THE PROBLEMS OF RETIREMENT

HL Deb 02 February 1977 vol 379 cc854-70

3.1 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG rose to call attention to the problems of retirement; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I first entered public life and took up public speaking I was told that one should never, under any circumstances, begin a speech with an apology. If one was going to make a bad speech the audience could tell immediately, and there was no need to say so. However, on this occasion I should like to apologise to your Lordships this afternoon as I may not be able to be here in the House until the very end of this debate. I have a very long-standing engagement this evening which I cannot break, and I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me. I should like to say at once how grateful I am to the many noble Lords who are to take part in this debate this afternoon, and should I miss any speeches I shall of course read tomorrow's Hansard particularly carefully.

My Lords, I hope that a debate such as the one we shall have this afternoon illustrates the value of this House in the opportunity that it provides to discuss important social issues of the day. I look on this debate this afternoon as an opportunity to continue the debate which we had earlier on, in the summer, initiated by my noble friend Lord Strathcona, on the problems of the elderly, and particularly the problems of heating. But today I should like to look at the problems caused both by the numbers of the retired and by retirement itself, for I believe them to be of a different order from anything that we have seen before in this country. Not that it is my intention to talk of the retired simply as a problem—far from it. The retired are an important group in society, growing in numbers but with the right as individuals to be treated with dignity and with respect, with kindness and with compassion. They should neither be oversentimentalised, in the picture that Darby and Joan holding hands in a golden twilight conjures up; nor its opposite, be treated with a callous indifference suggested by the picture conjured up by Shakespeare's remarks on the seven ages of man. I believe our social policies must be designed primarily to help the retired help themselves: what used to be known as the doctrine of enlightened self-interest but which today means for us that by encouraging the retired to help themselves they indirectly help us all.

First, then, the numbers. It has been estimated that almost one in four of the population is now retired. Life expectancy has so increased that a woman at 60 can expect, an average, to live another 20 years, and a man at 60 another 15 years; and the fastest growing group in the population is that made up of those aged over 75, so that by 1981 over 5 per cent. of the total population will be at least 85. There is no doubt that the Biblical "threescore years and ten" is very much a thing of the past. All this is occurring at the same time as the birth-rate is falling, so that a smaller proportion of the young working population will be there to create the wealth to take care of an ever-larger proportion of the elderly. Many consequences stem from this, but it is a fact that not only is the total population declining but its composition is undergoing a major change.

At least two conclusions may be drawn from this. The first is that retirement is a very long period in a person's life. It is not just a few years; but a great many people will be retired for 25 or for 30 years. How important, then, is the work of such organisations as the Pre-retirement Association—and I was very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, its president, will be speaking this afternoon—and also the very valuable books produced by the Consumers' Association on preparation for retirement. Secondly, it is often thought that relatives do not do as much today for the elderly as they once did. Whether or not this is true it is not for me to say, but the fact is that those members of the family who will be caring for elderly relatives will themselves be the young retired. It will be the 60s looking after the 80-pluses, the grandmothers looking after the great-grandmothers, which will be the pattern of the future; not a picture of those in the 20s looking after parents.

Herein, I believe, lies both the measure of the issue and its solution. But the numbers of the very old will inevitably raise moral issues and problems of medical ethics. There is no doubt that euthanasia, as an issue, will be discussed, and I hope that when it is it will not be automatically assumed that just because it is discussed everyone is in favour of it. We shall listen, I think, with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester will have to say on some of these ethical and moral problems, for one of the curious facts of our society is that we find it as difficult to talk about death today as the Victorians did to talk about sex.

My Lords, because of the very long period of retirement the problems of the retired mirror those of the whole of society. Finance, health, housing and heating are all important, as is the provision for pensions, whether they are private or whether they are State pensions. And, because of the proportion of the retired, their numbers throw up particular problems of the environment, whether these are problems related to inner cities, which are now very largely inhabited by the old and the handicapped; or, indeed, to particular seaside towns, like Eastbourne or Bournemouth, where the numbers of the retired are enormous, putting great strains on the social services; or, indeed, to the population composition of those pre-war council houses, originally occupied by young couples in the 1930s and now almost completely occupied by those in their 70s.

