POVERTY IN BRITAIN

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)

My Lords, if we may by general consent return to poverty within our own shores, I should like first of all—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising this matter to-day, and in no less measure for the balance and moderation and good information of his speech, which, if I may say so, exceeded those shown in a quotation from his writings printed in this morning's Guardian. He was more up to date this 199 afternoon. I think we may all look forward to a useful debate at what is well known to be a formative moment in Government policy on this matter.

For the most part, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his remarks. I know that the whole House will have listened with respect to what he had to say about prophylaxis. This is a field in which he is exceptionally well qualified. His ideas will merit study within the Government, and they will get it. The speech of the noble Lord was not entirely free of Party points, which I regret. But there it is; that is one of the things we are here for. I do not think I have ever heard this Government accused in the same sentence of both mismanagement of the economy and a lack of Socialist thinking by anybody from the Conservative Front Bench. The conjunction of these two reproaches more often comes from certain noble Lords who sit behind me. I wonder which it is the noble Lord would like more of first—better management of the economy or more Socialist thinking.

There are various detailed points in what the noble Lord said that I am able to take up now, and I think it may be convenient to do so before coming to the generality of my remarks. The noble Lord suggested that in rent collection cases councils should await a social report, as the courts do. I think this might be a cumbrous course to adopt. If somebody cannot pay the rent the right course is to give him a rent rebate. This is what civilised councils do, and the Government hope to see more councils do it in an intelligent way. In general, I can confirm the figures which Lord Sandford gave for this and that. There are now about 1,800,000 old people receiving supplementary benefit. This is 400,000 more than in 1966, before the scheme started. Noble Lords who know about this field will remember that it has many times been said that 500,000 more received it, and this was true in September of last year. Up to that time the increase was 500,000. But since then some no longer need it because the National Insurance benefits have risen. I confirm that the expenditure on supplementary benefit is now running at a little over £400 million a year. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also asked when the survey 200 of the disabled would be to hand. We hope to get preliminary results into the Department about the middle of next year, and the final report should be published during 1970.

The House will know that the Government are engaged at this moment in preparing plans for the future development of our social insurance scheme, and this is the first thing I should like to talk about. Our proposals for a new and modern structure in which contributions will be related to earnings are now well advanced, and we hope to publish this winter a White Paper setting them out for public consideration and discussion. We believe that our new approach to social insurance will provide a contributory scheme not only set upon firm foundations but also—and this is what will be new—responsive to the developing needs of a dynamic economy. You have to have a system so that if the general wage level goes up in a given profession or trade after a man has retired, he should not be entirely cut off from that increase in general prosperity just because it has happened too late for him to get it in the form of direct wage earnings.

All this is going to be a matter of great and interesting debate next year, after the White Paper is out. I should not say much about it at the moment, of course. It is clear that, like any major reform affecting the whole structure of society, it is going to be full of transitional arrangements. There are at the moment earnings-related elements, and after the new scheme comes into existence there will be flat rates. It will be a great acceleration in the process of transition from the one to the other. Just how long it will take before the new scheme works up into top gear I cannot of course say at the moment. There is some reason to suppose—and this is a point of the greatest importance, because in all these matters we are reliant upon public opinion; no Government can do anything that the public do not want them to do for very long—that most people think that if there is any sector of the community in favour of whom they would be willing to forgo some good things for themselves, it is the old. This growing climate of opinion, which I think is fairly well known, will 201 of course make easier the far-reaching changes we are about to propose.

We have also made a start on the modernisation of the provision for sickness, unemployment and widowhood. The interim scheme, introduced in 1966, pays in the early months of these conditions benefits which are related to earnings and which therefore provide a considerably better level of compensation than before. This has been welcomed. Perhaps the greatest concern is about poverty among the old. For the vast majority of them, the National Insurance retirement pension is the staple part of their income, and it is of course understandable that our old people and those who speak for them should be worried in a time of rising prices. I have not heard this worry reflected yet in the House to-day, and I congratulate those noble Lords who have spoken so far on, I guess, knowing the true situation, but I may as well set it out.

I share the general concern about this matter of pensions vis-à-vis rising prices, and so do the Government, but we can look back with some pride on the advances made in the level of retirement pensions. I want to say this quite clearly, because it is sometimes said that these pensions are being allowed to fall behind the standards reached by the rest of the community. This is not true. The Government lost no time on assuming office. In 1965 retirement pensions, as well as other insurance benefits, were increased, and this was followed in 1967 by a further general increase. In all, those increases have raised the main rates of retirement pension by one-third. The advances made in 1965 and 1967 have already contributed to a higher standard of living for pensioners. The higher rates then established have been paid throughout the successive years; and, indeed, at the present time, even after allowance has been made for price increases since 1964, the real value of retirement pensions—and this is the measure of their real purchasing power—is notably better than that of the rates in payment when the Government came to power. The real improvement is, in fact, about 15 per cent. One-third is the absolute improvement in money terms.

But disablement and sickness—and do we not know it!—may bring financial as well as physical and social handicaps. 202 They may mean interrupted earnings, reduced earnings or the end of a useful working life.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive my interrupting at that point. In giving the increase in the real value, is he able to say what is the position so far as concerns the increase in real value of earnings, if any?

§ LORD KENNET

Not at the moment, my Lords, though I hope that perhaps my noble friend who is to wind up the debate may be able to make this comparison to the House.

The disablement or sickness of someone other than the breadwinner—and this, I know, was a point which was exercising Lord Beaumont when he opened the debate—can obviously strain the whole family. Some problems are still unsolved, but we have made good progress through the increased benefit rates, through the earnings-related supplements, which I have mentioned, and through supplementary benefit. I think the main point here is that a disabled member of the family who is unable to work can now claim supplementary benefit as part of the entitlement as of right. This winter's White Paper, which I have just mentioned, will show the way to further progress on this front, too. I have just mentioned the survey of the chronic sick and disabled.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend whether that includes the housewife?

§ LORD KENNET

Not unless she is disabled.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

The disabled housewife who is not in gainful employment. She cannot claim supplementary benefit in her own right, can she?

§ LORD KENNET

May I return to that point later? I shall return to it, or my noble friend Lady Phillips will.

Illness and disablement require a co-ordinated approach; that is obvious. Medical treatment, rehabilitation or nursing aids would be no use if the sick person had too little food to keep himself alive to make use of them. Equally, cash would be of no use without the services needed to restore health or to reduce the consequences of disablement. 203 The new Department of Health and Social Security, the office of the Secretary of State for the Social Services, the Green Paper on the Health Service, the Seebohm Committee Report—these are the landmarks of our common concern to deploy our resources in the best way for the relief of suffering and to meet need, equally whether in money or in services and goods. I know as well as anyone that there is still a long way to go.

My Lords, so far I have talked of insurance schemes which help people by contributions during their working life to lift themselves out of povery in old age, sickness and other misfortunes. But we must also look at the supplementary benefits which for people not in full-time work provide a guaranteed minimum standard of life. This is a concept to which I shall return. The Government have done much since 1964 to improve the standard provided by the Supplementary Benefits Scheme and its predecessor, National Assistance.

It may be helpful if I explain briefly how the scheme works. First, one considers what a person already has to live on. This is referred to in the legislation as his "resources". These include part-time earnings, State benefits, private pensions and savings. In calculating the resources, parts of certain kinds of income and certain amounts of savings can be ignored, or, to use the statutory term again, "disregarded". Next one considers what a person needs to keep himself and his family. This is known under the legislation as his "requirements". These are calculated from the scale rates which are themselves laid down in the legislation for the ordinary needs of the family and take into account the actual rent he has to pay and any special needs the family may have. The scheme then pays the amount required to bring what he has, his resources, up to what he needs, his requirements.

My Lords, in March, 1965, the level of National Assistance requirements was substantially raised. In November, 1966, National Assistance was replaced by the Supplementary Benefits Scheme which was an advance in three ways. First, it provided a right (or, as the Act calls it, an entitlement) to benefit; in particular for old people, the Supplementary Benefits Commission cannot reduce benefit 204 below the level set out in the legislation. This means that old people are sure of a guaranteed income. I want to say more about the results of this when I talk about the old in more detail. Secondly, it improved standards by fixing higher levels for benefit by bringing in (through the "long-term addition") a higher level still for old people and certain others—typically the chronic sick, such as the diabetics, who, so long as they are sick, have more expenses than healthy people who are below the requirement level for some other reason than their own sickness. The standards were also improved, beyond the long-term benefits, by removing the rigid limit on the amount of savings the person could have before receiving benefit.

