HL Deb 16 December 1954 vol 190 cc465-73

3.17 p.m.

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

My Lords, in moving these Regulations, I might perhaps remind your Lordships of the way in which they are put forward. The rates are put forward by the National Assistance Board; they are adopted by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and they become effective when they have been approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships may recall that this is the fourth occasion since the National Assistance Act was passed in 1948 that the House has been asked to approve increases in the standard rate of benefit and assistance. The original rate in July, 1948, was 24s. a week for a single person living alone; in June, 1950, it was increased to 26s.; in September, 1951, to 30s.; in June, 1952, to 35s.; and I am now asking your Lordships to approve the rate of 37s. 6d.

Your Lordships will observe that the scales laid down here are fairly simple. They provide the rate for a single householder, as I have stated, for a husband and wife 63s., and varying rates for people of other ages, besides a special rate for persons who are blind or who suffer from tuberculosis. The scales are, of course, exclusive of rent and rates, for which an addition is made. I might give examples: a person living alone and paying a rent of 12s. a week would expect to have his income made up to 49s. 6d.—that is, 37s. 6d. plus 12s.; a married couple 75s.; that is, 63s. plus 12s. The rates provide a standard for the officers of the National Assistance Board in carrying out their duties, and their primary duty is to meet requirements. In order to do this, they necessarily have considerable discretionary powers to meet cases of sickness and other difficulties as may be necessary; and, in fact, about one-third of the cases in which assistance is provided contain some addition under these powers.

The National Assistance Board is a very large organisation, with duties which extend the length and breadth of this country. It is to me a striking testimony to the manner in which they carry out their very delicate and difficult duties that it is only comparatively seldom that we hear complaints in regard to the manner in which their work is done. In this respect I should like to quote what my right honourable friend the Minister said in another place on November 16. He said this of the National Assistance Board [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 533 (No. 181), col. 2371]: It has made a very great success of its job. It has done what is thought to be impossible in the Civil Service; the officials have been courteous, they have been kindly, they have been humane. I think everybody, without exception, approves of the work of the National Assistance Board. I believe that those words were accepted without demur in every part of the other place, and I think they would be here also. We should express our gratitude to the officers who are carrying out their duties on behalf of the nation. I think your Lordships may rest assured that the real purchasing power shown in these scales is at a higher rate than it has ever been before. I beg to move.

Moved, That the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Draft Regulations, 1954, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

3.20 p.m.

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has put these regulations before us. I join most cordially with him in paying a tribute to the humane way in which the National Assistance Board and those who administer and work the scheme throughout the country do their work. What he said causes me vividly to remember how the late Mr. Ernest Bevin sought to bring this human idea prominently before all who worked in his Department during the period of the war. On a number of occasions I was with him in the local offices where matters of this kind were being administered, and his blunt but pregnant words to those in the Department were to the effect that they should remember that, but for the grace of God, they might be on the other side of the counter; that they were administering something on behalf of the nation to some less fortunate than themselves, and that they should see that the utmost humanity and consideration dictated their relationships with those who were the beneficiaries under these schemes. That applied more particularly to the Ministry of Labour, but it applied in the same way to the administration of this particular service.

I take it that these regulations will be accepted wholeheartedly. In another place I have seen many of these statutory instruments brought forward and heard dissatisfaction expressed over the amounts that were added to the benefits. My attitude has been never to refuse the benefits on that account, or to vote against them; it has been to say, "Well, this is not quite up to what we expected; it is not quite up to the needs of the situation. But let us accept it and to-morrow start a campaign to bring about the necessary increase." I cite this fact in connection with these regulations and the amounts that are to be paid. Taking the new National Insurance scales that we know are to be brought into operation—the Bill will be before us next week—we find that the amounts are to be 40s. for a man and 25s. for his wife; subject to the National Insurance conditions that means 65s.

