HL Deb 19 November 1957 vol 206 cc394-9

3.26 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM rose to move, That the draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these draft Regulations which I am moving this afternoon in place of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who is unfortunately ill, have been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, to give effect to recommendations made to him by the National Assistance Board. Their purpose is to make further increases, as from January 27 next, in the weekly sums to be allowed for the requirements, other than rent, of persons in need of National Assistance. If the draft Regulations are approved by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, my right honourable friend will then make substantive Regulations in the form of the Draft.

Your Lordships will know that it is the duty of the officers of the Board to determine whether a person is in need of assistance, and, if so, how much. The weekly sums on which they base their decisions are set out in the Draft Regulations in two scales—the ordinary scale and a special scale for the blind and for certain persons suffering from tuberculosis. To the sums provided by these scales an allowance is added for rent. The increases proposed are 9s. for a married couple and 5s. for a single householder, with suitable increases for other categories of applicants and for dependants. These increases of 9s. and 5s. will bring the rates for a married couple and for a single householder to 76s. and 45s. on the ordinary scale and to 96s. and 65s. on the special scale.

As the Board have explained in their Memorandum accompanying the Draft Regulations, in making these proposals they have taken into account not only changes in prices but also the effect on some pensioners receiving supplementary assistance of the Government's proposal for withdrawing the tobacco duty concession. The Board inform me that they are satisfied that even for those who will lose their tobacco tokens the new rates of assistance will do more than maintain the value of the rates provided by the Regulations adopted for the start of National Assistance in 1948.

Some of your Lordships may not be fully aware of the provision of an allowance, over and above the normal scale, for rent, and I think it would be as well for me to explain that the Board have ample powers to meet any increase in the rent of a person who is receiving assistance. Your Lordships may be interested to know that as regards controlled rents the Board's policy is to meet an applicant's rent in full unless the accommodation is being shared by someone not dependent on assistance or the rent is plainly excessive. For instance, if a married couple living alone are paying a rent of 15s. a week, their needs will be assessed, as from January 27 next, at £4 11s. a week at least. The significance of the words I used, "at least", is that if the couple have special needs arising, say, from sickness or infirmity, the allowance may be still further increased, because the increases now proposed do not affect in any way the general discretionary power of the Board's officers to adjust an allowance to meet special circumstances. This discretionary power is a most valuable and important feature of the service of assistance, and a great deal of use is made of it. In fact, two out of every five allowances being paid contain an addition to the normal assessment for such things as extra nourishment, domestic help and laundry charges. At the end of last year the cost of these special additions alone was running at a rate of something over £11 million a year.

On the basis of the number of allowances now being paid the increases proposed are estimated to cost about £26 million in a full year. On the other hand, if the legislation providing for increases in retirement pensions and other insurance benefits is passed into law and increases are made in war pension payments as is proposed, these increases will be taken into account against National Assistance supplements and this must mean a substantial saving in that respect.

Your Lordships may wish to know, too, why it is that these increases, if approved, are to be paid from January 27. The reason is that this is the date on which the proposed increases in pensions will be paid, and it is plainly the sensible course to bring all these increases into effect on the same date, so that everyone will then get some benefit. In effecting this the Board's officers will be faced with a very heavy task, because between now and January 27 they will have to review and re-assess over 1,600,000 cases.

The purpose of the Regulations I am now putting before your Lordships is this. It has always been a part of policy to provide a safety net through which the casualties of life cannot fall, in the shape of a minimum subsistence allowance. To-day we are concerned with the raising and the strengthening of that net by the increases that I have detailed to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)

3.32 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of opposing these Regulations but to make one or two observations in regard to them. The first is this. No one would suggest for a single moment that 76s. a week for a husband and wife who are deemed to be destitute and to have no means of their own is a living remuneration; it is merely accentuating destitution. It is, nevertheless, an increase upon the present rate. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us when the rate was last fixed. I think he said that it represents a few shillings a week increase on the last rate. Does it do any more than merely make up for the increase in the cost of living as compared with the time when the previous rate was fixed? My impression is that it does not do more than that. In fact, the person who is destitute and in need of money will be no better off on January 27 than he was when the previous rate was fixed; although I agree that in the meantime he has been suffering hardship because the cost of living has gradually gone up since the rate was last fixed. Does it do more than that? Is it intended to do more?

