POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 17 February 1938)

LORD O'HAGAN
My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Briefly the position is that under the Contributory Pensions Act it is provided that any man or any woman who is benefiting under the Act and who enters an institution for reasons other than medical treatment must forfeit his or her pension to the State. The effect of this, as your Lordships will appreciate, is that the people, both men and women, in these institutions, have not a penny piece to spend on themselves for any purpose. When you consider the conditions under which these old people have to live in these institutions I think you will agree that the absence of any pocket money is not a good thing. In fact, it constitutes a real hardship. After all, those who at an advanced age have to go into these institutions are people who have served the State in their walk of life, no doubt the majority of them in an honourable manner, and it does seem a hardship that in their old age they should be placed in this position.
The bad effect of such a state of things has been recognised in many places by those who are responsible for the conduct of these institutions, and a certain small amount has been given to some of these old people, but of necessity that has been done outside the law. I think I may claim that all those interested in the welfare of these old people have for a long time been very anxious that this state of affairs should be remedied. The simplest way obviously would be to amend the Act itself, but although I believe the Government are not unsympathetic to the objects and the intentions of this small Bill, there seems to be no indication that the Government are prepared to deal with the matter at the present time. No doubt it would involve the alteration of the Act as part and parcel of further amendments and so far as I can see there is no indication of that being done. Meanwhile, of course, this condition of affairs exists, as it has existed for many years, and I think those who are directly interested and very conscious of this state of affairs should do what they 754 can from the back benches to see that the proposed change is carried into effect.
The Bill comes to your Lordships' House backed by the names of members belonging to all political Parties. I have no doubt that in your Lordships' House the Bill will also receive support, at any rate for its intentions, from all sides. The purpose of the Bill is to give power to local authorities to make weekly payments not exceeding 2s. to all pensioners of 65 years of age and upwards. Undoubtedly this would be a great benefit to those who are in public institutions and who, as has been already stated elsewhere, are there either because they have no one to take care of them or because there is not sufficient accommodation in the way of houses at low rents to enable such a man to live within his means or married couples to live together. Your Lordships may ask how the sum of 2s. has been arrived at. I understand that it is looked upon as a proper proportion of the 10s. pension to be retained seeing that they no longer have to maintain themselves.
There is an element of opposition, I understand, not so much to the intention as to the machinery of the Bill. I would like to point out to those who share that view that this Bill is a permissive one and not a mandatory one. I hope that may go some way towards meeting possible objections. I am also given to understand that some apprehension has been caused that the Bill might adversely affect ex-Service men's interests. I am told by the promoters of the Bill that they have received a definite assurance from the Minister of Pensions that the interests of those men are already adequately protected by statutory powers, so that point, I think, need not trouble your Lordships. I understand also that there is a very great volume of opinion among those who have been directly concerned with the management of these institutions in favour of the proposals in this Bill, or at any rate the intentions of the Bill, because it may go quite a long distance toward making life in these institutions as human—if I may use the term—as possible. In view of all these circumstances, and in view of the great body of support already expressed for the intentions of the Bill, I have every confidence in moving the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I am sure that if it is passed into law it will do 755 something to implement the desire of us all to make the latter part of the lives of these old age pensioners more contented and more happy.

§ LORD ELTISLEY
My Lords, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has said, the object and intention of this Bill is to empower county councils and county borough councils, by virtue of their duties as public assistance authorities, to make allowances not exceeding 2s. a week to aged inmates of public institutions who are by Statute debarred from receiving their old age pensions because they are in such institutions. The associations on whose behalf I venture to address your Lordships this afternoon—the County Councils' Association, of which I have the honour to be president at the moment, and the Association of Municipal Corporations—share the same views. These great bodies yield to none in their sympathy with these old people, and therefore they are in complete agreement with all those who think that some personal allowance should be made for these distressed persons, for many reasons but principally on humanitarian grounds. There are two ways, however, of carrying out this desirable object and the County Councils' Association are strongly opposed to the method selected by the promoters of this Bill, under which the proposed allowance of 2s. per week—it is true it is a permissive allowance—would have to be paid out of, and the expense met by further additions to, the rates of the country. They take the view, and I think properly take the view, that the expenditure necessarily incurred under the provisions of this Bill should be met not out of the pockets of the ratepayers, who are already overburdened and who have to pay their rates whether their businesses are flourishing or otherwise, but rather by the taxpayers of the country. This change in the method of raising the necessary funds would not affect the interests of these poor distressed persons. They would, I am sure, raise no objection, because it would be the same to them whether the money came from the pockets of the taxpayers or of the ratepayers.
May I remind your Lordships that if this change were made it would remove an anomaly? Under Section 32, subsection (2) of the Widows', Orphans' and 756 Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, the Minister of Health is empowered to make regulations providing that: Any pension which a rate-aided person of unsound mind who is detained as such in a mental hospital, or is being maintained as such in any other place, may be entitled to receive, shall he paid to some local authority or other person to be administered in providing, up to such amount as may be prescribed by the regulations, additional comforts for the pensioner. Under these powers regulations have been made by the Ministry of Health, providing for the payment of a comforts allowance not exceeding 2s. 6d. a week. These additional comforts have been paid to those who are of unsound mind and in seclusion for their protection, but these additional allowances are not to be paid under the existing Statute to those who are of sound mind but under State protection.
The contention of the County Councils' Association, whose views, as I have said, are shared by the Association of Municipal Corporations, is that the subsection should be so amended as to place both classes of aged inmates on the same footing, and it is difficult to envisage any sound reason why that should not be done without delay. I know it has been argued that this is a permissive Bill, but I think it cannot be doubted that the pressure of public opinion will soon see that this allowance is paid, and if so the duty will be placed upon the ratepayers of finding the necessary money. I venture to point this out to the House, because it seems unfair to place this additional burden on the ratepayers, who are in many cases by no means well-provided with money at the present time, and I would suggest that the proper course of dealing with this question is that which I have put forward, by providing the assistance from the taxes of this country.

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, Lord O'Hagan has explained that this Bill enables local authorities to make some ex gratia payment out of their own money to certain inmates of their institutions. The Government do not feel that there arises on this Bill any new question of principle that affects them, nor is it proposed in the Bill to affect in any way new Government money. Of course Lord Eltisley has suggested another method, which would have that effect, but as the proposal which is before the House is the proposal of Lord O'Hagan, and not that 757 of Lord Eltisley, on which I should probably have something to say, the Government propose to maintain the same neutral attitude as it did in another place and to leave this Bill to the free judgment of the House.

§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord in charge of this Bill whether I am right in thinking that if Lord Eltisley's suggestion were adopted a private member could not introduce a Bill which makes a charge on the taxes? While I have great sympathy with what Lord Eltisley has explained, and I have myself had communications from local authorities to that effect, I cannot help thinking that this Bill could not have been introduced on those lines.

LORD O'HAGAN
My Lords, I cannot answer quite emphatically as to that, but I have a very strong impression that what the noble Lord has said is correct.