HC Deb 18 February 1941 vol 369 cc99-128

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Holdsworth.]

Captain Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

I wish to make some remarks which will be critical of Government policy generally and of their attitude towards war pensions in particular. In order that the House may realise that I am trying to be utterly fair in what I say, I want to preface my remarks by giving credit where credit is due. Our system of war pensions has justly earned the reputation of being the best in the world. It is not subject to corruption or to graft or to political influence. No man can get a war pension who is not entitled to it, and not many who are entitled to a war pension fail to get one. Secondly, during the great slump from 1931 onwards, whereas war pensions were cut in every country in Europe and in some of our Dominions, they were not cut here. Thirdly, the Ministers of all parties whom I have known and of whom I have made inquiries from time to time and the civil servants who run the Ministry of Pensions have an understanding of their problem and a personal interest in trying to secure for the pensioners their rights. I particularly appreciate the present Minister's personal and humane interest in the wellbeing of the people who are under his charge.

I come now to the more critical remarks which I wish to address to the House. In 1919 some kind of settlement of the war pensions problem was made. The cost of living then stood at 215 points, as compared with the 100 which was taken as the 1914 normal. Since then the cost of living has dropped, until at the lowest point in the great slump it went as low as 136. Just before this war broke out it had risen to 155; it now stands at something over 196. In answer to representations which I and others have made, the Minister of Pensions himself has said that when the cost-of-living figure gets back to 215 the Government will consider raising the pensions of the veterans of the Great War. I am grateful at any rate for that, but I should like something more — not merely that when the cost of living reaches that figure it will be considered, but rather that they have a plan ready now, so that the moment it reaches that figure these men will get more money. It does not help the veterans of the Great War, who are disabled and who are now-feeling the pinch, to know that when a certain thing happens the matter will be considered. Many Government Departments act promptly and many do not. If it is then to be a matter of inquiry, and if weeks or months are to pass, there will be grave dissatisfaction, which I hope will be shared by all Members of the House. My first request is that the limited undertaking may be taken further and that we may be assured that the Government will increase the pension when the cost of living reaches the 1919 figure. That seems to me to be the least that should be done.

But I am going to try to show that much more should be done, and now. Since 1919 much has changed in this world. The standard of living of working-class people has changed— not merely the cost of living due to this war, but the whole standard. What was a luxury in 1919 has become in many a working-class home, if not a necessity, at least something that is habitual. I have been trying to think of the principle upon which we and other countries give war pensions. It is surely not that the persons should have mere subsistence. It is not, on the other hand, that they should have a great degree of comfort and luxury. We cannot afford that. It is something between the two. At a time when you assess and fix war pensions at a certain level you have regard to the standard of living of the working-class population as a whole, to the wages that are being earned, and to what is being commonly used in millions of households in the country, and you fix your pension somewhere between the better wages and the payment made to unemployed and other persons. You do not put your war pensioner down to the level of Poor Law relief or unemployment pay, and you do not put him up to the highest wages earned by artisans. You find a point somewhere between the two which you consider fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

If the point that was found in 1919 was fair and reasonable in those circumstances and in that background, then the change in the whole standard of living of working-class people should be taken into account after a period of 20 years. It is a fact that the whole standard of living of the masses of the people has risen in the intervening time. In spite of that, I am of the opinion that the disabled soldier, sailor or airman would have been willing — I would almost say he would have been glad— to have continued to receive his low fixed income throughout this war, had he known that other people were to continue to receive their pre-war incomes also. Had the Government said to him, "The men who were unemployed before the war will come back into employment on their old wages; their incomes will be increased because they will be replacing unemployment benefit by full wages, and they will be increased even more because they will be working overtime, but the rates will remain the same. We will fix the rates and we will fix the cost of living," then the veterans of the Great War might have been told, "You will make your sacrifice and you will give up the amenities to which you have been accustomed. You will meet the hardships and difficulties of war and the extra expense they impose on you, and you will do it on your pre-war income because everybody else is doing the same."

