I should like the Minister to give some elucidation as to the meaning of the phrase "as duly calculated" in column 1 of the Table, particularly in relation to savings of old people. We think it very unfair that at this time, when funeral expenses for even a modest funeral are not less than £75 and can frequently be £100 or £125, an old age pensioner should have only the first £25 of savings excluded in the assessment of means. After that, a notional 5 per cent is charged on the next £375 which an old pensioner may have saved. The reality of the situation is that most old age pensioners have their savings institumodestly remunerative saving institution such as the Post Office Savings Bank where the interest rate is only 3½ per cent. To be notionally charging these people with receiving an income of 5 per cent on savings above £25 is causing very real hardship, particularly when most such people are not spending any part of their earnings from interest, small as it is. I hope the Minister will be able to give some promise of alleviation in regard to old people's savings.
This Bill as submitted again places a premium on improvidence. It confers benefit on the spendthrift and gives advantage to the non-saver, to those who have not saved, and it deprives of benefit those who have saved a little. One of the greatest fears of elderly people is fear of a pauper's grave, fear of some real want in the closing days of their lives and to continue to assess their savings with a notional income of 5 per cent after £25 is very wrong. I doubt if it would cost the State much to give relief from all assessment of savings of £100 or under.
Would the Minister also give some information for the benefit of some Deputies, including the former Deputy Booth who, on Second Stage, asked for some guidance as to the manner of assessing means from land and cottages occupied by elderly people? I think that the Department have some rule of thumb which applies to land. If land can be established as having an actual income, that income is taken as being the income which an elderly person receives but where land in some cases is not actually let, some notional value is put on the land and this appears to cause hardship in a number of cases. These are the areas where great benefits could be conferred on people. I hope the Minister will see his way to doing this as I do not think it would cost a great deal.
Finally, may I express the hope that as these increases are being given to old age pensioners and under other sections to other people, the increases will not be taken into account by local authorities in calculating home assistance and disablement payments? I know that the practice has been for the Minister to send circulars to local authorities encouraging them not to take social welfare benefits into account for the purpose of reducing home assistance and disability payments. We are sorry that the Minister has not made it mandatory on local authorities to ignore such increases. I do not think there are many cases in which executives of local authorities deliberately reduce home assistance payments as a result of pension or social welfare increases but there are cases on record, I think, where such payments have not been increased where they might have been increased because, apparently, under the social welfare code other benefits have increased. The tendency in some areas has been in the wrong direction and we hope the Minister will take the opportunity on this occasion again to remind local authorities that the State having assessed the need for substantially increased social welfare payments, these should not be taken into account to reduce the burden on local authorities. I am very much in favour of local authorities having their burden of welfare payments reduced but it should not be done simply because these are increased. It should be done by the State taking over total responsibility but of course that, Sir, is another matter entirely.