OLD-AGE PENSIONS FOR BRITAIN.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 32, 7 February 1908, Page 6

OLD-AGE PENSIONS FOR BRITAIN.

« The Chancellor of tho Exchequer distinguished himself by a refusal to be "drawn" on the subject o/f Old AgePensions," when the Labour Party throw out a challenge towards tho beginning of the debato on the Address-in-Reply. But through his previous utterances on the platform, as well as from other sources, the intentions of the Government iv the matter have been partially disclosed, and it cannot be long beforo tho whole scheme is made public property. In the 'meantime, the forecast of an Opposition journal helps to fill the gap. Though tho Daily Telegraph is not in tho confidence of the Government, it is quite likely that it may prove a true prophet, for its announcement squares very well A\it,h the hints that have been previously dropped, as well as with the general probabilities of the 'case. The sum to bo set aside for tho purpose is, according to this authority; to be £8,000,000; the qualifying age will bo sixty-five, and tho amount of the pension 5s a week. If these figures aro correct, it follows of necessity that, as tho Daily Telegraph says, the scheme will not be universal, and it is equally safe in its asertion that the adequacy of existing incomes will be ono disqualification. A universal scheme, though \aguely demanded by various Socialist and Labour bodies' which are not hampered by any sense of responsibility for the provision of ways and means, is ind&ed a sheer impossibility at the present time. Tho number of persons in the United Kingdom of the age of sixty-five- years and upwards is estimated at something over two millions; and to endow these with a weekly pension of 5s would require more than £27,000,000. Apart from tho fact that dukes and millionaires would share the benefits of a universal scheme with those who had no other sustenance, there is no responsible statesman who would dream of committing the country at the present time to an annual expenditure ranging from £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 for this purpose. • ' This point at any rate has been made perfectly plain by Mr. Asquith. Speaking at Norwich a fortnight ago, while rejecting the possibility of basing a satisfactory scheme on a system of contributions, he declared that "he did not favour the payment of pensions at a certain age, regardless of the needs of recipients or any other conditions." The real difficulty lies in the defining of those other conditions. It may be taken for granted that aliens, criminals, and lunatics will be excluded from any benefit,'and it has been commonly assumed that the receipt of poor law relief will also disqualify, and that the .chief property test will be the receipt" of an income exceeding 10s a week. By these conditions, to which a thrift test was added, the House of Commons Committee which reported in 1901 narrowed the number of pensioners to 655,000, and the cost to £10,300,000. From the Daily Telegraph's forecast of the cost of Mr. Asquith's scheme, it looks as though ho would follow somewhat similar but stricter lines. Iv his Budget speech last session, he announced that by this j'ear he would have "free and ear-markod for the purpose, a total of at least £2,250,000, '* but shortly after the close of the session the Westminster Gazette stated, if we remember rightly, that the Government would allocate some five or six millions to the purpose, and it would not be surprising if, under democratic pressure and spurred by tho competition of tho Unionists' programme of social reform, the Government had now made the further advance anticipated by the Daily Telegraph. The probabilities are at any rate strongly in favour of a scheme very much on the lines of our own system, with tho important addition of the previous receipt of poor law relief as a disqualification. Though the last discrimination may be severely attacked, it would probably do more to freo tho pension from tha taint of pauperism than all the fancy restrictions established by the New Zealand Legislature.