That would have been a fair plea and it would have been responded to, as a willing sacrifice, by all. But that is not what the Government have done. I can hardly charge the Minister of Pensions with this because he has not much to do with major Government policy. He ought at least, however, to join with those of us who criticise the Government for the policy or lack of policy in relation to the control of wages and prices and the drift towards inflation which they are allowing to take place and which is causing great hardship to people who live on fixed incomes, and notably pensioners of the late war, for whom I speak. May I give one or two figures? The lower-paid Government servants have had their incomes raised by about 5 per cent. Miners have received an increase of 3s. 2d. a shift. The railwaymen have had an increase of 13s. a week. Soldiers, sailors and airmen had considerable increases before the war and an extra 6d. a day in the last few months. The amenities which they receive have also increased pro rata. I am not grudging any of these people their increases. I am only pointing out that consumption goods are limited and that an increase given to one must be at the expense of all. In the field of social service, old age pensions have been increased; unemployment benefit has been increased by 4s. a week, unemployment assistance by 3s., workmen's compensation by 5s. and children's allowances have been added. In the fields of employment and of help given by the State or through other channels to those who are unemployed, material improvements in the money received has taken place.

I read in the "Times" the other day an article by an economist in which he illustrated the effect of inflation by a parable. He said: Let the whole sum of consumption goods in the country be represented by a great bowl of soup. Let all classes of people who draw upon this bowl be represented by persons sitting round the bowl each with a spoon. Other things being equal, the amount they get out of the bowl will be related to the size of the spoon. What the Government are doing is to increase the size of the spoons of a very large percentage of the population and to leave my friends with the same spoons as they had before this war broke out— in fact with the same spoons as they had in 1919. It does not seem right that the Government should ignore and neglect the interests of those who live on fixed and humble weekly sums, but their policy of drifting towards inflation has had that effect. I am aware of the difficulties of war-time finance, and, personally, I wish that a stronger and a wiser attitude had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. I should have wished for greater help from the Minister of Labour, who knows so well the men with whom he is dealing in solving these problems, but in the absence of a policy of preventing inflation we have to face the fact that we have it with us, coming along and increasing all the time. In those circumstances some consideration is due to the people with fixed incomes.

May I turn to the pensions which are proposed to be paid, and are already being paid in a few cases, to men who have been wounded and disabled in this war? A private soldier totally disabled in the great war receives £2 a week flat-rate pension, and in certain cases an attendant's allowance, and where he was married before he received his disability a wife's allowance and children's allowance; but in the bulk of the cases the soldiers were young boys who were not married when wounded, and so do not receive the wife's and children's allow- ance. I ask the House to remember that £ 2 was the flat-rate pension. A man similarly disabled in this war receives 34s. 2d. I cannot feel that it is right to give a man who lost two limbs in 1917 £ 2 a week, and a man who lost two limbs in 1941 34s. 2d. a week. I can think of no argument to show that that is just. Great progress has been made in. our social services. As we become more civilised and more understanding we have met want and need in greater measure, but here, at the end of two decades, the Ministry of Pensions are going back rather than forward, and offering to the young man who now loses his limbs a lesser pension than was given to his opposite number in the late war.

Of course the Government will say, "You are not presenting the case quite fairly. Do you not realise that when we entered upon this war we had an unknown number of casualties to deal with? We did not know whether the casualties in the Armed Forces or the casualties arising from air raids were going to be so overwhelming that the whole financial structure might break down." I admit there was some argument in the earlier days of the war, because when the war broke out the Government were so afraid of the tremendous damage that air attack would do that they could not, in spite of a committee's advice, produce— they dare not produce— any scheme of compensation for damage to property. So many houses and factories might have been blown to pieces that it was impossible to do it. As a result of knowledge of air raids, rather than imagination and imaginary forebodings, we have before this House a scheme which will compensate for damage to property.

Why has that change taken place? Because it has been shown, as many of us thought in advance, that damage from air raids, however severe, is not so overwhelming and catastrophic as some people supposed. It is measurable. If it is possible now to measure the damage to property, it should be possible to measure the damage to human beings. If the argument that casualties might be overwhelming and unprecedented held the Government back from doing justice 15 months ago, they might, in the light of what they have done about property, reconsider that argument. I, therefore, ask the Minister to assimilate pensions payable for this war to those being paid in respect of the last war. I cannot feel that he can justify any less payment being made now for the same disability.