There are many speakers this afternoon who are experts in each of these subjects, and we shall listen to them with interest. Time will not allow me to do more than to attempt to set the scene and to touch upon just a few points, but my theme throughout this is one of self-help for the retired. It is, I believe, no use in the present economic climate asking for vast sums of money, but there is a great deal that could be done, both by attitude and by administration, nationally and locally, that could help, and would make better use of our existing resources. The Government's own Paper, Priorities in the Health and Social Services, suggests this when it proposes that investment should be switched from purpose-built accommodation for the elderly to domiciliary services, and I welcome this. But we must remember, in whatever provisions we make, that as the population changes and the numbers of the elderly increase it will be all too easy for almost all our resources to be used for the elderly, and that the other groups in society will quite rightly demand their share. However, in considering these policies I have wanted to consider matters more far-reaching and affecting other Departments besides the Department of Health and Social Services, and perhaps I could begin by turning to finance.

My Lords, in preparation for this debate I wrote to the Trades Union Congress asking them whether they had views on this matter, particularly in view of the public interest expressed in the miners' wish for early retirement. I was grateful for their reply, but in effect they said two things: first, that retirement pensions should be related to average earnings—a half for a married couple and a third for a single person—and, second, that they had established a joint Working Party with the Government to look into the question of early retirement.

The difficulty which I see in the first of these two propositions is that it is the present young working population, which is a decreasing proportion of the whole of the population, who will be paying for the ever larger group of the elderly, both by increased National Insurance contributions for themselves and by taxation for others. Although it is perhaps not for me to say, I should have thought the young workers might not want this or be prepared to accept this throughout their working lives; because one must remember that retirement is often a quarter of a person's total life and, nowadays, in many instances, a third of it. It is so for somebody who lives to the age of 90.

However, pensions, both private and State, are vital, and I am pleased that both noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Byers, will be speaking on these matters; for it is clear that the whole working population will have to pay larger contributions for retirement pensions and ought therefore to be encouraged to make adequate private provision as well whenever this is possible.

Above all, the Government must keep down the rate of inflation, for this throws on to the State thousands who never expected State help and who believed that they had provided for themselves. It devalues pensions, and adds to the contrast of those privileged to be enjoying index-linked pensions with those who, unfortunately, do not.

Looking at the problem posed by the number of elderly and their lifespan, perhaps an attractive package in an ideal world would be a flexible retirement age, the abolition of the earnings rule and significantly higher pensions for those aged 75 to 80 and over. Undoubtedly, none of this is possible now, but ought we not to consider at least how we could move in that direction and consider, at any rate, a flexible retirement age? I, myself, have considerable sympathy with the coal-miners in their desire not to ask men of 65 to continue working at the coal face; but are there not other jobs less physically exhausting that they could do should they wish to continue in some form of work?

Many men and women do not wish to retire at 65—and one need only look around this House. Although they may not be able to continue in the same job there is no reason why they should not continue to work at all. The same applies to women, who in many instances have been privileged in their choice whether to retire at 60 or at 65. A flexible retirement age does not only mean a lower age; it could mean a higher age, a sliding retirement, meaning working two or three days a week—surely a sensible plan for many in industry. It would be unfortunate if decisions about the age of retirement were based on the present high level of unemployment, which I am sure we all hope will not continue indefinitely. To suggest that flexibility must mean a lower age of retirement only is not only to ask for something very expensive—and I believe that the Department of Health and Social Security have estimated that it will cost as much as £2,000 million annually—but may not in many instances be in the best interests of the individual, who may well feel on retirement that his life work is over and he is no longer needed.

To this end, I should have thought it worth looking at a flexible retirement age, the ending of the earnings rule, and to have a good look at the level of the tax threshold. All these financial and practical measures could encourage those able and willing to work to do so for a longer period. At the same time, for those who need to retire and who will do so either from choice or because they have to, we must ensure that the provisions of the Welfare State are fully known, and that people are not dependent always on outside voluntary organisations, such as Age Concern, to produce pamphlets on pensioners' rights. I would suggest that the Government should produce one, and produce it in the kind of English that most people could understand. The multiplicity of benefits, valuable in themselves, ought to be taken up by those who need them. If I may comment on just one, on which I have seen almost no publicity, it is the fact that pensioners on supplementary benefit are entitled to a 25 per cent. discount on this quarter's electricity bill; but I have seen almost no publicity about this and I should think that the take-up of it is small.

