, and in 1967 to £30. In other words, up to now, since the grant began in 1948, there has been a nine-year gap between increases irrespective of which Government have been in office.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that each year the National Association of Funeral Directors agrees a maximum charge for funerals at minimum standards. This charge does not include church, cemetery or cremation fees. The last maximum charge agreed—that is, the current one—was £69.75.

I do not deny that the death grant has fallen behind the rising cost of funerals. However, successive Governments have seen fit to raise the amount of the grant at only infrequent intervals. The amount of grant lagged well behind the minimum cost of funerals during the whole period of the last Labour Administration. I do not say that in any way to make a political point but to stress again that all Governments have found in practice that they must consider the priority of the death grant along with all the other grants which are made available to various sections of the community.

Having said that, however, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the level of the grant will be kept under review, and the question of increasing it will be fully considered for next year's uprating along with all the other claims to improvements and to the resources which are available.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the death grant was an entirely new benefit introduced under the 1946 Act. Unlike most of the provisions of that scheme, there was no corresponding benefit in the preceding schemes. Contributions towards the grant, therefore, started only in 1948, and no grant was payable in respect of any death occurring before July, 1949. Consequently, people who were over pension age on 5th July, 1948, are not covered, and people who were within 10 years of pension age on 5th July, 1948, could qualify for death grant at only half rate.

This has been looked at on several occasions and has been examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It has always been concluded that the present arrangements should stand.

Since the introduction of the grant in 1949, the rates for children have always borne the same relationship to the adult rate: under three years of age, 30 per cent.; three to five years of age inclusive, 50 per cent.; six to 17 years of age inclusive, 75 per cent. That is the grant under the National Insurance Scheme payable on the basis of contributions made to the scheme.

The hon. Gentleman spent much of his time referring to the arrangements under the Supplementary Benefits Commission. As he knows, where no special arrangements have been made local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure burial or cremation and, when they do so, they may recover the costs from any national insurance death grant, from the estate or, in certain cases, from the person who was legally responsible for the maintenance of the deceased before death. Similarly, hospitals in England and Wales may arrange for the burial or cremation of deceased patients.

If the commission is approached for help before a funeral is arranged, the person concerned will be told of the responsibility placed upon local authorities and hospital management committees so that he may consider making an approach to the appropriate authority, but local authorities and hospitals are unable to accept any responsibility after a private funeral has been arranged.

In these circumstances the commission, as an exceptional measure, will consider allowing an exceptional needs payment—but only in relation to the circumstances of a person who incurs a funeral debt. Its responsibility to a supplementary benefit claimant ceases on his death. It is therefore immaterial whether the deceased had been receiving supplementary benefit before his death.

One of the points the hon. Gentleman was making as a result of his experience with his constituent was that the attitude, the regulations and the procedures were too restricted. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall want to consider carefully the points he has made and have another look at the case of his constituent. I am sure that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will do the same. I clearly cannot give any definite commitment to him tonight but I hope that I have been able to show that we are not unsympathetic and that we recognise a need to assist people so that the expenses of burial can be met in a decent manner which will be satisfactory to the family concerned.

I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that this must be one of many priorities within the social services sphere. It must be in many cases the harsh duty of Government to try to allocate these priorities, and in so doing to balance the needs of pensions and benefits for those who are alive against the arrangements which are made within the National Insurance Scheme and through the supplementary benefit arrangements for the expenses of death.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.