Among the allowances, is the attendance allowance, to which I have already referred. That has been cut by a similar percentage. One of my complaints is that, as wages have risen, so have costs of attendance, and that they are probably more now and not less than they were 20 years ago. If a certain degree of attendance is necessary, more rather than less should be allowed, but I ask that the same at least should now be allowed. There is one other point, but a very important one. If pensions are to be reduced, officers' pensions, everyone would agree, should be reduced pro rata with those of the men. I make no special complaint, because officers' pensions were reduced when the men's pensions were reduced, although I complain that any of them should be reduced. In assessing officers' pensions for this war, the Government have been doubly mean. I use the word "mean" advisedly. Owing to some old tradition, an officer used to be pensioned differently if he was wounded leading his men in the face of the enemy and if he was injured while attending to a dump of ammunition 10 miles behind the line. It was one of the factors which were taken into account, even in the last war. There were, therefore, two rates for officers— one rate if he was in action and another rate if he was not. In assessing officers' pensions for this war, the Government have deliberately chosen the lesser of the two, and have then made a deduction from that. That is the first meanness. The deduction which they have made is higher, pro rata, for officers than the deduction made for men. That is the second meanness. I ask that that point should be considered.

Now I come to what I think is the most important criticism of all. I have already pointed out that the practice in pensions administration has been to pension the soldier, sailor or airman, having regard to his responsibilities at the time when the pension was recommended. No additional pension is given if he marries sub- sequently or has children subsequently. That is contrary to the interests of the country, as well as to the interests of the man concerned. No one could care for such a man better than a good wife. No one could do the duty which the country ought to do for him better than a good wife. She can guide, tend, and help him, and she can do more than anyone else to make his life happy and compensate him for what he has lost. Under the old Warrants— and it is repeated in the new Warrants— a single man received £ 2,in respect of the Great War and 34s. 2d. in this war, and so does the man who marries subsequently and has two or three children. If the one figure for the single man is too low, the figure, with allowances, paid to the married man is too high. I consider that the single man's money is too low and I therefore make the following plea to the Government: Many developments have taken place which suggest that now is the time for them to reconsider their attitude towards wives and children, who are an asset to the country as well as to the men. The Ministry might well consider this point. If there is no other way of increasing the benefit to these men in the manner I have already asked, let it be done by recognising wives and children for all pensions, whenever the men marry, with safeguards to prevent the death-bed marriage, which really is an abuse. That could very easily be worked out, and has been worked out in the Dominions.

I feel sincerely that this is a grievance which it is proper to bring to the notice of the House of Commons. When one knows that all over the country some thousands of people are feeling that it is now their turn to have a slightly larger spoon given to them— not that they may get more soup out of the common pot but that they may continue to draw something approximating that which they were drawing before— to keep silent when such a feeling exists in the country is not giving the best service to the country. One of the privileges of this House that we private Members should retain and use is that of bringing forward complaints when we know that grievances exist. I would ask the Minister if he cannot deal with this matter departmentally. I ask him to go to the Chancellor, however harassed the Chancellor may be, and tell him that from the point of view of the person with the fixed income he must do something about this increasing inflation, or if not he must authorise some payments such as those which I have suggested, to compensate those who live on the lowest fixed incomes. I do not wish to make a sentimental appeal for the men who have been disabled in former wars or in this war, but, knowing the old soldiers very well, I would say that they are a group of men who rendered their service willingly in their time and are still amongst His Majesty's most loyal, patient and deserving subjects.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

Everyone agrees that any plea for ex-Service men comes especially well from my hon. and gallant Friend who has just resumed his seat. His own bravery in the last war and his great courage since that time have been an inspiration to many of us. I agree with him that we have in our present Minister of Pensions the most humane Minister that I, in my short Parliamentary time, can remember. Whether or not he always does what we ask, he does listen to our pleas, and therefore I want to mention one case in which I think he has been wrong in his decision, and ask him to consider clarifying it. I refer to a constituent of mine, a married man who was called up, and who, I understand, was a very good soldier. After he had served some time in camp he became entitled to five or six days' leave. He came back home, and on returning to duty in the black-out he was changing trains at some junction when there was an accident and he was killed. His widow applied for a pension, and it was refused on the ground, apparently, that he was on leave and was therefore not performing military duties.