The present rate of National Assistance for a man and his wife, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is 54s., and that is being brought up to 63s. by these regulations. That means an advance of 9s. on the basic rate, and, in my judgment, the amount that that increase represents is not in keeping with the increased costs that now fall upon a family. That increase has taken place since these regulations were previously amended, and when we compare the amount allowed under these regulations—which provide the total income of those who are the beneficiaries—with the amount of increased benefit on ordinary pensions, I think it will be seen that quite a large number of those who will get the increase that is to be provided next week will not benefit a great deal.

The benefit cannot come into operation next week, and I think there is full justification for the plea that some considerable time should elapse before it becomes payable, because to carry through the raising of scales in this way with the millions of people who are affected is an enormous task. I think that there has been some loose talk about the way in which these benefits might have been much more rapidly put into operation. As I say, the civil servants concerned have a big task before them in bringing these new benefits to the point of payment out to the recipients. In my view there is not such a great margin of benefit under these regulations to those with whom they are dealing as to cause us to think that these people have been put in any favourable position; and I suggest that it will be necessary to look again at these scales in the near future.

I have made reference to the increased cost of living. In that regard I would point out that while it may be clear that the cost of living index shows that this increase in benefits is a reasonable one to make, it has to be kept in mind that the recipients of the benefits are not spending their income on all the various things that make up the cost of living index: they are down on the bedrock of absolute necessities. For example, tea might not be looked upon as an absolute necessity, but it is the great standby of many who have a low income. The cost of tea alone causes me to hold the opinion that in respect of the essentials the increase that is being paid to make up what is looked upon as a reasonable income for old people to live upon is not by any means over generous.

I want to take the opportunity of referring to two classes of people. If I were to try to relate them to these regulations, the only way in which I could properly bring what I want to say into line would be to refer to them as classes of people who do not want to be provided for in these regulations. I speak first of teacher superannuitants. I cite the case of the old village dominie—the old schoolmaster in a country school who had all his life only a poor salary and who, when he came to superannuation, had only a poor superannuation allowance to fall back upon. The principal request that is made by these people is that, however it is arranged, the Government should make the payment to them at least monthly and not quarterly, as it is at the present time. I raised this question in another place on a number of occasions, and I always received what I consider to be an unreasonable answer to my plea. It seems all wrong that these people should have to wait a period of three months; by the time they reach the end of that period their miserably small allowance has gone.

Although these people do not want to seek National Assistance I would counsel them to do so and to feel no loss of pride or lack of dignity in making their plea for that which is their undoubted right. They are a very deserving class of people, a rapidly diminishing class, because of their age. Yet there is still this pride that prevents them from applying for assistance. I ask them to put aside that pride so that they may get the consideration to which their need entitles them. I ask the noble Lord who is in charge of this Order to urge upon the Departments responsible that the benefits to these teacher superannuitants should be paid at least as often as monthly and not kept for three months. I would ask the noble Lord to add his own weight to that plea.

Whilst I do not feel myself bound to make a declaration of personal interest, I am technically in another class to which I will refer—railway superannuitants. Many men and women who have been contributors to railway superannuation funds in the past now find, thanks not to Government action but to Government inaction on reducing the cost of living, that their superannuation allowances are not adequate to meet their proper needs. They do not wish to be dealt with by National Assistance boards, but they make the claim that, having served loyally and well, and having paid into superannuation funds for the benefits which to-day are inadequate to meet their proper needs, they should receive a special consideration. Such assistance is not intended to come from national funds direct from the Treasury and should be part of railway finance. Though I may be accused of special pleading, these people were, to my own knowledge, loyal and faithful servants of the railways in days gone by. They worked for small salaries, so that to-day the superannuation allowance appropriate to their salary scale is small indeed. They are deserving of every consideration. I do not suggest that these particular pleas that I have made are strictly within the confines of these regulations. On behalf of people outside the regulations I urge Her Majesty's Government, who have powers in these matters, to endeavour to some extent to meet this situation.