Thirdly, the scheme brought up to date and simplified the rules about income and savings which could be (to use the statutory term) disregarded. The aim of all this was to get a system of non-contributory benefit which could win public confidence and get people to come along because of the injection of the new element of "entitlement". It was epitomised by the bringing together of non-contributory and contributory benefits into one Department, the new Ministry of Social Security.

My Lords, the levels of requirements were raised again in October, 1967 and again in October, 1968. This last increase was to protect the most vulnerable people against price increases caused by devaluation. When all these increases are taken together, it is clear what considerable steps have been taken since 1964 in raising the minimum standard of life for people who, for one reason or another, cannot be expected to work or cannot find work. If one compares the levels of National Assistance rates in October, 1964, with the levels of supplementary benefit now, the real value, after taking account of price changes, has increased in the four years by 23 per cent. Even this does not include the additional improvements brought about by the new long-term addition that I have just mentioned, which is now running at 10s. a week, and the other beneficial changes which were made in the rules when the Supplementary Benefits Scheme was started in 1966.

Before I leave the subject of supplementary benefits I should like to take up 205 the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on one word which he used. He said it was "disgraceful" that there should be now two million people on supplementary benefits. We are all entitled to our opinions; but for my part I would entirely reject that word. It is not disgraceful that there should be anybody on National Assistance or on supplementary benefit. The Supplementary Benefits Scheme is simply the means that we in our society use to ensure that nobody shall be too poor. Other means are thinkable. Each one of us could name three or four other means of doing this; and I think that those who know anything about it could name three or four objections to each of the other means. At the moment the means we have is the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. I should much regret it if it got around that this House, or anybody in it, considered it a disgraceful means. It is not disgraceful; it is an honourable means and the most convenient means available at this moment.

§ LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, may I just take the opportunity of accepting that comment, which I think my remarks deserved? What I was attempting to say was that we ought to regard it as a challenge to improve our policies towards the poor that we have something of the order of two million people who need this kind of assistance. It is not a disgrace that they are receiving it.

§ LORD KENNET

My Lords, I accept that and thank the noble Lord for his words.

My Lords, I should now like to consider some of the main groups who have benefited from this rise in standards. First, there are the old, who form about 70 per cent. of the households receiving supplementary benefits. One of the main impetuses behind the new scheme was the Report of the Government inquiry, Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners. That Report said that large numbers of old people who could have got National Assistance did not know about it or were unwilling to claim it. The new scheme, with its emphasis on entitlement, its more straightforward rules, its higher standards and the publicity campaign with which we accompanied it when it was launched, attracted the half-million extra old people on to the supplementary benefits 206 list. These are the half-million that I spoke about just now. This figure has now fallen, for the reason that I gave, to 400,000. This speaks for itself. I would accept that there are sill old people who do not claim the supplementary benefit. But the new Supplementary Benefits Scheme and the Rate Rebate Scheme, which in 1967–68 benefited 700,000 poor people over pension age, have marked decisive steps towards removing poverty from old age.

Another large group receiving supplementary benefits are the sick end the disabled. Many of these are also receiving National Insurance sickness benefit, but an almost equal number are people, usually the congenitally sick and disabled, who have never been able to acquire an insurance record because they have never got to work. It is among this latter group that supplementary benefit is particularly important, and is likely to remain so, as a cure of poverty. For example, where parents have living with them a badly disabled child who has no prospects of working, they know that from the age of sixteen he will be entitled to supplementary benefit in his own right without regard to their resources. Then there are the unemployed.

At this point (I do not know whether the House will agree that it is not a digression) I want to speak for a moment about the present unemployment situation and to place on record some figures which I find are mysteriously ignored in public debate at the moment. On October 14 this year, there were 535,000 unemployed persons in Great Britair. This is a distressing number. It is higher than it was—the debate is very familiar—but it is lower than it was at the time of which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was speaking in the 1930s. But what do we mean when we say "an unemployed person"? It is a fact that that figure makes no distinction at all between a person unemployed for one week and a person who has been unemployed for three years. If a man goes along and registers as unemployed, he shows up in that list. The list knows no distinction between the long-term and the short-term unemployed. I should like to give the House a figure about this.

At that date, two months ago, 45.8 per cent. of the unemployed had been 207 unemployed for eight weeks or less. That is to say, just on half were unemployed for under two months—are at any given moment under two months; just on half get back to work within two months. This is what it means. I do not know what opinion each of your Lordships will form of this individually, but my own is this: that in a country with rising standards of living, often called "affluent", and in the most part justifiably called affluent; in a country with rather good unemployment benefit levels; in a rather civilised country, a modern country, it is not remarkable, I think, that a man who is looking for a new job should take eight weeks about it. I do not think that this is a matter for any distress to anybody. If it takes him longer than that, we may begin to worry.

If we call the remaining 54 per cent. those who are really unemployed, we find that the total is a little over a quarter of a million; and not the "somewhat over half a million" which is generally discussed. Why it is generally discussed is something which has always puzzled me: the true figure is nearer a quarter of a million.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I have no doubt that mathematically what he said is correct; but it did not convince me, in the way in which he said it. If I understood the noble Lord rightly, he said the fact that only 45 per cent. had been out of employment for eight weeks was a proof that everybody got back within eight weeks. That does not seem to me to follow, unless a point is taken at another period and you can show that the 45 per cent. have gone round once.

§ LORD KENNET

My Lords, I do not quite follow the reasoning of the right reverend Prelate, and I am reluctant to get into one of these statistical haggles. Of course I did not mean to say that everybody got back at eight weeks, only that at any given moment half had been out of employment for under eight weeks; and in a situation where that is so, that is a pretty good indication that half of them are, on the whole, short-term people and that it is not all up at the long-term end—the year, or nine months, or a 208 year and a half, which is what is really worrying in a society.

My Lords, the last large group I want to mention are the so-called fatherless families. Here I think the House will know that there has been a fairly startling increase, from 85,000 fatherless families receiving supplementary benefit in 1955 to 176,000 to-day. The Supplementary Benefits Scheme pays benefit to any woman with dependent children not living with her husband, or with another man, without requiring her to register for work—provided, of course, that maintenance payments or earnings do not take her income above the supplementary benefit level for the family. The Government are very conscious of the special position of this group and the need to devote further thought to their position, if only because they are an increasing group. But they do not form a homogeneous group, and here the flexibility of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme is of value. Even within the three main groups of widows, separated wives and unmarried mothers there are important distinctions. A wife may be legally separated from her husband, or may have been temporarily deserted by him, or anything in between. The unmarried mother may be living with her parents, or may be married in all but name to the father of her child, or may be entirely alone. But in all cases where there is no man to support them the woman and her family are now able to have their income brought up to the supplementary benefit level. Thus people not in full-time work and their families are taken out of poverty by the Supplementary Benefits Scheme.

My Lords, there is one more smaller group of families whom we cannot help through the Insurance or Supplementary Benefits Scheme but who may need our help just as much. These are the families of people in full-time work who cannot qualify for benefit, however low their earnings; and linked with them are the people who, although they are on supplementary benefit, have the amount of their benefit restricted by the wage stop. The extent of this problem was shown by the inquiry and Report, Circumstances of Families in 1966, which has been referred to more than once this afternoon. This Report said that in July of that year there were about 160,000 families in these groups, containing about 209 500,000 children, who were living below the November, 1966, supplementary benefit levels, for what that is worth; that is a point to which I shall come later.

It was the main aim of the family allowance increase this year to help these families. Until then family allowances had remained unaltered since 1956. Within the last year the Government have, in two stages, increased them by 10s. for each qualifying child, thus more than doubling their value; so that the allowance is now 18s. a week for a second child and 20s. a week for the third and each subsequent child. The advantage of the increase was concentrated on those families that needed it by so adjusting tax allowances that the man paying tax at the standard rate paid back in extra tax the full amount of his extra family allowances, while at the other end of the scale the really poor man received the full increase—I say "man" but of course it is the woman and the family who receive the full increase without any tax reduction whatever. This ingenious means has, I think, met with little criticism since it has been in operation—though we heard a lot against it before it came in—and it appears to me to be a neat and wholly beneficial way of solving what would otherwise have been the extremely difficult and intractable social problem of how to get the money to these people.

My Lords, I will say this in conclusion. I have not attempted to define poverty because I think that above the level needed to maintain life itself there is no clear-cut definition. The nearest, perhaps, we can get is that poverty is whatever standard of life any community at any given moment finds to be intolerable to contemplate. What I would claim is that since 1964 the Government have markedly improved the standards of the poorest by means of higher insurance benefits and the new Supplementary Benefits Scheme for those unable to work or not expected to work; and by means of higher family allowances for people in work or where supplementary benefit is wage-stopped.