The other thing is that the rate, when it is fixed, will be rather less than the amounts it is intended to pay for retirement pensions. The rate for a husband and wife is 76s. and for a single person 45s., whereas I understand that the retirement rates are to be 80s. and 50s. respectively. Therefore the destitute person, with presumably greater need, will be getting rather less to live on than the person who is getting a retirement allowance. Furthermore, for a person to qualify for a destitution allowance he or she must have no other means, whereas when the retirement allowances are paid they will be, after a certain age, irrespective of need. It is true that if a man claims the retirement allowance at the age of 65 (or 60 in the case of a woman) there is a limit to the income they may earn, and deductions are made in respect of any income over that figure. People who are on National Assistance are deemed not to be in possession of any income at all, yet their allowance is to be rather less than the amount of the retirement pension Would it not have been proper to increase the National Assistance allowance to the same figure as that which is to be given in respect of retirement allowance?

Subject to those comments, we are all glad of any increase in the rate of National Assistance. One wonders how people are going to live to-day on 76s. a week, on the assumption that they get no extra payment for rent. I think the noble Lord explained that in two out of five cases they do get sonic supplementation to these figures, but that means that three out of five do not; and, as I say, one wonders how they can possibly make ends meet, if they have no other means at all.

3.36 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am not going to take up the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the comparison of retirement pensions; I do not suppose my noble friend Lord Chesham will have any difficulty in dealing with that. However, I should like to say that when regulations like these National Assistance Regulations are laid before the House, it would be a great help to your Lordships if, before we came to consider them, we had laid before us a list of recent retail prices by which we could judge them. Those of us who were engaged in this matter a few years ago could reasonably carry the scales in our head, but 'not dealing with it for a year or two one is unable to follow them so well. As your Lordships are all expected to have a conscious mind and opinion upon these Regulations, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great convenience if we could have something of the kind before us on future occasions when we come to consider these Regulations.

3.38 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, particularly asked me what was the position in regard to this increase. I can only tell him that the previous rate was fixed in December, 1955. The intention of this rise (if I may so call it) is to tighten, to strengthen, to lift up a little, the safety net to which I have referred. I have already said that the National Assistance Board have informed me that they take the view that what they are recommending, and what my right honourable friend is proposing to carry out, does more than maintain the original 1948 rate. Evidently in 1948 that rate was considered to be adequate, and the Board have based their recommendations in that way. As a straight answer to the noble Lord, I would say that these increases are not intended to be a bonus payment as it were; they are intended to keep the minimum up to what it should be.

LORD SILKIN

I do not want to argue the point, and I was not really expressing my own opinion on it. I was merely asking whether the increase does, in fact, make up for the increase in the cost of living since the last rate was fixed in 1955.

LORD CHESHAM

Yes, my Lords that has been taken into consideration. The Board consider that it makes up for that, and puts the position on a slightly better basis than it was in 1948.

LORD SILKIN

I was inquiring about since the last payment was fixed. The noble Lord explained that that was in 1955.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, it is to make up for the increase in the cost of living since 1955. The noble Lord also asked about the difference in level between the National Assistance rates and the benefit rates. There I must say that the level on which benefits can be paid under a contributory insurance scheme is not to be compared in any way with the question of the level of assistance which is needed at any given time. If, because of price changes, the rates of assistance currently payable are, in the Board's view, failing to provide a reasonable and adequate subsistence, it is the Board's duty to propose such increases as they think fit, whether the benefit rates are going up concurrently or not.

Since 1946, apart from this increase, pensions have gone up three times, whereas the assistance rates have gone up six times, which includes, of course, the original increase in the rate in 1948—otherwise, five times since 1948. I think it is a misconception to confuse the relationship between assistance and benefits under the pensions schemes. This is the basic floor to stop anyone becoming any worse off. It is being a little improved to meet the cost of living. That is the position, and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he promise to take into account what I have just said the next time such Regulations are put before us?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I will, of course, do that.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, could the noble Lord clear up one point? I may be rather stupid in not understanding what was the right answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to whether this 76s. for a married couple is in addition to a rent allowance, whereas the contributory pension is 80s., with no rent addition.

LORD CHESHAM

The position the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has asked about is, I think, clear. It is 76s., and the allowance for rent is on top of that.

LORD SILKIN

But the allowance given for rent is not the actual amount of the rent paid, but the excess of rent over the controlled rent, is it not?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as I have said before, it is the Board's policy to allow the full rent in the case of controlled rents, and thereafter to look at the matter under the ample powers they have for discretionary increases over the scale laid down.

On Question, Motion agreed to.