This is a very serious decision and one which should be considered carefully with all its implications. Suppose, for example, some of our soldiers who have fought so bravely in Egypt eventually get leave— and well-deserved leave it would be— and on the way back by some accident, not necessarily through enemy action, they are killed. Are their widows to be denied the right to live because their deaths did not take place in the desert? Surely this former constituent of mine was performing his duty in returning on time to camp? One might enlarge still further and say that military service consists only of the actual per- formance of military duties and that leave does not come under it. That would be opening up a very big question. A soldier must have leave, for his peace of mind and general efficiency. I can quite realise that if this man had gone back and had got into a public house brawl of his own making, and had been killed there, a pension would not be granted to his widow, although even in that case there would be hardship.

The point I want the Minister to consider very carefully is this: the man would not have been on that dark station at night unless he had been serving. He would not have been there unless he had been doing his duty in returning at the time he was supposed to return. If you lay down that that is not service, what would happen if one day a soldier went down to the village to the cinema and was killed by a bomb outside the camp on his way back? Would that also be excluded? Or, what is much more likely, if he were killed by one of those recklessly-driven Army lorries? I do not want to detain the House, but I am sure that the House will agree with me that this is a decision which ought to be reconsidered. Safeguards against abuse could be devised, but in this particular case I put it to the House that the Minister has not come to a right decision.

Mr. Adamson (Cannock)

It is right that this question of pensions should be raised particularly at this early stage in the development of the casualty position in this war, as compared with the last. It is right also that the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) should have raised it in connection with the associations of ex-servicemen. Of course the ordinary Member of this House, particularly in the early post-war years, came into contact with the ex-servicemen and their associations on these questions of pensions and allowances. It was necessary to have some knowledge of what was happening then, and we can compare it with what is happening today. There is some danger in having a sliding scale based on the cost of living. It may be that in certain industrial organisations, a sliding scale according to the rise and fall of the cost of living is satisfactory. But, in the main, it is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the ordinary wage problem, and I think it would also be difficult in the case of pensions. The reason is that there is always bound to be a lag before an increase can be decided upon and put into operation. That is one of the difficulties in connection with this very difficult question which it is almost impossible to overcome. If my memory is correct, under the Royal Warrant the actual flat rate of the pension for total disablement was fixed at £ 2 somewhere about 1919.

There are other factors which should be impressed upon the mind of the Minister. The standard of living of 1919 is not the standard we should expect today. Conditions have improved. The normal luxuries of 1919 are the essential commodities of to-day. We have to take into account the better housing and other services. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised the question of casualties or injury to members of the Forces when off duty. Some time ago I had to raise the question of a service man who was unfortunate enough to lose both his feet in an accident at a railway station. The matter was outside the bounds which the Statute set to the Minister's powers. I put it to the credit of the Minister that he did, however, use his influence, and not only provided an allowance for the man for a certain period, but also provided him with artificial feet. He even went to the length of offering to bring the matter before the appropriate organisation. But the point arises whether these people should be dependent upon charity. There should be something in the Regulations which would give the Minister power to act; and I am sure that he would welcome any provision in the Statute governing the Regulations which would compel him to do these things for men who have been unfortunate. A young man with responsibilities will still need to have an occupation; he will still have the outlook of other men, and want to settle down and get married. He should have some security.

On the general question of the review of pensions, I trust the Minister will, if an advisory committee is not in operation now, set up a new advisory committee to assist him in the light of the circumstances of to-day, which are different from those of the last war. Such a committee could give him advice which would be helpful to him, and beneficial to the men who are playing their part in the war. just as much as did the veterans of the last war, and to their dependants. I trust that he will give some consideration to the advantages that might accrue from such a course.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Denbigh)