I might just at this point break off to say that we will look at Lord Beaumont's "Christmas Package" suggestion on the wage stop. It is a most attractive idea, but I wonder how far one could go in this direction. if that is cancelled for a couple of weeks, I can think of a great 210 many other things which everybody would like to see cancelled for a couple of weeks too—and there might be no end to it this side of a total income tax remission of a fortnight every year. For many people, too, the rate-rebate scheme has been an additional help.

But, despite what I have said, we on this side of the House—and I think that noble Lords opposite know it—arc not complacent. The White Paper is going to be the next big step forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, put down his Motion (in a way I regret that he did) just a little too early for us to be able to discuss that White Paper. I expect that we shall have another debate when it comes forward. Moreover, we are building up research into what needs to be done for the less well-off groups. Already a lot is done. I do not accept Lord Sandford's sneer about its being only in a Conservative Manifesto that you find research on social problems; there may have been a word or two about it in ours also; and we all know the political ideology which lies behind the great volume of immensely valuable research which has been done by private researchers outside Government: altogether.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, concluded by asking the Government for two pledges: first, to have a programme to eradicate poverty and, secondly, to make that programme the first national priority. I should like to say a word about both, because I think that they are extremely interesting and constructive suggestions. A programme to eradicate poverty should be very good indeed. We all know what a programme is and what eradication is, but none of us knows what poverty is. Here is a difficulty for any Government, one on which I should like to expatiate for a moment. We are all agreed that there is poverty above the starvation line, but once we get above that line, whit we call the poverty line is a floating value judgment.

There is also a floating political judgment, which may be changed and is always changed upwards and I have no doubt will be changed upwards again, of what is the statutory poverty line: that is, the requirement line in legislation. A Government can say that there are too many people: they must help some people by raising the statutory line. 211 This is very good. People who ought to have more money will begin to get it. On the other hand, the critics will be able to say, "Lo and behold, last year there were 1,800,000 old people" (or whatever the figure was) "below the poverty line; this year there are 2½ million. The figure is going up. Disgrace! The number of poor is increasing". Not a bit of it. The number of people who are as poor as they were last year has decreased because those officially below the poverty line are getting something done about it. So we are in a cleft stick. If we define poverty in statutory terms in a generous way, to help more people, we also make more people statutorily poor. It is hard to know what is the right thing to do. For this reason I should be a little hesitant about making a Government programme to eradicate poverty in any very precise terms. Of course, at the moment there is a programme to alleviate poverty. I have just outlined what it is, and it is a good one. If we do not have an Office for the Eradication of Poverty, it is only because we are addicted to slightly more pompous words than the Americans. But we have a Department of Health and Social Security which is doing just about that.

Turning now to the second demand for a pledge that we should make such a programme our first national priority, I would say, "Yes", except that I should have to say what is second and what is fifteenth, and then we should get one of these very unwelcome lists. We all agree—and I am glad we all agree—in all Parties in our political system, that there are various grave social difficulties, all of which must be tackled. So while I cannot give the noble Lord a pledge that we will make the eradication of poverty the sole first priority, I can give him a pledge that it will not be the second.

§ BARONESS BIRK

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about the point I raised? He talked about bringing up the amount of supplementary benefit for fatherless families. Could he say whether the Government have in mind a special allowance for fatherless children? The fatherless child needs the same keep because he is in the same position.

§ LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am not sure that I am getting my noble friend's 212 point. Fatherless children come in fatherless families.

§ BARONESS BIRK

If we take it from the point of view of the child's needs, then we should make an allowance for fatherless children irrespective of how they lose their fathers—through divorce, for example, as well as through death—because at the present moment there are anomalies.

§ LORD KENNET

Is my noble friend speaking about children in care?

§ BARONESS BIRK

I am speaking about children who are living with their mothers and who are fatherless.

§ LORD KENNET

My Lords, I think I had better say that I will study this point and write to my noble friend about it.

§ LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having answered almost all the points I raised and for having confirmed the ones I asked him to confirm, but there is one question I asked him to which it would be nice to have an answer. How successful have the Government been in persuading retirement pensioners, who seem to be entitled to supplementary benefit and are not receiving it, to accept it? Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, at the end of the debate about this matter, because I think it is important.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for drawing attention to the serious extent of poverty which still exists in Britain. In supporting the Motion, I would stress first of all the need for a proper perspective. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has already reminded us, we need to see such poverty as still exists in Britain within the wider context of world poverty, and although world poverty is not our subject to-day I hope I may be excused for recalling a few of the salient facts about the world situation.

I quote two sentences from World Poverty and British Responsibility, a Report published by a Working Party for the British Council of Churches in 1966. It says: In 1962, the average annual income per head of the 1,400 million people living in the 213 developing countries was less than £50. There has been little improvement in the position since then. In India, 470 million people had an average income of less than 10s. a week. In the light of this world situation, it is doubtful whether in speaking of human need in this country we are justified in using the word "poverty" without qualifying the word by the addition of the word "relative" or "comparative" for, as we have been reminded to-day, poverty is a relative conception.

Turning, then, to the relative or comparative poverty in Britain, I think that here again it is important that we should view the situation in a proper perspective. I refer, for example, to the pamphlet The Liberal Crusade against a Selfish Society. While it is not possible to exaggerate the appalling destitution of thousands of homeless and displaced families in this country, to which the Shelter Campaign has so rightly drawn our attention, I suggest that it is misleading to state, as is stated in this pamphlet, that: 100,000 of our old people die every year as the direct result of hunger and cold. Such a bald statement, so it seems to me, does scant justice to our social services and to those who administer them. For is it not a fact that for several years our social security arrangements have been such that no one need die of hunger and cold, if benefits are claimed and if family and neighbours and the beneficiaries themselves are reasonably attentive?

This leads me to say that I hope that none of us will seek to make political capital out of this problem of poverty in our midst. Whether we belong to this Party or to that Party or, indeed, owe allegiance to no Party, let us give one another the credit of sharing equally a deep concern for the solution of this problem, and let us all together thankfully recognise the immense progress in eliminating poverty that we have witnessed in this country in this century through the efforts of successive Governments, and not least through the social legislation leading to the Welfare State as we know it to-day.

I have recently been reading Roy Jenkins's Life of Asquith and I cannot refrain from recalling the startling historic fact that 60 years ago—yes, only 60 214 years ago—when Asquith introduced a non-contributory pension of 5s. a week at 70 for those whose total income did not exceed 10s. a week and who had not disqualified themselves by being criminals or lunatics or by becoming with n the previous year paupers, the scheme was violently criticised for showing a reckless generosity. Lord Rosebery thought the plan so prodigal of expenditure as likely to undermine the whole fabric of empire", and another Peer described it as destructive of all thrift. We have advanced a long way in the last 60 years! Bearing in mind the Prime Minister in 1908, it is a great joy to see his daughter the noble Baroness s raring with us in this debate this afternoon. Again we have advanced a long way in the past sixty years.

What is the situation to-day? We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his reassuring statement on the Supplementary Benefit Scheme and the results already accruing to the great benefit of many thousands of people. Under this scheme, as I understand it, putting it quite briefly, pensioner; who are not in full-time work have a statutory right to have their incomes brought up to a guaranteed weekly level by means of a supplementary pension, and those who are under pension age and are not in full-time employment—the sick, disabled, unemployed, widows, mothers left alone with young children—are entitled to a supplementary allowance adequate to bring their income up to what is re3arded as a proper level.

It is well known, as we have been reminded already this afternoon, that there have been many who in the pas-. have hesitated to avail themselves of these supplementary benefits and have consequently lived below the poverty line either because they have not known how to apply for these benefits or because they thought it was not quite a respectable thing to do. I understand that a fairly recent Ministry survey revealed an estimated 850,000 pensioners who were entitled to supplementary benefit who were not drawing this benefit. I am glad to be able to say that the Church of England clergy, encouraged by a letter from the two Archbishops, have been endeavouring 215 to co-operate with the Ministry in encouraging those who are entitled to supplementary benefit to apply to the Ministry of Social Security.

It would seem to me, therefore, that if the statement in the Liberal pamphlet to which I have referred, that at least one person in eight of our total population lives in conditions of extreme poverty", is accurate, it should be qualified in all fairness by a parallel statement that much of this extreme poverty would not exist if those eligible were to apply for the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled. There is, however, an important question that arises in connection with many who are physically or otherwise disabled and are not entitled to a pension, as those are entitled who are disabled in industry or by polio contracted during service in Her Majesty's Forces. This matter has already been touched upon. I know that many disabled persons, with a courage and determination that win our admiration, equip themselves to be wage earners; but many are entirely dependent on social security and are forced to turn to voluntary societies for supplementary assistance. I would express the hope that Her Majesty's Government may give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of providing pensions for those who are totally or partially incapacitated by an incurable and permanent disability and who are not receiving pensions from other sources.