I should like now to say something briefly about housing, which is a matter that has been of great interest to me for a long time.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness for intervening in such an interesting speech, but I should like to get it on the record that there was quite a lot of publicity about the electricity discount on television, and that 10 million or 15 million people must have seen it.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I am glad to have my attention drawn to this. Lack of time means that I do not watch television perhaps as much as I should. We need a great deal of advertising of many of the benefits to which people are entitled.

The General Household Survey of 1973 showed that about 25 per cent. of households had three or more bedrooms. A survey in Harrow showed that 51 per cent. of those awaiting sheltered accommodation were in under-occupied property. These two facts together suggest that, particularly among the elderly, there is a great deal of under-occupied property that could be brought into general use.

I very much welcome the Government's new thinking on the working of the Rent Acts even if, having now read the publication, I wonder whether they have gone as far as I would wish. My view about this is that we will not solve the housing question until there is a measure of all-Party agreement. Therefore, I welcome any moves towards this which might encourage some of the rooms in under-occupied houses to be let to young couples who need accommodation and who might at the same time be able to help the elderly. The elderly would become willing, I believe, to let this accommodation if they believed that they would have the right to regain possession of their own houses should that prove to be necessary.

A rethink, therefore, is needed about under-occupied property and on the need for the provision of smaller accommodation; for, as I have already indicated, it is the numbers of one-person and two-person households that are growing fastest. It is highly questionable whether we should be building as many three-bedroomed houses as we are. I would also again ask for increased flexibility by local authority housing committees on the allocation of houses. We find that so many council house estates were occupied before the war, there are not the young to look after the old. Yet it would be a sensible housing policy to encourage the letting of houses to younger couples so that they might be near their elder relatives. This is very much a matter for administration of the local council housing lists.

At the close of this debate, my noble friend Lord Sandys will be referring particularly to matters of health, but we must all be concerned at the increasing proportion of hospital beds which will be taken up by the elderly. I could best make two comments on this. I hope that one of the effects of the Vocational Training Act will be that general practitioners will have far more experience in geriatrics than they have had in the past.

I think, too, that we need, when discussing getting more money for the National Health Service, to remember that it is only the old age pensioners who actually pay for their beds in hospitals; for if you are in hospital for more than a period of five weeks you give up part of your pension and are, therefore, making a payment to the hospital. It is an extraordinary fact that no one else does so; but it might well be that in considering the great debates about private and public medicine, we should be encouraging more people to make private provision as only the elderly have to pay in the National Health Service.

My Lords, I was interested to put down this Motion for debate today because of the totally new situation which has arisen in our country for the first time in its history. The wonders of modern medicine combined with an understanding of public health and hygiene, have enabled millions to live longer, and be fitter than ever before. The challenge to our society is therefore the greater, for the retired are needed. Many will be able to help with voluntary organisations; and I should like to see more of them working in the exacting task of local government, where their experience of the working world would be invaluable.

By drawing attention to the scene I do not do so to draw attention to an ever-growing problem, but to a new situation which I believe must be tackled with imagination. Stop-gap palliatives, suitable perhaps for a society that expected the elderly to live only three or five years after retirement, simply will not do. The retired, like the rest of us, have both a contribution to make to society and, like us all, will need to be cared for at the end. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.21 p.m.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, there are many and important facets of retirement, most of which will be dealt with in the course of this debate which has been so ably opened by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She set the scene admirably, and she was absolutely right to dwell on this very important problem which faces us today, of the ratio of the working population to the retired population. That is going to cause a great deal of rethinking in this country over the next few years.

The noble Baroness invited me to speak—and I shall speak briefly because there are so many speakers today—on a subject in which I have a direct interest, namely, that of pensions. I am afraid that our record in this country over the past few decades in providing an adequate income for all our retired citizens has not been a good one. Since the late 1950s politicians and political Parties, in their attempt to go one better than one another, have caused tremendous delay in providing proper pensions, and have denied the majority of British people the decent and adequate income which can make retirement enjoyable, as indeed it should be.

