The amount of the pension varies from 1s. to 5s. per week according to the following sliding scale:
| Income of Pensioner. | Rate of Pension per Week. | |||
| £ s. d. | s. d. | |||
| Not exceeding | 21 0 0 | 5 0 | ||
| £ s. d. | ||||
| Exceeds | 21 0 0 | but does not exceed | 23 12 6 | 4 0 |
| " | 23 12 6 | " | 26 5 0 | 3 0 |
| " | 26 5 0 | " | 28 17 6 | 2 0 |
| " | 28 17 6 | " | 31 10 0 | 1 0 |
| " | 31 10 0 | No pension. | ||
It was expressly stated in the Act that the disqualification of those who had been in receipt of poor relief was to cease on December 31st, 1910, and the Budget of 1910-11 accordingly made provision for the payment of the pensions to such paupers after that date.
The following statistics show the payments under the Act at December 31st, 1909 (the Act having come into force on January 1st, 1909):
THE FIRST YEAR'S WORKING OF
MR ASQUITH'S OLD AGE PENSION ACT
| Position at December 31st, 1909. | ||
| Number of Pensioners. | Amount Payable per Annum. | |
| England | 405,755 | £5,043,332 |
| Scotland | 76,037 | 966,370 |
| Wales | 26,972 | 337,254 |
| Ireland | 183,976 | 2,335,764 |
| 692,740 | £8,682,720 | |
It was a defect in the Act that the possession of a certain amount of property, as well as the possession of a certain income, was not made the disqualification that I suggested it ought to be. A man with £500 of property, yielding an income of £20 a year, ought not to be qualified for an Old Age Pension.
It is notable that, in introducing his Budget of 1908, Mr Asquith, in expounding his scheme of pensions, estimated that it would cost not more than £6,000,000 a year. As we have seen, the cost has proved to be very much greater. It is fortunate that the under-estimation was made. If Parliament had known that the cost would be £9,000,000 instead of £6,000,000 Old Age Pensions might not now be law, so slowly is the lesson learned that, to a nation of 44,000,000 people, with an aggregate income of nearly £2,000,000,000, an expenditure of £9,000,000 is a small matter, relatively as small as though the reader expended a few shillings.
But it is, of course, a misnomer to speak of "expenditure" in this connexion. The National Dividend is not diminished by the transfer of £9,000,000 from the well-to-do to the poor. No more is spent through the transfer; all that takes place is a transfer of the power of call for commodities, and a consequent change of the form of a certain part of the National Dividend, not a change of its size. The production of luxuries is slightly—very slightly—stemmed; the production of necessaries is slightly—very slightly—increased.