My Lords, I have tried to put the whole problem in its proper perspective, but a right perspective provides no justification for closing our ears to the. challenge presented by the gap between rich and poor, whether it be on a world level, the gap between rich and poor nations, or on our British level, the gap between rich and poor within our own nation. It would seem that without wishing to be unduly pessimistic we must accept the fact that there will always be this gap between rich and poor so long as men and nations remain fundamentally selfish and acquisitive in their attitudes and fail to respond to the redemptive influence of love—the love of God, the love which for a Christian is seen exemplified in the life of Jesus. History indicates that no political programme, 216 however revolutionary, can ultimately succeed on its own in narrowing this gap. Those of us who, for example, have visited countries behind the Iron Curtain have quickly become aware of a continuing gap between rich and poor, although the rich may not be the same folk as the rich before the revolution, and the poor may not be the same poor. Nevertheless, the gap between rich and poor continues.

This gap must always confront us with a challenge—a challenge which we cannot evade. The question that we have to ask in every generation is just this: What can we do to narrow the gap? It is easy enough to adopt a policy of despair, and to say the little that we can do is so little that we might as well give up the attempt. I am sure, my Lords, that we should all regard this defeatist attitude as wrong. If, however, we proceed to ask what practical steps we can take, then I think we are driven to recognise that it is a question of priorities.

Let us for a moment turn our thoughts to the world situation, with which I began. Without focusing our attention on particular nations, must we not all as world citizens ask ourselves whether it can really be right for nations of the world to spend thousands of millions of pounds on the exploration of space and attempts to land on the moon, or in the preparation of weapons of destruction, while two-thirds of the world's population go hungry every day and millions are dying each year of hunger and malnutrition? I am happy to recognise that this country is at present contributing about £200 million a year in aid to developing countries, but this represents under 1 per cent. of our total national income.

While on this subject, perhaps I may be allowed to draw the attention of your Lordships' to the fact that the Anglican Bishops at the Lambeth Conference endorsed the appeal of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala, that the Churches should do their utmost to influence the Governments of industrialised countries to increase annually the percentage of gross national products officially transferred as financial resources, exclusive of private investment, to developing countries, with a minimum net amount of 1 per cent. to be reached by 1971.

217 We are, however, primarily concerned this afternoon with poverty or comparative poverty in Britain, and nothing that we do to help developing countries overseas ought to deflect us from this problem of poverty in our midst. I have no ready-made solutions. I content myself with observing that each Government has the heavy responsibility of considering and deciding upon the question of priorities in the national budget in such a way that the gap between rich and poor within our nation is steadily narrowed rather than widened. It is not, I should think, that it is morally wrong to be rich or necessarily an evil to be poor. Everything depends on the use made of riches and the spirit in which material possessions, or the lack of them, is regarded. None of us can be complacent so long as there are men, women and children, equally with ourselves members of the human family, who are deprived of the opportunity of living a full life.

In this Human Rights Year, I would remind the House of Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services. This, my Lords, is one of the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" to which the Preamble of the Declaration refers. The ultimate aim of all our social legislation in this country must be to enable every citizen to live a life of dignity in freedom.

§ LORD KENNET

My Lords, if I may have the understanding of the House for one moment to intervene, I would say that the right reverend Prelate quoted, as Lord Beaumont did not, from the Liberal Pamphlet called, The Liberal Crusade against a Selfish Society. I should like to make, if I may, a couple of remarks about the figures which appear in that pamphlet. It builds up this picture of a very terrible situation. It says that 9 million people live in slums and substandard houses. To that, I would say that a slum is one thing, but a substandard house is another. A house may be substandard if it simply does not have hot and cold running water in a wash hand basin. Many of those substandard 218 houses are perfectly all right to live in, though something ought to be done to them. The pamphlet speaks of 100,000 of our old people dying every year as a direct result of hunger and cold. My Lords, I know of no evidence whatever that such a thing happens, and I do not know where the authors of this pamphlet got theirs. It speaks of 750,000 old people living below National Assistance level. To that, I would say that there were 750,000 old people who did not claim National Assistance, although they were entitled to it, three years ago. I would point out that of course there has not been such a thing as "National Assistance" in the last two years.

It speaks of 500,000 of our children being undernourished. My Lords, once again I know of no evidence that such a thing is so, and I wonder where the authors of the pamphlet got theirs. Finally, the pamphlet says: These figures imply that at least one person in eight of our total population lives in conditions of extreme poverty". I do not think that the figures, even if they were correct, would imply any such thing, but in any case the figures are not correct.

§ LORD SOPER

My Lords, I hope I may have the indulgence of your Lordships' House, because I have agreed to speak at another meeting on the same topic some long way from here. I recognise that up to now in this debate my noble friend Lord Kennet is the only lay filling in an otherwise exclusively ecclesiastical sandwich. If I am to be included in that sandwich I should like to justify my presence and what I have to say, not by claiming first-hand experience of poverty, except by inadvertence now and then, which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has indicated as a prerequisite of a really authoritative speech, but by saying that for at least forty years I have been cheek and jowl with poverty in my professional career. 'Therefore, perhaps your Lordships' House; will admit a reminiscence which I think helps to put the present situation in perspective and is corroboration to some extent of what the right reverend Prelate has just said.

Forty years ago you could debouch from the Old Kent Road to streets like Rivet Street and finds no houses with 219 doors upon them. You would find houses almost entirely bereft of furniture. Almost my first experience as a minister was being asked by my deaconess whether I could go over to a certain house in Rivet Street where it was said a man was committing suicide. "Would I go to help him?"—a slightly ambiguous request, which I endeavoured to follow. I found he was standing in the middle of a room in which there were two families, each huddled into a corner; there was no furniture whatsoever except a soapbox and some rags on the floor. That was not a particular and egregious exhibition of poverty in one particular street off the Old Kent Road, as I have every reason to know. People who talk about poverty to-day are talking about an institution and a curse which in many respects has been largely removed from our cities—and thank God for that!

If we are profitably to utilise the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, we shall do well, I am sure, to look at those alternative forms of poverty which have taken the place of the endemic poverty, which are more miliary now than particularised in groups of people and in particular parts of London and other conurbations. The first great difference to-day is that poverty has moved West in the great cities and one finds it now behind the stucco of quite respectable West End terraces, where people are living in respectable poverty and are much less likely to seek the opportunities that a Welfare State provides for them. If it be true, as I have no doubt it is, that few of them will die of cold this winter, it is my experience as a practising parson that over and over again people living in such circumstances have not enough money to keep themselves warm, and only just about enough money to keep themselves clothed and housed. Although statistics are available which could be, I suppose, regarded as authoritative, I will not question them except to say that it is the experience of every social worker whom I have come across that this situation is very widespread.

The second characteristic of poverty today is that much of the poverty that could be alleviated is not alleviated because of a lack of take-up. I hope that this is not a piece of my own Party allegiance, 220 and I hope it is not a piece of Party bias, but the more I read both of the promise and of the performance of the present Welfare State as carried out hitherto by the present Government, and the new proposals and anticipations of the new scheme under Social Security as a whole, the more I am impressed by them. They have a magistral sweep, a comprehensiveness and an idealism, which all commend themselves to me. And I, for one, am profoundly grateful for the changes that they have enabled me, and every other social worker, to see in the general conditions, which once were deplorable.

It is necessary, I think, to remind ourselves that of the 900,000 who were entitled to retirement pensions and did not take them up, a great many did not want them or did not need them. It is assessed (and, here again, I cannot substantiate the accuracy of this figure, although it is authoritatively stated) that 250,000 of them in fact did not take up their retirement pensions because for various reasons they were unwilling to take the trouble so to do, or were unprepared to face what they regarded as a social insult or an exhibition of charity. Nothing seems to me to commend itself so much in the present attitude of Her Majesty's Government as this attempt to remove the social sense of some kind of charitable deflation of one's own personality present in the way in which these social benefits were acquired in the past. Of the 235,000 families which are, I believe, living below supplementary benefit level now, it is interesting that only 25 per cent. took up their children's meals concession, not because they were, as I think, already well fed, but because of this reluctance. Therefore, perhaps one of the most justifiable and one of the most encouraging of all the features of the present social security system is that if it can remove this allergy and unwillingness, then it will be doing something of prime importance.