I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes or to pursue the aspect of the question raised by my hon. Friend behind me, although I agree that he has raised a matter of the utmost importance to which I trust the Minister will give his consideration. There will be repercussions during this war and after in regard to that aspect of the question. We realise that the Minister at the moment has tremendous responsibilities, and may I say how pleased we are that his abilities have been recognised recently by the elevation which my right hon. Friend has received from the State in recognition of the great importance which is now attached to his office. He has to deal with widows' pensions as a result of the previous war and of this war, but he has also to deal with the question of civil pensions. There is, however, only one aspect to which I want to refer which is troubling me as a medical man, who was in. practice for many years, and that is, the large number of cases that are passed into the Army as fit by the medical board. A number of these cases which come under the category and responsibility of the Minister, or at all events come under the Ministry of Pensions, are of incapacity contracted during war or during service, and yet at the same time the Ministry of Pensions categorically turns them down on the ground that the disability had not been contracted during service. Here is a very vast and serious problem which my right hon. Friend will have to face. I know this sort of thing happened in the last war, and we all remember how for several years after the war hon. Members of this House constantly had cases drawn to their notice where men who had been passed fit by a medical board eventually developed a disability, no doubt, in many cases, as a result of service, and yet had been turned down in their application for pension. It is impossible now for us or even the Minister himself to assume the duty of proving or disproving the case of an applicant, but I want to remind my right hon. Friend that this House and the country will not tolerate after this war the kind of treatment that has been given to many ex-Service men as a result of the last war.

The medical board at the present time consists of several members, each with very special capacities, some with regard to the eyes, the chest and so forth. If the medical board appointed by the Ministry is not in the category where one can take it that their diagnosis is correct, surely the whole question of the medical boards ought to be reviewed. I am talking about the medical board before whom recruits appear before they are accepted by the State into the Army, Navy or Air Force. On the other hand, it is admitted that medical boards are efficient and know their work, and if they have the necessary qualifications and experience, then it must be accepted ipso facto that when a man is passed as a recruit for service he was at that time fit for service. That must be accepted. If a man was accepted for service after due and deliberate examination by experts appointed by the Government, then I say that the Ministry of Pensions has no right, if an individual contracts disability during the war, to get out of liability by saying that the disability might have been contracted if the individual had been in civilian life.

There is a very large class of disabilities which are somewhat nebulous in character and where it is very difficult to prove for certain whether disability was contracted as a result of service or might have been contracted if not in service. That, I submit to the House, is a category towards which the Ministry must take the most sympathetic view. This large class of cases in which there is doubt causes anxiety to the families of those who are concerned. It makes it more difficult, as the years go by, to come to a decision on them because the facts of disability as contracted recede into the distance, and medical science is an uncertain science. There is no vast amount of positive knowledge. I want my right hon. Friend, in the course of this war, to review the whole position of original acceptance by medical boards in relation to the passing of a man as fit for His Majesty's service, and then going back on their view and saying that a man was not fit at the time. The Ministry of Pensions must accept the responsibility of accepting a man for service, and although I do not expect my right hon. Friend to go into this question now— it raises a big issue— I put it to him and the House for consideration. The work of medical boards with reference to subsequent disability must be reviewed during this war.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

As regards the case quoted by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), I would like to say to the Minister that the average man and woman in this country would expect that that widow would be entitled to consideration for a pension. In regard to the attitude of the Minister towards disability resulting from the last war or from this war, there must be reconsideration of the whole question. I had a letter the other week dealing with one of these cases. The man was dead, and his widow made an application for consideration for a pension. In this case it was not a question of there being no connection between the cause of death and the disability, but a question of the Minister being satisfied that the cause of death did not wholly arise from the injury. Something must be done about cases of that sort. It is foolish to suggest that these disabilities can be considered apart from the sufferings which the men may have endured. Of course, a direct connection cannot be shown between the harsh conditions they have suffered month after month and year after year, but anybody with a grain of common sense must understand that if these hardships come at a particular time in life, they are bound to have an effect in later years.

There is another very important point to which I want to refer. If a son goes into one of the Services and leaves behind a widowed mother, he makes an allowance to her. If he is missing for a certain period, the allowance is continued, but if he is then presumed dead, the allowance is stopped and the woman qualifies for a pension if the Minister is satisfied that she needs it. In other words, as soon as the son is presumed dead, the woman has to face a means test. I received a letter recently from the War Office about such a case. The War Office cannot make up their mind. After 17 weeks the allowance is stopped, but if the son is not presumed dead, the widowed mother can apply for a continuance of the allowance, or if he is presumed dead, she can apply for a pension, but her means must be taken into account This is a shameful position. If a mother loses a son in such circumstances, whether he is killed, missing or presumed dead, the allowance ought to be continued. The point which I consider to be of the utmost importance is this. Where there is a widow whose son has been killed or whose son is missing and presumed dead, will the Minister, in considering her means when she makes an application for a pension, apply the same conditions as are now to be applied in the case of old age pensioners and unemployed people?

