HL Deb 11 June 1913 vol 14 cc573-82

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to the following passage in a speech made by the Prime Minister at Leven on January 29, in which he is reported to have said— And just remember by way of illustration that there are close upon a million old-age pensioners alone receiving some £12,000,000annually, though on the other side of the account it should not be forgotten that outdoor pauperism has been concurrently reduced by no less than 94 per cent."; and to ask whether the facts and statistics upon which this statement was founded can be made available to the Rouse. Whether a Return could be prepared showing the number of persons of seventy years of age and upwards who have become chargeable to the Poor-law authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and some of the larger centres of population in Scotland since the commencement of the Old-Age Pensions Act. Also a Return showing the number of persons enrolled as members of approved societies who, although they have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act, have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow between January 15 and the end of May.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions which I have put on the Paper will, I think, be admitted to deal with matters which concern large and important points of public policy. I do not propose to go over the wide field of debate which they would seem to indicate, because my object to-day is not to criticise or to find fault so much as to ask for information. There may be points in which criticism may be necessary and even complaint may be justifiable, but I am quite sure that even those who are responsible for either the Old-Age Pensions Act or the National Insurance Act will agree with me that it is to the advantage of both sides that before criticism is passed or fault is found we should have as near as possible an agreement upon the actual facts.

The first Question standing in my name on the Paper has reference to a passage in a speech which is reported to have been made by the Prime Minister at Leven, in his constituency, in the early weeks of the present year. As it stands, it is perfectly obvious to any one who knows anything about these things that there must be a mistake somewhere. The Old-Age Pensions Act, of course, only applies to those who are above 70 years of age, and therefore the proportion, 94 per cent., by which it has been alleged that outdoor pauperism has been reduced in consequence of that Act is manifestly absurd; because it cannot be, even if the whole of those chargeable to the Poor-law above 70 years of age had been completely taken off the list of poor, that pauperism could have been reduced by the amount claimed. There-fore I assume that there must have been an error in the report, and that, even if correctly reported, the claim made by the Prime Minister must have been that 94 per cent. of persons over 70 years of age who were in receipt of Poor-law relief had been taken away. I believe that even that is an undue claim, at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned. All on that point I want to know is this, whether we can have the facts and statistics on which this statement was based in order that we may be able to judge of its accuracy or the reverse for ourselves. It is not absolutely stated that the claim is in respect of Scottish pauperism. The speech was made in Scotland, and therefore I assume that it referred to Scottish statistics. It has been suggested to me since I put the Question on the Paper that it may not have had reference to Scotland, but whether to Scotland or England I still hope that we may be allowed to see the facts and figures on which this claim is made.

Another of the Questions which I have put down has reference to the Insurance Act. I am anxious in this matter to be absolutely and perfectly fair. It is quite possible that in the early weeks and months of the operation of the Insurance Act things may not have been wholly in working order; but 1 have been supplied with a list of individuals, twenty-two in number, who it is represented to me are members of approved societies whose contributions have been fully paid up, both for employer and employed, during the months from January to May, and I am informed that in all these twenty-two cases these individuals have become chargeable to the Poor-law and no recompense has been made by the approved societies to the Poor-law authorities who have discharged the duties in connection with them. I will not, of course, read the list. I can only say that it seems to me to be thoroughly well authenticated. The names of the approved societies with whom these people were insured are given. I have obtained the list from the Inspector of Poor for Edinburgh, and I have no reason to doubt that it is absolutely accurate.

What I am anxious to know is whether we can be informed of the number of enrolled members of approved societies who have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act but have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I add Glasgow as a thoroughly typical large centre of population in the west of Scotland, in order that we may know as far as we possibly can to what extent the Insurance Act in this matter is really fulfilling the obligations undertaken on behalf of it and the promises which have been made in respect of it. I think it is possible—I make this as a conjecture—that the individuals whom I have mentioned may have been casual labourers; they may have been lodged in lodging-houses and may have fallen ill and had to be removed at the instance of the sanitary or medical authorities to the poorhouse. But, even so, there is a failure on the part of the approved society to undertake its obligations; and even if the society is not ready to do it the. Poor-law authorities ought to be recompensed at the expense of the society. It does not seem to me fair that all these claims should be made of the amount of reduction of pauperism, and yet when people whose; contributions have been fully paid become chargeable to the Poor-rate the burden should not be borne in the right quarter. No one would suggest that anything but the promptest relief should be given, and at the expense of the Poor-law authorities if necessary. It is their duty to do it if no one else can step in and do it at the moment. No sort of delay should take place. But I do think, if it be the case that the Poor-law authorities have clone the work, that the approved society to whom the contributions have been paid should not be excused of the burden for which they have received the premiums.