I should like to mention, too, very briefly, two areas in which present poverty has become recognisable and is hectic. One of them has already been adverted to at least twice in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am proud to be able to say a word of encouragement to the Disablement Income Group. I have read their literature with relish 221 and I acclaim them. I acclaim them for the care with which they presented their evidence and the exactness with which they have set out their programme. I would venture to quote from at least one of their pamphlets. Whatever may be the answers which hitherto have been given most clearly by my noble friend, I should like an assurance, if he can give it, concerning the 400,000 who are disabled and the families who suffer from that disablement. Here be it admitted that there is no more secretive and no more reticent person, in my judgment, than the one who has been disabled for a very long time; there is a humble pride about people of that character and of that background which I am very proud to recognise.

But is it, or is it not, true that those for whom no cash benefits whatever are available as yet come in the following categories of disabled people: people whose earning capacity has been reduced but not eliminated by injury or disease, or who, because of their disability, incur extra expense in order to perform their normal work; married women who have totally lost their earning capacity but whose contribution record does not entitle them to indefinite continuation of sickness benefit; housewives (mentioned by the noble Baroness), with injuries received or diseases contracted while not gainfully employed; and, above all, disabled children who, though they will of course receive their family allowances, will not be in receipt, unless I am misinformed, of benefit? Surely it should be the aim of this House and of Her Majesty's Government not only to provide for widows and pensioners a guaranteed income but also to provide a guaranteed income for those who are permanently disabled. These seem to me to be eminently reasonable propositions, quarried out of the present situation by the enthusiasm and persistence of the Disabled Income Group, and I hope they will be encouraged by what the noble Baroness will say at the end of this debate.

I conclude with another reference, which I make no apology for mentioning. If we are considering poverty in the general sense of the word then a great deal of it is idiosyncratic to-day and it depends for its relevance and general provenance 222 on qualities which are both economic and moral. I believe that alcohol is one of the prime causes of poverty, and I can give a great deal of evidence to support that belief, but I think an even greater cause is the increase—the fantastic increase—in gambling. It would be difficult to arrive at correct figures or a general knowledge of what in fact is the substance of such a claim n as I now make from evidence which comes to me from persons I believe to be valid.

I should like the Government further to restrict advertisements for drinking. I believe this would have a salutary effect. I believe it would be very much better if the Government would entirely repudiate the principle which led to the emergence of the betting shop. Let me make a confession. When the betting shop problem first arose I was one who felt that as a kind of rough justice the betting shop was a good idea—or rather a lesser evil. I do not believe it any longer; I believe the betting shop is an outstanding curse, a centre of squalor and one which radiates all kinds of poverty. I am sure this is happening, and if the true figures for the dispersal of our treasure in the ridiculous and anti-social behaviour patterns of gambling were available it would be seen to be a major cause of poverty. I hope Her Majesty's Government will bring themselves to look again at the whole question of betting shops.

I was brought up in a good Socialist background which taught me that poverty was a crime. I never quite believed it. It is a dangerous over-simplification. It is not a crime for those who suffer it, and in one sense it was not a crime communities where the solution of it was impossible. It is interesting to reflect that embedded in the Muslim faith is the obligation to provide alms, because there is no possible proposition that there should be the abolition of poverty. Also how often has the New Testament been misquoted—"The poor you will always have with you"—which, of course, is not what was said. In one sense if poverty is a crime it is only because society, being able to get rid of it, is nevertheless unprepared to make the effort so to do. In that sense I would suggest that for the first time in our human story we could obliterate the kind of poverty which is below what is usually known as the "poverty line". It is not 223 a fanciful piece of idealism, but a piece of practical statesmanship.

Therefore I will finish by referring to the concluding remarks of my noble friend. It may not be a first priority, but it dare not be a second; and if the modern community is fashioned in such a way as to lead to the abolition of this kind of poverty as its fundamental requirement, then it will necessarily demand such radical and revolutionary changes in the whole structure of that society as might well satisfy even the most Left Wing minded on this side of the House, and would certainly commend itself to those who believe that an achievement of the Kingdom of God as a reputable, decent, livable society is not necessarily postponed to another world but can be made here on earth.

§ LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I do not want to follow my noble friend Lord Beaumont in taking a broad look at the problems of poverty, but I want to bring forward one or two small points which I think could be considered and which, if properly implemented, could probably reduce a certain amount of the poverty in this country.

The first thing I wish to refer to is the kind of poverty which can be relieved from official circles by means of supplementary benefit, and so on, yet the people to whom it could apply just do not know that it is possible to get this help. In my view, this is partly because there has not been a great deal of propaganda or publicity about this work, and partly, in the second place, because quite often it means filling in a form which may be extremely complicated, and some people really cannot bring themselves to take the trouble to fill it in. To give one or two examples, there are a certain number of parents whose children reach the age when they normally leave school and who would like those children to continue their education. I believe it is possible to obtain financial assistance towards this end, but many people do not know anything about it and therefore they suffer as a result.

In the same way, fathers who try to do a full-time job and also take care of their children when the mother is away with a long-term or chronic illness can 224 get some sort of assistance. Unmarried mothers who are too young to have left school (there are not a great many of them, but cases do occur) sometimes do not get the benefits to which they are entitled because they, or the people in charge of them, do not realise what kind of things are possible. Then again there is the person who suffers an industrial injury, for which benefit can be obtained but who because, due to ignorance, they do not apply until after the time allowed has passed, may have difficulty in getting what they would have been entitled to if they had applied at the right time. Possibly it was not brought to their attention at the time when they could have applied.

Recently a leaflet has been sent out to some of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux called, The Short Step. That gives a lot of extremely good advice, and one would like to see it circulated on a much wider scale. It explains various difficulties, gives advice to people on how to obtain welfare food, free meals at school, clothing for schoolchildren, the various kinds of medical charges involved in obtaining spectacles and dental treatment, and that kind of thing. I am sure that there are a number of people who are entitled to these benefits but who do not know about them, and as a result they come into the poverty level. This pamphlet gives advice to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux about rent rebates and rate rebates, and those other reliefs which can make an enormous difference to a family living on the poverty line, if we may call it that. One would like to see a good deal more propaganda or publicity for these things.

I do not want to go into the question of the disabled person who is suffering from a disease, because my noble friend Lord Wade is going to refer to that when he speaks, but it seems to be a serious gap in our welfare services that those people who are disabled by illness, as opposed to those people who are disabled as a result of war or industrial injury, do not get any benefit at all. I believe that this situation is about to be changed. I am not sure, but I think the Government have in mind some legislation which will change that situation, so possibly the matter is not quite as serious as I thought.

There is another rather small anomaly which can cause trouble. I think I am 225 right in saying that when a workman goes into a new area to find a job he goes to the employment exchange; but in order to be properly registered there he must have an address. Before he can get an address he has to get lodgings; and, supposing he can find lodgings, he probably has to pay some rent in advance. For some reason he has got no money, and finds it difficult to get money from the social security services because he has no address. So there is a little vicious circle which can lead to quite a lot of unnecessary poverty. The same thing applies—and this has been referred to in this House on more than one occasion—when people come out of prison. They have trouble with their National Insurance card, the prison address, with the stamp and all that, which makes it more difficult for a prisoner to get a job. This brings up one more aspect of poverty which could be eliminated by some kind of administrative action.

We have had a good deal of talk about the question of retirement pensions. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who said that the Government had put up the retirement pension and that the new rate represented a real increase, and not merely a nominal one, in the value of the pension. But we must keep the figure continuously under review, because if prices go up under the Government's present economic measures the increasing cost is very soon going to gobble up what the people got with their increased pension.

Here again I would put in one more plea—it is one that has been made in this House many times—for the old people who do not get the pension because they were born chronologically at the wrong time. I know that the number is not very large, and that it is falling each year as people die. I also know that, supposing the Government were to allow this, they would be breaking one of the "sacred cows". That is perhaps a curious statement to come from somebody on these Benches, but I mean that they would be breaking a Beveridge principle. But for people like that I should be prepared to see the Beveridge principle broken: because these people do suffer a lot. It is true that they can now get their supplementary benefit, but it has been brought out that some of 226 these old people who are entitled to supplementary benefit do not apply for it. I think that on the whole question of supplementary benefits there is a wrong idea of the psychology of people.