I therefore welcome the opportunity of saying a word about pensions in the context of this debate, since it provides one of the few opportunities that we have to talk about pensions in what, I think, is their right context. The increasing complexity of legislation bears more onerously on pensions than on many other subjects. In my work as chairman of the Company Pensions Information Centre, I have many discussions with those whose technical expertise in pensions matters is very considerable indeed. Some of their conversations on guaranteed minimum pensions, minimum solvency tests and underlying funding assumptions, to a layman's ears have to be heard to be believed; but this is not what pension schemes are all about, or at least it should not be what they are all about. The object of any pension scheme is to provide a decent income for those in retirement to enable them to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

It is also to provide adequate protection for the dependants of those who die. It is a great tragedy that we are now in danger of losing sight of these objectives in favour of "i" dotting and "t" crossing in the fine print of legislation. I urge the Government to give a great deal of thought to the suggestion that perhaps we need less and not more pensions legislation in the near future. Indeed, I commend—and I believe I will have a sympathetic reception from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—the suggestion of the Scottish Faculty of Actuaries, that the Occupational Pensions Board should be asked to consider to what extent the legislation affecting pension schemes could be simplified without any harmful consequences. I believe that a tremendous amount could be done in that area.

The legislation creating the framework for the new State pension scheme, the new Pensions Security Act, in April 1978, and laying down the conditions on which good occupational schemes can contract out, was remarkable in one respect. It was passed with all-Party agreement. There was not a hostile vote at any stage of its development. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that this is something of which one ought to be proud, and something we should try to repeat in other areas, as she suggested, such as housing; and I am sure that there are other areas where we could get all-Party agreement if we got down to it.

However, employers should now be left free to act in accordance with legislation which we have already passed. The decision on what is called contracting out would involve a great deal of work for all concerned. The next few months are crucial, and I urge the Government not to compound the existing problems by bringing in too much legislation too quickly on issues such as solvency, disclosure, participation and equality for women. All these can come about in time, and I want to see them, but I beg the Government not to lose sight of the fact that an employer is not required by law to have an occupational pension scheme at all.

If he does have one, let us give him every encouragement to make it a good one in the interests of those who are going to benefit when they retire in the future. But let us also make certain that Parliament does not so hedge these occupational pension schemes with legislative restrictions of one sort or another that employers come to the conclusion that the whole thing is just being made too difficult for them. There is that feeling beginning to grow up, and it is one which I should like to stop. As always in these matters, the loser is the potential pensioner and not the firm or company concerned.

I very much hope that we shall learn from the recent experience of the United States. I was over there in the middle of last year, and in the field of pensions there is a lot to learn from the experience of the United States in the past couple of years. We should not rush headlong into making the same mistakes as they have made. They have passed an Act known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act—ERISA, for short. This has placed numerous restrictions on occupational schemes and, unfortunately, has lead to a number of employers coming to the conclusion that it is just not worth while trying to carry on with an occupational scheme, and they have given it up. This is a danger which could arise in this country if we are not careful.

I am not anxious to go into technical detail on this point, but a useful parallel can be made with cars. Those that are so unsafe as to be dangerous should be banned; but otherwise people should be left free to buy the car that suits them. If they can only afford a relatively cheap model, then that is better than nothing. Not every employer can afford the best possible pension, and not every pension scheme can afford the full range of benefits. But nothing is gained by raising the standards through legislation so high that those who cannot afford a better car end up with nothing at all, or those who cannot afford a better pension are deprived of the modest scheme that they already have.

The Government have said, I am sure very sincerely, that they want genuine partnership with occupational pension schemes. The quality and quantity of the legislation that they introduce in the future gives them the opportunity to make or break this partnership. I certainly hope that the result will be a raising of the standards all round and not a reduction in the number of schemes. In this connection, the Pay Code is absolutely crucial. Government Ministers have deplored what they call the two-nations situation which has grown up in the pensions field.

What is not appreciated is that what is called the Inland Revenue limits stop the rich from getting richer, but there are two important factors which prevent the poor—and in many pension terms they are mainly manual workers and female employees—from doing anything to bridge the gap between themselves and the rich. This is a real social problem. The first is simply a lack of means, although the introduction of the new State scheme and the beginning of contracting out in April 1978 will require many employers to raise their level of expenditure on pensions. But the second obstacle is the restriction in the Pay Code on improvements in pension schemes, and that is with us now. This restriction was made at the request of the TUC, who classified pensions as "non-wage benefits" in the appendix to the White Paper which dealt with the first stage of the pay policy.

I wonder just why that is TUC policy, when so many of the trade unionists that we meet who have great expertise and knowledge in pension matters are pressing for pensions to be taken out of the Pay Code—partly because it will make negotiations over contracting in or contracting out meaningful instead of sterile, and partly because there are already Inland Revenue limits, as I have mentioned, to prevent abuse in the field of pensions.