Mr. Woolley (Spen Valley)

I should like to supplement the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). He mentioned cases that had come to light as a result of the last war, and I am certain that most hon. Members, like myself, have had experience of similar cases in the present war. I have experienced the kindness and sympathetic consideration which the Minister has given to cases that I have referred to him, and I feel sure that the type of case mentioned by my hon. Friend will appeal to him as one which seems to be very hard. I have in mind at the moment the case of a young fellow who had not had a day's illness during the whole of his life. He was passed as medically fit and went into the Army. Some time after he developed an illness as a result of which he had to undergo an operation. He was operated upon and became fit, and ultimately he even went out to France. As the result of the very severe weather last winter, he contracted some further illness and had to be invalided out of the Army. That young fellow is at present in employment, but his capacity for earning money is considerably reduced. Financially he is in a worse position than before he went into the Army. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to cases of this kind, which cause considerable hardship. I am sure that they are cases which will occur as time goes on unless they are adequately dealt with at once.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)

May I say how pleased I am that this Debate has taken place and thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who introduced the subject, for having; done so to-day when we have time to conduct a full Debate on these matters which arise from time to time. It gives me the oppor- tunity of replying to certain criticisms which have not been too apparent in this House, but which come by way of a whispering gallery to myself in my own Department. I feel it is a privilege to be able to deal with them here, and to have plenty of time to do it. May I say to my hon. and gallant Friend that he and I share in full sympathy for ex-Service men who have suffered disability owing to their services to the country, and for the dependants of those men who have lost their lives? I have had a good deal of experience myself in dealing with cases in this House and in the private rooms of former Ministers, and I think I know pretty well the various cases which resulted from the last war. The hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that at the present moment we have to judge these things from a slightly different angle. With all the sympathy in the world— and I am glad that hon. Members have paid tribute to the fact that I try to administer my office with sympathy— there are certain points beyond which you cannot go, if you are to do your duty by the public at large and by those who have to find the money dispensed on behalf of these men and their dependants.

I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned in his speech that my responsibilities in this war were far beyond those of any previous Minister of Pensions. He reminded the House that I had to deal with pensioners of the last war— and there are 800,000 of them at this moment, 23 years after the war— and also with the victims of the present war. On top of that, there are the Mercantile Marine men and fishermen, which were not dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions during the last war. Then I have the whole of the Civil Defence volunteers, who embrace a tremendous number of people. Now we have added to that responsibility for the Home Guard and the civilian population— at one time only those gainfully employed, but now, I am glad to say, that has been extended to the non-gainfully employed. Therefore, I am sure the House will realise that the Government and myself have a tremendous task and that questions are bound to arise in such a wide sphere of work. Surely it must be realised that it is almost an impossibility to make anything like a calculation of the cost of all these pensions and allowances to the Government, and therefore to the taxpayers of this country. I have said, time and time again, and I repeat, that the real time for stocktaking is at the end of the war, as was done after the last war, when we shall know what our liabilities are, and we shall also know what is left in the Treasury to deal with them, because the one thing that 1 am afraid of— I have had to say this to meeting after meeting of ex-service men— is that if we overload the camel, it will fall down, and those who are now benefiting will suffer. I give my pledge again to the British Legion and other representatives of ex-service men that as long as I am Minister of Pensions I shall not agree to any reduction of the old rate for the veterans of the last war.