The other Question relates to an even larger matter, to old-age pensioners. From the city of Edinburgh I have received a list of between forty and fifty individuals chargeable there to the Poor-law in the first five months of the present year. In this case a certain amount of recompense has been made. Some small proportion of the cost has been repaid at the expense of the old-age pension which otherwise would have gone into the pockets of the individuals; but it is only, as I am informed, a comparatively small sum which has been so recovered from the pension authorities. I am told—and this I put forward rather for the purpose of inquiry than assertion—by the Poor-law authorities that great difficulties are put in their way in the recovery of the sum from the pension authorities when the old-age pensioner has become chargeable to the Poor-law. I believe it is paid with comparative promptitude if the pensioner is in the hospital, but not otherwise. It does not seem to me fair that a person should become chargeable to the Poor-law and that while he is so chargeable his pension should accumulate and that when he ceases to become chargeable he should then he able to go to the pension authorities and draw all the arrears of pension that have been accumulating and put the money in his pocket, and the Poor-law authorities should have no recompense. Again I am told that if an aged individual is for a long period chargeable—I believe the period is twelve weeks—to the Poor-law, then the pension is withdrawn altogether. I am not quite sure what is the reason underlying that course of policy, if it is so. It may be justifiable or it may not. I am asking for information whether that is the case, and, if so, on what point of public policy it is justified. As I have said already, I do not want to criticise until we know the facts; but I submit that under all the circumstances in which we are placed and in view of the great claims which are put forward in respect of this Act to the credit of the Government we are entitled to know exactly how the matter stands, what is the policy of the Government, the policy of the Insurance Commissioners, and of those who administer the old-age pension funds.

We were told that the Old-Age Pensions Act would empty our workhouses. I wish it would. Mr. Charles Booth was credited with the belief that it would be possible to do away with outdoor relief altogether. Some people held out hopes that the granting of a pension at 70 would be a great incentive to self-maintenance until that age is reached. We have not had long enough time to judge, but if all the reports which reach me are correct—and I am in touch with Poor-law authorities in various parts of Scotland, haying been chairman of my local Poor-law authority for forty-three years, during the whole of which time I have attended two-thirds of the meetings and therefore know well the difficulties which are encountered by those who have to administer the Poorlaw—I am very much afraid that this hope about self-maintenance up to 70 is not being fulfilled. When all the facts and figures are made known I am afraid it will be found that a good many people are going on the Poor-law before the age of 70 who would not have done so under former circumstances. There ought to be, and the Government ought to see that there is, as complete co-operation as possible between the authorities who have to administer the respective funds in question; and those who are dealing with the same class of people, often with the same individuals, should know as far as possible what each other is doing.

It is an English instance; but since I took up this point a pamphlet, reprinted from the Economic Journal of December last, has been sent to me by a Mr. Bailward, and on page ILI of this pamphlet there appears this pregnant passage. It refers to London, and therefore may not be strictly germane to the Question on the Paper, which refers to Scotland. But this is what is stated in the pamphlet— In at least one London union careful statistics have been kept since the Old-Age Pensions Act came into operation, with the result that in the case of that union 240 pensioners have received relief from the guardians, and of this number 136 came into the workhouse or infirmary, 29 received both indoor and outdoor medical relief, and 75 outdoor medical relief only. Many of these cases here relieved for unbroken periods varying from six to twelve months. Several have been continuously receiving relief since taking their pension. In all these cases, except in six, When the pensioners came into the workhouse they continued to receive their pension.…Notwithstanding the Chancellor's s7aternent that guardians could get an officer nominated to receive the pension, every obstacle has been placed in their way by the pension authority, who apparently look upon the guardians as a hostile authority. This lack of co-operation is most unfortunate. In one case a pensioner was admitted to the infirmary suffering from senile debility and in a verminous condition. The relieving; officer found that he had been living with a woman much younger than himself, who retained the pension book for her use. He reported the case to the pension officer, who said that it was 'no business of his' I venture to say that if any of that is at all approaching the truth it is quite time that somewhat different instructions were given. I do not say that it is absolutely accurate. There may be another side to it. But I do say that, taking the facts and figures which I have given the House from Scotland and this quotation from a London union, it is time we had more information than we have at the present time, and I make an appeal to the Government to give us as much information as possible in order that we may see the trend of their policy.