3.34 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I rise first to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has said in his most eloquent plea, and secondly to say a word about the noble Earl's comment on his quotation from the speech made by the Minister in another place. The noble Earl said that the whole of this House would agree with the Minister's words. In so far as that quotation conveyed his appreciation of what the civil servants of the National Assistance Board have done, I entirely agree. I worked in closest association with them when I was Minister of National Insurance; but hearing that quotation, and not seeing it, suggested to me that this tribute was paid only to the civil servants of the National Assistance Board, at the cost of giving a very nasty back-hand slap to civil servants as a whole. The quotation was to the effect that servants of the National Assistance Board had done that which might seem to be impossible in the Civil Service—they had shown courtesy. In my experience of civil servants, they always show courtesy, and it is quite wrong to single out servants of the National Assistance Board from other civil servants. To that extent, if I am right in my hearing, I should like to express my complete dissent from that implication about civil servants who are not members of the National Assistance Board.

3.36 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replies I am encouraged by what my noble friend in front of me has said to deal with one particular point. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, was talking about schoolmasters and others who did not seek National Assistance. In my experience many people do not attempt to claim National Assistance because they do not like the idea of assistance. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that at some future date consideration might be given to the renaming of the National Assistance Board with some other name more likely to find acceptance among those who would then be prepared to accept what is their right, these additional payments from the State. I suggest that the Board should be renamed the National Welfare Committee.

At the moment the word "Assistance" appears, also the word "Board." Those words call to mind the old board of guardians and, before that time, the board school, and other places of that kind. I believe that if the National Assistance Board could be renamed somewhat more in keeping with these times people would be more likely to go to it to receive what they require and what is their due. I am encouraged to make this suggestion through having certain connections with the British Legion. I was at a district committee meeting a fortnight ago and this same question arose in connection with supplementary pensions and similar matters. It was suggested that, although people had to fill in a form to make application, there was no compulsion; that one could not compel people to fill in forms and apply. It was also said that many old people and others needing benefits of the kind to which they are entitled do not apply because they do not like the idea of what we used to know as Public Assistance.

3.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, but there is an old saying about roses. I suggest we shall not get very much further on this question, whatever we may call this Board. I remember the public assistance committee of the local authority with which I was connected. I do not think it will make very much difference what name we give this body. I think that what will make a difference is the manner in which the work is done. Therefore I am glad that your Lordships agree with me when I say that I think they have done a magnificent job. I feel that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was a little hard on me—he seemed to be straining my meaning, I thought. I certainly did not put upon the words in question the rather obscure interpretation which he apparently has done.

EARL JOWITT

Perhaps I did not hear correctly.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I agree that the noble and learned Earl could strain it so as to give it that meaning. I give it to him that what I said and what I quoted could have the interpretation which he has put upon it, but I did not myself think it meant that at all.

EARL JOWITT

Would the noble Earl read it again.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The matter is really too small. I give it to the noble and learned Earl that what I said and what I read could have that meaning if he strains at it. But I am certain that neither my right honourable friend nor myself ever for a moment intended such a connotation.

In regard to Lord Mathers' remarks, he was good enough to say that he was not speaking strictly within the confines of these regulations. Perhaps he will permit me to refrain from answering fully, but I note the two points in regard to superannuation which he mentioned. I think he is aware that the Assistance Board can to a certain extent disregard superannuation in assessing requirements. In that respect they can, in some measure, meet the point which the noble Lord has in mind. I will try to get my right honourable friend the Minister of Education at least to give the noble Lord a reasonable answer on this subject. I felt that the noble Lord, when he was talking about the unfavourable position, was not giving adequate weight to the fact that the present position is better than it has been before. I will quote figures to him in support of that statement. I am aware that they are not entirely representative: The official rate cannot be taken as entirely representative of the needs of people under National Assistance or what they may require. None the less, they represent something. The interim index of retail prices has risen 33 per cent. since 1948, but the new rates of assistance represent an increase of 56 per cent. Even allowing for the special circumstances, these figures show that there is a material advance. There is only one other point that I would make. The noble Lord said he would like the rates to come into operation a little sooner. I would remind him that this is December 16, and the rates come into operation on February 7 next. Nearly two million people are concerned, so I think that on the whole the National Assistance Board are not doing too badly. In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords for the general welcome which they have given these regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.