BELOW THE BREAD LINE
SIR,—Mr. Houghton's letter is a classic example of the professional politician's talent for misrepre- sentation and concealment of truth. No sane person proposed, in 1948. as he suggests, 'to give full retire- ment pensions at once to non-contributors.' His second paragraph shows that he was aware that the proposal was to give over-age people the option to join the insurance scheme as voluntary contributors and to pay contributions on the same terms as other contributors, before drawing pms'ons. Mr. Houghton says that the Labour Government did not consider the proposal to he 'satisfactory.' Will he explain why? The explanation was given by Mr. Griffiths, Minister of Pensions at the time, when he stated that the over-age were excluded on grounds of economy, and he recently confirmed that explanation to a friend whose letter I hold. That explanation was further confirmed by Ministry letter P(X) 7529 of March 21, 1961.
Thus, the Labour Government decided that the sacrifice required by economy was to be borne solely by the oldest and most infirm persons in the com- munity, who were defenceless. Despite the need for economy, the Labour Government, without the consent of Parliament, abstracted £100 million from the Exchequer for the provision of atom bombs, and thus initiated the arms race for which we arc now paying.
Mr. Houghton has no reply to the charges that his Government violated the Beveridge Plan and created an inferior class of outcasts, deprived of essential rights and privileges of citizenship—as recorded in my letter in your issue of November 8. The class discrimination is revealed in Mr. Houghton's boast that the 1948 Labour Government liberated the conditions for the over-seventy non- contributory pension. Similarly Mr. Crossman, in a letter to me of March 17, 1961, bluntly stated that non-pensioners can abandon hopes of retirement pensions but can apply for non-contributory pen- sions. Both Mr. Houghton and Mr. Crossman con- ceal the shameful fact that the maximum amount of a non-contributtiry pension is shown in Explana- tory Leaflet N I as 28s. 4d. a week, provided that the applicant's income from other sources does not exceed 10s. a week! Those gentlemen regard that sum as good enough for the old outcasts, but they denounce the 'miserable poverty' of pensioners on 67s. 6d. or 109s. 6d. a week, whose votes they are resolved to buy with public funds.
The 'further step' to which 'Mr. Houghton refers 'of granting supplements to incomes below a reason- able minimum .is a monstrous attempt to conceal the objectionable character of National Assistance by a change of name. In October last, I asked Mr: Crossman to tell me what the 'reasonable minimum' is to be, and he was unable to answer. Neither is Mr. Houghton. The 'further step' may prove to be even worse than National Ass stance.
During the last twelve years, Labour members have shed crocodile tears over the sufferings of pensioners, with an eye on their six millio,n votes, but not a word have they ever uttered about the greater sufferings of those who have no pensions.
Every appeal to the Party to mitigate the miseries of the old and sick non-pensioners has been cynically and brutally rebuffed. Old men of eighty-one, eighty- three, eighty-six and one of ninety-four are compelled
to continue at work in consequence of Labour legislation, while I am informed by a bank manager
that men with surtax incomes are drawing £141 14s. every six months 'as old age pensions. £130 of that sum is a free. gift paid out of taxation, and the Labour Party propose to increase it!
F. 0.1-IAN LON
Hon. Secretary Old Age Non-Pensioners' Association
Previous page