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT)

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord who has asked these Questions today that it is very desirable that we should as far as possible agree about the facts, and I have much pleasure in giving him the facts on which the statement of the Prime Minister to which he has referred was based. The exact number of old-age pensioners in the United Kingdom on the last Friday in March, 1912, was 942,160, and at the same date in 1913 was 967,921. The provision made for the payment of old-age pensions in this year's Estimates is £12,538,000. The figure of 94 per cent.—and this is the point about which the noble Lord is really inquiring—mentioned by the Prime Minister had reference, as was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place recently, and as, I think, is clear from the context, to the effect of old-age pensions on outdoor pauperism among people of 70 years of age and upwards.

The actual figure of 94 per cent. relates to England and Wales, the reduction in the number of persons over 70 receiving outdoor relief being from 168,096, a figure which was obtained in the year 1906 when a census was taken for the Royal Commission on the Poor-law, to 9,530 in 1912. That is a reduction in England and Wales of 94 per cent. I can give the noble Lord the reference to the Blue-books in which these figures appear if he desires. For Scotland there was a reduction in outdoor poor of 70 years of age and upwards from 13,860 in January, 1909, when the number of paupers over 70 years of age was first ascertained, to 2,324 in September, 1912—a reduction of 83 per cent. for that different period in Scotland. The reason why the figure cannot be given for 1906 in Scotland is that the figures were taken between 65 and 75 years of age; there was no dividing line at 70 years of age. I ought to explain also that in a considerable proportion of the cases the relief granted consisted only of medical relief. That is my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question.

I now turn to the second part, in which he inquires whether a Return could be prepared showing the number of persons of 70 years of age and upwards who have become chargeable to the Poor-law authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and some of the larger centres of population in Scotland since the commencement of the Old-Age Pensions Act. I am informed that the number of persons aged 70 years and upwards who were in receipt of parochial relief, indoor and outdoor, from the Poor-law authorities of the parishes of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and twenty-three other large centres of population on January 15, 1913, was 2,356, of whom 1,658 were in poor-houses, 228 were old-age pensioners in receipt of medical relief, and 470 were outdoor paupers. The actual Return which the noble Lord suggests would, I think, be more troublesome and expensive to make than its value when made would really justify; but I have a Return which I shall be very glad to hand to him showing the details of the figures of the twenty-seven large centres of population in Scotland on which the totals that I have just given him are based.

The noble Lord has made some criticism upon the Old-Age Pensions Act. It is not my intention to-day to enter upon any general discussion of that question, neither would it be my business to do so; but the particular complaints that he has mentioned refer to general questions which arise, or are apt to arise, equally in England as in Scotland. I am not able to answer him in reference to the individual cases which he mentioned to-clay, of which I heard for the first time; but perhaps I may make one or two general observations on the questions raised in the remarks that the noble Lord addressed to the House. The subject which he has introduced is a very thorny and difficult one. Not the least formidable part of it is that serious objection would probably be taken in many quarters to a close association between Poor-law administration and old-age pension administration as being contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the old-age pension legislation in this country.

Complaints are being made on the question to which the noble Lord referred by Poor-law authorities in this country and no doubt also in Scotland, and the complaints usually fall under two headings. In the first place, as regards the receipt of disqualifying Poor-law relief, instances are known where old-age pensioners have managed to evade the provisions of the Act, and on their discharge from the institution have withdrawn the arrears of pension which accumulated during their stay. In the second place, as regards medical relief, which does not generally disqualify, it is possible either for the pensioner to allow his pension to accumulate during his sojourn in the Poor-law infirmary and withdraw it in a complete sum on coming out and perhaps spend it upon an orgy, or to arrange for the pension to be received by a member of his family while he is in the Poor-law institution. Proposals have been put forward for the total abolition of the Poor relief disqualification and for payment of the pension to the authorities during the period of chargeability to the rates. This would transfer large responsibilities from the Poor-law authorities to the State, and I do not think it would be advisable under existing circumstances. It has also been suggested that medical relief as well as ordinary Poor-law relief should disqualify for pension. On administrative grounds, of course, there is something to be said for the latter proposal, but on other grounds there are really serious objections. Particularly I may mention the hardship to the pensioner of losing the pension during temporary illness. So much as regards the question of an alteration in the law.