The Government believe that they gave a so-called "concession" on new schemes and on improvements to existing ones, but that concession meant that you could have a new scheme and improve an existing one, provided that it did not exceed the minimum standard required for contracting out. That really is quite fatuous. When the maximum and the minimum are the same, what is there to negotiate about except possibly the colour of the cover on the rule book? You have there a mandatory situation where the maximum and the minimum are the same and where meaningful discussion cannot take place.

The new State scheme, of course, has some merits; but any State scheme must lack the flexibility of a good company scheme, and to limit new and improved schemes to the minimum standard for contracting out means that there really is nothing much to discuss. Pension problems are not solved just by providing a higher pension. Where resources are limited, many would forgo a higher pension if they could have the same pension payable from an earlier age. Others would prefer higher increases after retirement. Others, again, look first for better protection for their dependants or for a cash sum on retirement so that they could buy a house or a small business. There is no one answer that is right for everyone. That is why I believe we must foster this idea of partnership between State and private pensions.

The Government say they believe that is right; but their action in applying these limits under the Pay Code and their proposals for a trade union monopoly in participation in pension funds do not bear that out. By changing their attitude at this stage, they would demonstrate their faith in this partnership. They have a unique opportunity to demonstrate that the all-Party agreement on the new pensions Act that was reached need not be the last that we shall see of such agreements. As one who took part in the discussions towards that all-Party agreement, I must say it was one of the most interesting and encouraging experiences I have had in politics.

It is a matter of real urgency, my Lords, that management and employees should be encouraged now to consult and negotiate on good pensions for those who will one day retire. The impetus and momentum is not there at the moment, and until the restrictions are removed or reduced you will not have meaningful consultations and discussions on any broad scale. I hope that the new Act will come into operation in April 1978. It will do so if the Government state their policy in clear terms but there must be no more delay. We cannot wait much longer if we are to carry out the work that is involved in making applications to the Occupational Pensions Board in good time to get a contracting-out certificate by April 1978.

People do not realise that, if that is not done, and if the Occupational Pensions Board cannot handle those applications by April 1978, employers are going to have to pay, by law, two contributions: one to the company scheme and one to the State scheme. How that situation will be sorted out is anybody's guess, and therefore I say that we must get over this hurdle and get the momentum and the impetus going in this field before the middle of this year so that we can operate the April 1975 Act by April 1978. If that can be done, my Lords, many more of our citizens will look forward to a much more enjoyable retirement than those who have retired over the last 20 years.

3.35 p.m.

Lord MAYBRAY-KING

My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate and for her able and humane speech. Many of us know the wonderful work that she does in Oxford in a voluntary capacity for under-privileged and old folk, and it is fitting that she should have been the one to open the debate today. I was very interested also in what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, from his great experience in the pension field.

I like the thought that over housing and pensions for old folk in Britain we may well be moving towards an all-Party consensus of opinion. However, I should like to refer to the debate which we had on 20th December and remind your Lordships of the excellent speeches made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and six other noble Lords about the harmful effects of the Government's new National Insurance Surcharge Bill on charities. This Bill, if it comes into operation in April unamended, will mean a 2 per cent. charge on all earnings in the country over £15 and under £105 per week. The Bill itself is part of the national economic and financial strategy of the Government. I cannot comment on that: that is a Party matter on which the Parties have expressed their opinions in the House. But I can say that, whereas most employers can recoup themselves in various ways for the new 2 per cent. charge they are going to have to pay—chiefly by price rises—charities cannot do that. They must either cut down their staff or cut down the good work they do.

Let me illustrate by quoting the experience of Help the Aged, a body with which I am connected and which has many keen supporters in your Lordships' House. We recently engaged in a most serious and critical examination of our professional staff—a severe pruning operation—but we realise that if we do not further cut that staff to meet the surcharge then the services we render through Help the Aged will also have to be cut. Among them are the sheltered homes and the day centres that we build and the aid we give to distressed areas in other parts of the world in the form of food, clothing and medical aid; and that will happen just at a time when Help the Aged is expanding and venturing forth in a new field along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of "Self Help for the Old", and when we are about to build our first rehabilitation centre, where old folk who have retired can help themselves and learn various occupations for their retirement.