It is said that these old people do not apply because they are too proud, they do not want to accept charity. It is not that at all. They do not apply because they have not got the t me to apply; they cannot be bothered to apply, in the sense that their life is so taken up with living and taking care of themselves that they cannot go to the Post Office or the social security office to find out what they can get. It is not that they are too proud, it is just that they cannot be bothered to find out. I always refer to the Poor Law with a certain amount of kindness. The Poor Law had one or two good principles in it, one of which was the relieving officer whose job it was to know what was going on in his particular district and to visit his old people regularly. I know there was not a great deal to be had at that time, but here was one individual whose personal responsibility it was to see that people knew what they were entitled to and got it. Possibly when we get some of our new social workers coming along that situation may come back again. I am certain that you must bring the benefit to the people and not expect them to go and fetch the benefit from the office.

The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to the dangers of alcoholism and poverty. I am quite certain that if we could get proper treatment for alcoholics—I do not mean people who drink, but alcoholics—and for drugs addicts when the new treatment centres start, when the new clinics get going, people may be cured, and that that will make soma contribution, although perhaps not a very big contribution, to the diminution of poverty in this country.

There is one further thing that I would mention. I was very pleased to see, that the Government have put a sum of £15,000 aside to take care of the Czech students who were already here or who came over to this country at the time of the troubles in Czechoslovakia. They have put this quite big sum at the disposal of the students so that they can continue. I think the total number of Czechs is about a couple of hundred. 227 But there are 2,500 students from Nigeria and Biafra in this country now who have no money at all because of the civil war in their country, and one wonders whether the Government could not possibly give something towards their care. If they can do it for the Czechs, they can do it for them also. I am told that if something like that does not happen some 300 or 400 of these students will have to give up their higher education and go back to their country, which would be a great disaster, because one of the things Nigeria will need after the civil war has settled down is as many properly trained and educated people as it can get. I put that forward as one more aspect of the relief of poverty in general.

§ LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH

My Lords, like the previous speakers I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for bringing this important social matter before the House for debate. There has been a great deal of speculation and judgment expressed as to the people who, through their own behaviour, may bring themselves into the sphere of poverty, and there has also been speculation as to who precisely are the poor. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very correctly said that poverty was a very difficult thing indeed to define. I want to deal with one aspect of poverty which I think is very important indeed and which I do not think has so far been mentioned; namely, the poverty of fully able-bodied people at work who are badly paid or lowly-paid. Again, we have the same problem of definition.

The Government asked the Prices and Incomes Board to try to define the low paid, and because "low-paid" is justification for proceeding with wages applications all sorts of phrases have developed—low paid, lower paid, lowly paid and so on. But again the Prices and Incomes Board had difficulty in defining low-paid workers. They said that the term was relative, which is not very helpful, because, as I have heard in wage negotiations, the man earning £25 a week claims to be relatively poorly paid compared with the man earning £35 per week.

228 Of course, one danger of defining the low paid would mean the starting up of a whole series of applications for wage increases, and not only the low paid might benefit but all those above them who wanted to maintain their differentials; and if that happened we should be in a sorry state indeed. So this is a most difficult problem. But even though we can make only a sort of imperfect attempt at defining low pay because of the lack of detailed information (a matter which I think has been referred to in this debate and to which I shall revert later) I think it is possible to get a broad indication of what we are talking about. In fact, by inference I think Lord Kennet dwelt a great deal on this subject, because he brought it down to the question of needs. He started to talk about supplementary benefit, and I accept his inference that those who are at a level below what one would receive in supplementary benefit could be regarded as being below the poverty line.

If you take the position of a family who in the normal way do not get any social benefit—I refer to a man, his wife and one child, because as soon as you have a second child you are then entitled to family allowances and you get some help from the State—if the breadwinner was on social security benefit, with all the allowances to-day if he were away from work permanently he could draw something in the region of £12 in benefits and a further £2 rent allowance, an average of £14 a week. The basis of my contribution this afternoon is that a worker at work must earn £15 a week if he is to have the same income as a person permanently away from work on National Assistance or supplementary benefit, that person having a wife and child dependent upon him. It is rather interesting (because, in spite of all that has been said, the T.U.C. are a responsible body) that in the operation of their own incomes policy this is the level they put on the matter. They regard any person whose earnings—not wages—for 40 hours are less than £15 a week as being in a category in regard to which they can reasonably promote a wage increase.

It is interesting, also, to see the size of this problem. When you come to low-paid workers you have more statistical evidence to go on. There is not an 229 up-to-date, comprehensive survey of the distribution of earnings in Britain, but there are three sources on which we can base certain conclusions. The last survey on earnings was in October, 1960—eight years ago. This covered 73 per cent. of manual workers in 128 industries. We also have the annual return of the Inland Revenue and the Government's annual family expenditure survey. I do not think there is any doubt that we urgently need—and I hope that this debate may encourage this to be done—an up-to-date, comprehensive survey into the question of low earnings which would obviously cast a clear indication on some of the causes of poverty. In another place the other day a Question was asked about this point, and at column 264 of Hansard for November 19 it was stated that among men and women who were employed full-time (the figures do not include part-time workers) 1,700,000 men and 3,700,000 women were earning under £15 a week. It will be seen from this statement that the bulk of the women in the labour force are earning less than £15 a week, and that a sizeable proportion of men are under that figure.

I noted Lord Sandford's reference to what the Government have done. I believe—and I am glad that it has been said from the Liberal Benches—that the Government have done a great deal to try to solve this problem. But of course more can always be done. From what I gathered, Lord Sandford wanted a little more flexibility and a little better management, and he seemed to suggest that then everything would be right. I must apologise in advance for quoting this, but he reminded me when he tried to suggest how progressive the Conservatives are (I hope this is so, and I am sure changes have brought about many things), of those happy days when Labour was never in power, and we used to have a happy little village where the Conservative Party and the local parson were close together and I, as a choirboy, sang the famous hymn: The rich man at his castle, The poor man at his gate. God made them high and lowly And ordered their estate. We have all moved from this state of affairs, and we do not now accept poverty as inevitable—as, of course, this debate indicates.

230 Nevertheless, it is useful to try to pinpoint who are the people who are on low pay and I suggest below the poverty line. Clearly, from these figures—so mush has been said about this that one almost hesitates to say it again—women particularly are in this very low paid b7acket, and all of us are anxious to get this problem sorted out. We all know that it will not be done in a day; but again more can be done. As has been said, a great deal of propaganda is now contributing towards the realisation that this is a most important and urgent social problem.

But if you analyse some of the industries where men are low paid you find that some of them are fit to do only light work. The partially disabled have been referred to, and there are the industries where typically the labour force is old. This is a roost interesting point and an indication of change. Two of the worst industries are Government industries; Government manual and local government. Here again, much has been done through the Prices and Incomes Board which has drawn attention to the situation. In the past these were most attractive places of employment because there was regular security, sick pay, superannuation and so on. The result is that to-day we find older men holding on to their jobs for their pension right; but these are jobs which cannot hold young men, who are in and out all the time. So this is one kind of industry where low pay exists. And of course we all know that, because of the attempt to try to get some regional influence, certain regions are places of poor pay.

It is easy to say these things, my Lords, but it is not easy to see the answers. It is an awful thing that the accident of where one lives should determine one's level of income. People talk about mobility, but they should not say that in a facile manner. After all, it is not so easy to move about, because when you move about you are not moving one person you are moving a family.

Another interesting point to rote is that the low paid exist in all industries. Among the 128 industries listed in the survey to which I have referred, in some of the more prosperous industries—printing, oil refining and motor manufacturing—the proportion of low paid was 3 231 per cent. In all manufacturing industries the average proportion of male full-time employees earning less than £15 a week is about 7½52 per cent.; and for all industries the figure is 9½25 per cent. Of those industries again, 56 have a higher than average percentage of low paid, and this ranges from 10 per cent. to 40 per cent. who are paid less than £15 a week.

This debate has revealed that there are special reasons for some of these situations. But again this only emphasises the need for an up-to-date inquiry into the number of low paid, who they are, and what remedial action can be taken. I would add that there is no single solution. It is a serious and complex problem, as has been demonstrated by the contributions to the debate. There are three possible approaches, and I appreciate that the Government are giving thought to these approaches. 1 would hope, indeed I am sure, that the debate will make a contribution towards giving attention to this serious problem. The first of these approaches is an increase in social benefit, particularly family allowances. Again this is a very considerable problem. It raises the question of taxation; how you allow for the children in a family; whether you should allow for them in taxation or whether you ought to avoid that problem and pay more benefit by way of family allowances.

Especially in regard to the low paid, there is the desirability of extending some form of negotiations in this field. It is absent, and it may well be asked, "Why don't the trade unions do something about this?" But it is particularly in these low paid industries where there is hardly any organisation at all. If you take the wages councils that cover a very large slice of low paid workers, the rates of pay are 20 per cent. less than the negotiated rates in other industries.