I would now like to say one or two words about the administration of the law. As regards evasion in respect of Poor relief certain precautions are taken. The pension officer has to visit the pensioner in his home at intervals, and in Scotland the Poor-law authorities notify the pension officer if the pensioner becomes chargeable on the rates, and in return the pension officer notifies the Poor-law authorities in any specific instance whether or not the individual is an old-age pensioner. I am not maintaining that the position is altogether satisfactory. Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation on the subject from the Association of Poor-law Unions and the. Central Committee of Poor-law Conferences, and promised to give consideration to the subject of administrative changes, but he was not able at that interview to adopt any of the specific proposals that were put before him.

As regards pensioners in receipt of medical relief, I may refer to a reply given by my right hon. friend Mr. McKinnon Wood when lie was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in answer to a Question by Mr. Hicks Beach in another place on November 15, 1911. The substance of that reply was that any assignment of a pension is invalid in view of Section 6 of the Old-Age Pensions Act; and that if the pension is drawn by an agent the agent must pay over the money to the pensioner forthwith, in accordance with the undertaking given on each occasion on drawing the pension on the pensioner's behalf. It is, of course, difficult to enforce that provision unless the pensioner himself complains of any default in regard to it. Moreover, if the money passes into the pensioner's hands the guardians appear to have power to appropriate, so that the practical state of the case is this. An old-age pensioner may appoint as his agent a Poor-law official, who in that case would pay the money over to the Poor-law authorities. He may, on the other hand, appoint a friend or relative to draw his pension, who would in that case have to pay the money over in the same way to the Poor-law authority. The pensioner may, however, allow the pension to accumulate, and he can draw it up to three months limit when he leaves the Poor-law infirmary. There is the further possibility, if the circumstances do not come to the notice of the pension officer, that the pensioner may appoint an outside agent, who by arrangement does not pay over the money hut expends it on the pensioner's behalf, for example in the payment of rent. I have admitted that the position is not very satisfactory, but the difficulties appear to be inherent in the system of allowing concurrent receipt of pension and medical relief; but, as I have already stated, there are formidable objections to the abolition of that system. What I can say about the matter is that the class of cases is not very numerous. I think the worst case is where the pension accumulates and may be spent in a night's dissipation after it is drawn, but this case is met to some extent by the provision that the accumulation can only take place for three months. Every effort is made in the administration of this Act to avoid abuse as far as possible.

I now turn to the noble Lord's third Question. The noble Lord asks whether a Return can be granted showing the number of persons enrolled as members of approved societies who, although they have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act, have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow between January 15 and the end of May. In regard to this Question, I can only give the noble Lord the figures. I did not know what he was going to say, and therefore I have only been provided in this case with the figures, which I shall be very glad to give to him. I am informed that the number of fully paid up members of approved societies under the National Insurance Act who have been relieved by the parish council of Edinburgh between January 15 and May 31 of this year is 46; the number for the parish council of Glasgow is 490. I believe that the two figures are prepared on the same basis, but I am not quite certain. I think I ought to say that in addition 150 fully insured persons were granted relief by the latter parish council on behalf of wives and children, the occasion of the application being in most cases physical or mental illness. I have only one observation to make about these figures. Of the 490 insured persons who have received Poor relief in Glasgow more than nine-tenths were relieved in institutions, either in the poor-houses or in asylums. Section 12 of the National Insurance Act provides for the stopping of the payment of sickness, disablement, and maternity benefit to the insured person whilst such person is an inmate of a poor-house or asylum, and the money which the insured person would otherwise have received is to be used primarily for the relief or maintenance of his dependents. I apologise for having occupied so much time in answering the noble Lord's Questions, but my excuse must be that I was anxious to give him the fullest information in my possession.