As the December debate showed, the burden inflicted on the charities has to be borne by each one. I will not weary your Lordships by listing the many charities which are going to find this a very real burden indeed. Since the December debate, I understand that the Churches have made representations to the Government. I know the voluntary bodies have also done so, either to cut out the charities from the new 2 per cent. charge or to ask the Government whether, having made them pay it, they would give it back again, perhaps in the form of a rebate of some kind.

Last year, the Government responded splendidly to the appeal of charities to remove the excessive burden on the charity shops under the rating system. I congratulate them on what they did then, and I hope they will respond in the same way to the appeal which was made during the debate of 20th December, to the appeal which the Churches and other bodies have made, and also to the other appeals which will be made in today's debate, so that the charities do not find they have to cut back on the work they are doing.

We all know of the heavy cuts that have to be made in social expenditure at the moment. It is in this climate that the work of voluntary bodies, such as Help the Aged, Save the Children, Oxfam and the rest, becomes even more vital to Britain, and even more vital to the British Government, than ever before. I have often said that the Britain that I know and love would collapse overnight if it were not for those who give to Britain in voluntary service, and this is not the time to put a new burden on the voluntary bodies which do so much for the social fabric of a good Britain.

On the general question of old age, the association to which I belong has submitted recommendations to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth. Perhaps the most important one is the suggestion that benefits for the old should be more flexibly administered. The retired people who are worst off today are those whose income is just above the supplementary benefits level. I received a letter containing an example of this problem. A certain married couple have no income but their pension. Under the Welfare State, they get a heating allowance, a diet allowance for the lady who is diabetic, a rate rebate, a rent rebate and the possibility of what is called an exceptional needs allowance for further clothing or anything like that. Next door, in an identical house, live a second couple. They have life savings, the interest on which brings them in £2 a week. This lifts them out of all those supplementary benefits that the other couple get, apart from a rate rebate which I am happy to know they get. I must confess that it will be very difficult to make a flexible approach to this question, but I can understand the feelings of the second couple who, in a letter to my Association, write that they now "regret their thrifty youth", because they get very little benefit indeed from the income from their savings.

There are something like 2 million old people in the group of those whose extra tiny income is just enough to lift them out of the supplementary benefits category. I met an old man a fortnight ago, at one of my meetings, who told me that the increase in his old age pension which he got in December has been wiped out by a variation in his tax, and by the benefits which he had lost. When the economic climate improves, our first priority should be to the old age pensioners, with an increase in the basic pension. But in the meantine, it might at least be possible to temper the wind to the shorn lambs by looking after some of these cases which are just on the border line.

There is so much to be done in the field of the topic of this debate. There are the special needs of the over-80s. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, was right at Question Time this afternoon when he called attention to the fact that people live longer, and that men and women of 65 and 70 are younger than ever they were. The real core of the hardship of old people is the old people who live to 80 and 80-plus—an ever increasing number. There is the question of the taxation of the small savings of the little man, and their relation to his pension. There is still the problem of warmth for old people. On the tape this afternoon, there is the story of an old lady in Devon who died yesterday from hypothermia. It should not be possible in England for people to die because they are too cold.

Then there is the problem of the loneliness of old people and sheltered housing, and all the various societies and local authority provisions for this are most important. No old person ought to be lonely in Britain. Nobody ought to die alone, as some have died alone, without anybody finding out for weeks. There is the question of telephones for old people—a vital need for the lonely old person. There is the question of the need for an increase in the number of doctors who take special care and interest in the problem of old folk—those old folk who suffer from a stroke and think that is the end, when it can easily be merely an incident in a healthy life.

I have seen in my lifetime a revolutionary change in what the State does for old folk, and in what men and women of good will are doing daily to prove to those who have borne the heat and burden of the day that Britain cares for them; and the number of noble Lords who are to speak in this debate, and the quality of those noble Lords, is an example of the fact that this House cares. It might be well if we set up a Royal Commission to investigate all the problems that we are to discuss this afternoon. But may I end by paraphrasing a saying of a great American, who created a Christian brotherhood called the Loyal Order of Moose in America, a brotherhood which has built in Florida a city of happy old people, men and women cared for by the brotherhood out of their own money. He once said: No man stands so tall as when he stoops to raise a frail or lonely old man or woman". My Lords, I am happy to take part in this very human debate today.