Another matter which has been referred to is the need to look closely at the position of the disabled. I was quite surprised recently to receive appeals for monetary grants from institutes where they were retraining the disabled. As I understand it, there are only about four large institutes in this country, and I should think that at the most they could cater for about 1,000 people. I visited two such places quite recently, and I 232 could not help but admire the marvellous work that they were doing. In the one I particularly asked about 95 per cent. are finding employment after training. This is marvellous, because apart from the social position the great benefit for the individual concerned cannot be measured.

The Government feed these centres either through the Ministry of Education, in the case of children going through the schools who have disabilities, or through the Ministry of Labour (or the Ministry of Employment and Productivity as it is now called) in the case of disabled people. The Government generously support these institutions, but the amazing thing is that if they want to change them from a workhouse appearance to modern hostel accommodation, then they have to find the capital themselves. I think this is a great pity. I do not think it would cost a great deal of money to help with the capital as well as help, as the Government already do, on the revenue costs. It is a great pity that these people are dependent on charity in order to modernise their own buildings. I think this is again a point worthy of examination, and that it is a possible way of helping these people to return to employment. I do not think that there would be many of these people who would be low paid, because the kind of work for which they are being trained, many of them for electronics and so on, are jobs where they could be very useful in the light of the technological changes that are taking place in modern industry.

As I say, I was very impressed with all that was being done in these centres, but when all has been done I still believe you will have the problem of poverty or, if you like, low nay. I am quite definite in my own mind about this. There has been a lot of argument industrially about this, but I think most people are coming round to the point of view that we must have a statutory minimum earning guarantee.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord is making a very interesting speech, and I wonder whether he would allow me to interrupt him for just a moment? He is talking now about minimum pay. Does he propose that there should be a fixed rate for the job, or 233 would it be a rate related to family responsibilities? I think he would agree that on a wage of £15 the single man might be well above the poverty line, but that a man with a number of children even with family allowances might well be below it.

§ LORD COOPER or STOCKTON HEATH

I thank the noble Lord. There was a time when I used to say that a single man is always a potential married man, but I do not think that is a fair answer to the noble Lord. I do not object myself to that kind of assessment, to have regard to the responsibilities. It is hard to discriminate between the two men in this respect but I think the most important thing is that the job should be such that the average person can earn—on earnings, not on rate—£15 a week for, say, a 40 hour week. The need for this is brought out very clearly because, as has been said, you cannot give supplementary benefit to a person whose wage is below what you yourself assess is necessary from the point of view of supplementary benefit for the person who is not at work.

I would conclude my remarks by a reference to the important Report that is becoming almost a Bible for some of us, the Royal Commission's Report on Trade Unions and Employers Organisations or, to give a briefer description, the Donovan Report. They examined this matter and they made a recommendation which sums up pretty well what I have been trying to say. In paragraph 278 they refer to low pay and they say: Low pay has from the beginning been one of the criteria under which exceptional pay increases have been permitted under the incomes policy. In paragraph 280 they say: Some of the lowest paid are not covered by Wages Councils. The possibility of a national minimum wage or of fixing statutory minimum earnings needs to be examined. In our view it is for the Government, having carried out a review of all associated problems, to formulate and state in clear terms what its policy is in relation to the lowest paid workers and how it is to be pursued. I think this is a very modest request. I am not asking for any more than that. I would close my remarks by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for bringing this question to the attention of the House. I am quite sure that the Government will give very 234 careful thought to all that has been said this afternoon.

§ LORD ILFORD

My Lords, I should like first of all to join with many other noble Lords in expressing our thanks to the noble Lord who has introduced this Motion this afternoon. It enables us to clear our minds and to sort out our ideas about the meaning of poverty and its existence in the Welfare State. I suppose that the first question that presents itself to us this afternoon is this: has the Welfare State, in its 25 years of existence, relieved our society of the stigma of poverty? If the Welfare State has failed to do this, then it has failed in its purpose and it would be better to turn from the Welfare State to something else.

I think that it is probably true to say that there is no class or section of our people who are living to-day in conditions of abject and persistent poverty. That has not always been the case. It was not so in the 19th century. It is the reproach of that great century of achievement that whole classes of the population lived below any acceptable standard of subsistence. The measures which were taken to relieve that situation, notably the Poor Law of 1835, failed completely in their purpose. Their failure was mainly founded upon an atmosphere of nervousness and uncertainty in which the spirit of humanity played a very minor part. Indeed, it was left to the great voluntary organisers of those days, Lord Shaftesbury, Dr. Barnardo, General Booth, to deal with the problems of persistent poverty. I think that to-day our problem is not to rescue from poverty some particular class of persons, but to provide adequate assistance in individual cases.

The circumstances of individual cases vary very widely. I think that it; important that we should understand how the benefits paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission are estimated. There is an immense difference in the needs of different individuals and families. Take their rent alone. There are immense variations in rents in different parts of the country. In London, the average rent paid by the applicants for supplementary benefit at the latest date for which figures have been published was 37s. 4d. The average rent in Scotland was only 22s. 4d.; the average rent in Wales was 235 25s. 5d., and in the rest of England, outside London, 30s. 11d. So a person who received a flat-rate benefit in London might well be in poverty, although a person in Scotland who received the same amount would have his needs adequately met. It is important to remember that the great merit of supplementary benefit is that it adapts the payment to the needs and requirements of individuals and to individual circumstances.

It is not only rents that vary. The obligations of individuals vary, too. There are many people who have quite expensive diets prescribed by their doctors, and this must be taken into account if the need of that individual is to be adequately met. In the same way some people have clothing needs due to the fact that for some reason there is excessive wear and tear on their clothing. Those needs have to be met before we can say that a person's needs have been adequately met by supplementary benefit.

The former National Assistance Board followed this method of assessing allowances, each allowance being the result of separate assessment. That was one of the merits which it had. Of course, those advantages have now passed to the Supplementary Benefits Commission; but perhaps I may be forgiven if I look back with a certain nostalgia to the National Assistance Board. The Board enjoyed the confidence of the public to a substantial degree, and I regretted that the National Assistance Board was transformed into something else. I have never criticised the Supplementary Benefits Commission and I do not intend to do so now. It was a most ingenious and effective piece of administrative policy and it has been incorporated, I hope on satisfactory terms, into the Ministry of National Insurance. But when one looks back at the degree of independence which the Board enjoyed one begins to wonder whether its continued existence would not have been more in line with the Minister's new policy for the set-up of these Departments than the course which he apparently is going to take.

I should like to ask the Minister to consider having a body with the independent existence of the old National Assistance Board and not separated from the Minister by an intermediate Minister, which I think is a weakness—that is to 236 say, a Minister of the second rank (I say that without disrespect to him) who will have immediate supervision of the Ministry of Social Security. Could not something of this sort be revived? I put forward this suggestion without any real expectation that it will be met by the Minister. But there are great advantages in a body enjoying a substantial measure of independence, as did the old Assistance Board, whose sole task is to seek out individuals in need and to endeavour to remedy their needs.

If the Welfare State is effectively to relieve the poverty of those in need, some of us will have to change our views about the means test. Oddly enough, we have heard very little this afternoon about the means test. I think that the Party opposite are reconciled to it now. Indeed, there is no proposal that in the new Ministry of Social Security the means test should be abandoned; but that has not always been the attitude of noble Lords opposite. It was unfortunate that the Labour Party should have committed themselves to an undertaking to abolish the means test before they appreciated the practical administrative difficulties of taking that course. It would have been better if the Party opposite had contained themselves a little longer until they became responsible and found out the great difficulties of establishing that flat-rate scale of benefit which they had promised and which would meet everybody's requirements. You are at once up against the inequalities in need of which I spoke a moment ago.

I believe that the public now accept the means test. I am sure that the public accept the higher rates of benefit. They do not desire that old people should live otherwise than in modest comfort; they do not desire that deserted wives should suffer or that the low-paid should suffer. They are quite willing that the taxpayer should find the means to prevent these things. What they are insistent about is that the benefits should not be paid to persons who do not require them. Selectivity, whether we like it or not, has become one of the major administrative problems of to-day. The means test has spread from the central Government. To-day one encounters it in a great many different forms and in many different places. There is a means test for school meals, school milk, home 237 helps, some services in education, prescriptions of course, and in quite a number of other services, most of them administered by the local authorities. There seems to be a case for reviewing these means-tested services. It may be possible to establish some uniform standard of need, by which the need in all these cases could be measured. At the same time, it might be possible to examine the conditions of other services which are at present entirely free, with a view to seeing whether they, too, might be brought within the range of selectivity.

All these services appear to-day to involve a great deal of form-filling. In the old days the National Assistance Board made it one of their principal aims to avoid the necessity for filling-up forms. They sent a visitor to call at the house, interview the applicant and obtain the information, which he entered on the case paper. That was a very expeditious service. I do not think it gave as much offence as it was sometimes said to do. I have taken part in a great many of those interviews, and I never remember being present at one at which the person interviewed appeared to resent it; and, indeed, I do not think they do. I know that the noble Baroness is going to claim, as the Minister claimed, that the number of persons receiving supplementary benefit has increased by about 400,000 since 1964–65. I would only remind the Minister, and the noble Baroness who is going to reply, that of course the number of old age pensioners in the country has also increased, and we do not know how far the increase of 400,000 is due to different methods of collecting claims and how far it is due to the natural increase in the number of persons reaching pensionable age.

I should be very glad to think that the methods of propaganda and of application which have been followed have been successful in bringing into benefit a number of persons who were otherwise standing outside. The task of the Ministry has not been made easier by the way in which it has been received by the Press. I wish we could get rid of the expression, "the dole". A man may go on to unemployment insurance benefit during a period of unemployment, and may be quite properly drawing benefit, but I can think of nothing more disheartening than 238 to say of him that he is "on the dole". I wish we could persuade the newspapers to give up that expression altogether.

I have only one or two other short points to make. I was interested this afternoon in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. If I do not follow him into all of his conclusions, that does not indicate that I did not appreciate what he had to say. But I would endeavour to persuade him to drop his proposal that the "wage stop" should be remitted for a fortnight at Christmas. That is going back to the Guardians. The Assistance Board and their successors have always been a little cautious lot to do anything which was too reminiscent of the practices of the Guardians. This is "Christmas Day in the workhouse", and persons who are getting supplementary benefit would not welcome being confused with relics of the Poor Law which sometimes make their appearance, as this one has done this afternoon.

I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Sandford said about allocating visitors and the need for visiting old people. That is, indeed, what used to be done. Certainly, when I had something to do with it, a visiting officer used to obtain the name of some sympathetic friend who lived near the applicant. He interviewed the friend and arranged that he should pay calls at fairly regular intervals, and if anything went wrong with the old person—if he was ill or sustained an accident—the "Pensioner's Friend", as we called him, would communicate with the office and the Board's, officer would make the necessary arrangements to deal with him. That was a regular procedure in those days. I wonder if the noble Baroness can tell us whether that practice is still being followed. It was a very useful and valuable way, not only of relieving the loneliness of old people, but of ensuring that any misfortune which overtook them was brought to the notice of the authorities without delay.

I think that is really all I desire to say upon this subject this afternoon. Somebody has said, "The poor are always with us". That is only half the truth. I do not think the poor are always with us. I think that modern society has gone a very long way to eliminating poverty in groups and classes, and what we are concerned with to-day 239 are these minor points—minor in comparison with the whole structure—which come to light from time to time, where for some reason the accepted system has not worked well. That is the problem to-day, and I am sure that it is a problem with which all of your Lordships are familiar and to which we shall endeavour, so far as we can, to draw attention and to suggest remedies.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord who initiated this debate, because it has enabled noble Lords on both sides of the House to give a great deal of thought to a most important problem—probably the most important in the world—of how to relieve poverty. The approach of many of us is a little different. I feel that we have, perhaps, attached too much importance to discussing various aspects of the National Insurance Acts. While I do not agree with a great deal of what he said, I agree with my noble friend Lord Ilford—I feel that he is a friend, because when I was Minister of National Insurance he was Chairman of the Assistance Board.

§ LORD ILFORD

I made great progress with the noble Baroness.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord said that I had made great progress or whether he had, but let us say that we both had. But I agree with him that although two families may be receiving the same amount of money to relieve their poverty, nevertheless their standard of living must depend upon their needs. "Needs" is, of course, the key word. I have always felt, and I still feel now, that there is one category in our midst who must be suffering from abject poverty, and that is the individual or family which is entitled to supplementary benefit but which still does not claim it. There are certain old people who remember their childhood, when their parents had to resort to what was known as the Poor Law. That so shocked the family that some of these old people utterly refuse to ask for supplementary benefit, although they are fully entitled to it. I should say that one would find abject poverty in those families to-day.

240 Of course, poverty can be relative. I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath spoke about the poverty which existed in those families where the wage earner had only a very low wage. I should like to speak to-day of the poverty which exists in the world of working women, who seldom make a fuss, who never indulge in sit-down strikes and who never parade in protest marches. Those are workers who have problems but who are reluctant to tell the world of their great needs. I do not know whether one should praise them or blame them for their civilised conduct, but the fact is that their passive behaviour enables their employers to exploit their cheap labour without fear of retaliation.

The degree of poverty which exists can be estimated only by an examination of the wage rates which are revealed in the Government's Social Survey of Women's Employment, published this year—and it is a reflection on our present civilisation that such figures can be published in 1968. According to this, there is a very large number of women working long hours whose earnings are very low. Ten per cent. of those paid weekly and 9 per cent. of those paid monthly worked 41 or more hours a week and earned less than £6 a week. We have been hearing to-day about allowances, supplementary benefit and so on which, in the aggregate, are much higher than the wage earned by these women. My Lords, £6 a week for 41 hours at routine, soul-destroying jobs! And these sums represent their full, actual earnings, including bonus and piece-work, before off-takes. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been in a factory and watched women at piece-work. Many of them scarcely lift their eyes from their work—it is absolutely harrowing—because they know that in order to make this miserable sum by the end of the week on piece-work and bonus they must not relax. My Lords, 31 per cent. of these women earn less than 4s. an hour and 53 per cent. earn less than 5s. an hour.

I would say that if poverty is relative, as indeed it is, then we have sweated labour in Britain to-day. It is argued—and oh!, how often I have heard these arguments—that women do not have dependants and do not have to contribute 241 to the family income, and even that they do not have to keep themselves. This argument is absolutely fallacious. Many women, including widows, divorced and separated women and unmarried mothers, have dependants. We have heard to-day that an unmarried mother can claim supplementary benefit and need not go out to work; nevertheless, that girl has to go from house to house before she can get accommodation, because the landlady always feels that her rent will be assured only if there is a man there in a regular job. We therefore cannot dismiss some of these problems because supplementary benefit is forthcoming.

Then, again, there is the single woman who has to look after elderly parents. To show the size of this problem 1 would remind your Lordships that some 10 per cent. of all the families in England and Wales fall into these two categories of women without the support of a husband and single women who have to look after their elderly relations. Furthermore, the argument about dependants is irrelevant, because wage rates are not related to family responsibilities. Men without dependants are paid the same as those with dependants; and I have yet to meet somebody who supports the argument that dependants are the key to this question who is prepared to agree that bachelors and spinsters should be paid at the same rate. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said that we must have a minimum rate, and that the question was whether this should be related to dependants. I listened very carefully, but I did not hear a complete answer to that question. There is no doubt about it, though, that the trade unions—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, is an eminent trade union official—are moving just a little in the direction of more equality between the sexes.

Taking industry as a whole, however, I believe that the gap between men's rates of pay and women's rates, far from lessening, is widening. The Ministry of Labour returns show that between 1956 and 1966 the average weekly earnings of men increased by 72 per cent. while those of women increased by 68 per cent. Yet it was in 1888 that the Trades Union Congress declared that women should enjoy equal pay. Only a few weeks ago, in the Department of Employment and 242 Productivity, there was a meeting of the engineering employers and employees. One woman trade unionist was allowed in. The discussions went on for some days, and during that time women's rates were not mentioned. At the end, this woman, her patience exhausted, cried out, "You have sold us down the river!". This is 1968, my Lords. I remind your Lordships again that t was in 1888 that women were promised that they would be given equality.

Employers argue that Britain could not compete in world markets if labour costs were increased by equal pay. This kind of argument has been used for generations to oppose improvements in women's pay. It was used, indeed, to justify the employment of tiny children in the mills. The cry of the employer in the 19th century was, "We must have the 5, 6 and 7-year olds; otherwise, Britain will no longer he great." The prejudice still exists, and it seems to me extraordinary that to-day, still, the men in places of power are completely incapable of ridding themselves of this prejudice which dooms women to this kind of sweated lababour—£6 for a week of 41 hours.

I should like to say something about the married woman who is not gainfully employed outside her home. I do not have to remind some of your Lordships, perhaps, that there are many hazards in married life, but they include some which are not of a kind that your Lordships have to face. For a woman there is the whole question of sickness, widowhood or divorce, against which she has no adequate financial protection. The condition of the