That brings me to a very definite point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. This question has been brought to my notice by the British Legion, by the Service Committee of the Labour party, by the British Legion Committee of the House of Commons and other people— the question whether something could not be done for the veterans of the last war. I have given this matter very serious consideration, and if sympathy could be of any use they could have any amount of it, but I have to be a realist and face the position as it is. Here I should like to correct a statement which has been made on several occasions, though not to-day, that pensions given to those who suffered in this war arc lower than pensions given to those who suffered in the last war. That is not true. The rate of pensions during the last war was less than we are paying in this war. But higher rates came into being in 1919, when it was possible not only for the Minister but for Members of the House to realise the extent of the liability of the Government on the one hand, and what the Treasury could afford to allocate on the other. As one deeply interested in the movement at that time, as a member of the British Legion, but not a Member of this House, I thought that those who inquired into the matter and made the recommendations, and the Ministers who acted upon them, treated the men generously, and I do not think anyone has ever denied that. The arrangement made and agreed to by all parties— because I was interested in the movement, and we agreed to it— was that we should take the cost-of-living figure, which was 215 at that time, and add a sliding scale. If it went up beyond 215 by five points, an increase had to be granted without any question. There was only one thing in which my hon. and gallant Friend was in error. He said it had to be conceded when it reached 215. Nothing of the kind.

Sir I. Fraser

It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that in answer to a Question two months ago. If he now says it is going to be done, I am happy.

Sir W. Womersley

No, my hon. and gallant Friend said it was in the Royal Warrant that it had to be conceded at 215. It is in the Royal Warrant that, when it reaches five points beyond 215, there has to be an increase, and that still stands. It is in the Warrant, and I cannot alter it.

Sir I. Fraser

Then you will make it?

Sir W. Womersley

Certainly; I cannot help it. Parliament sanctioned it, and it is Parliament which would have to cancel it. On the other hand, it was also arranged at that time and agreed to by all parties that as the cost of living fell by a substantial figure there should be a reduction in the pension. The cost of living did drop considerably from 215. When, however, the matter was considered by the Minister of Pensions and the Government it was agreed that it would be better not to make a reduction, although according to the agreement they had a right to do so. In view of the debt that was felt to be due to those who had served and those who were suffering severely at that time, in many cases from unemployment, they decided that they would not reduce the pensions. That was a generous and right attitude to take up. So that even in 1931, when almost everybody got a reduction, it was decided that ex-Service men should not suffer in any degree. I agreed at that time that it was a wise and proper thing to do. I submit that, in view of the fact that successive Governments have endorsed that policy of 1919 and have held faithfully to it, and that they have held also to the arrangement that was made in 1928 not to reduce pensions, it cannot be said that there has been any departure by this or any other Government from the strict agreement that was made. The Royal Warrant of 1919 is the operative Warrant dealing with the men who fought in the Great War, and it must be carried out unless the House decides to alter it. Therefore 215 still stands as the figure for pensions of £ 2 a week for totally disabled men plus allowances. When it goes to five points beyond that, the pensions must go up, or otherwise we shall not be obeying the Royal Warrant.

This gives me an opportunity to speak about war pensioners in general and to pay my tribute to the work which my hon. and gallant Friend has done in the training of those who suffer from blindness. In my view, and after long experience I adhere to it, the best way to deal with these men and with disabled men as a body is, in addition to giving them a pension, to train them in some occupation. Even if it does not produce the same amount of wages which they could earn as fit men, it will find them something in the way of interest and occupation to keep their minds from their difficulties and troubles. My hon. and gallant Friend has played his part in giving them that training. Men have been trained at St. Dunstan's and have been able, although blind, to go into the competitive world and earn a good living. I am glad to say that he and his committee have agreed to take the blind men of this war and do the same on behalf of my Ministry as St. Dunstan's did during the last war and train them from the beginning so as to give them some hope and interest in life. I wish to pay my tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for that.

We have done a considerable amount of training in other directions also. It will perhaps be of interest to the House to know what has happened to our pensioners. We have over 800,000 pensioners on our books as a result of the last war. About half of these are widows of men who gave their lives. Of the rest, 5,000 have rejoined the Army. All credit is due to the men who are patriotic enough to do that. We must be fair in these matters, and I should inform the House that these men get their pensions in addition to their Army pay and allowances. We do not cut anything off because they have joined the Army. We say, "Good luck to you. We are glad you have got into the Army, even if you are not a fit man and are drawing a disability pension, and you can keep the pension." As to the rest, I have had a careful survey made, because I wanted my hon. and gallant Friend to know the exact position. I have made inquiries of the Ministry of Labour, who have dealt with this question of placing disabled ex-Service men, and of the King's Roll Committee, which has done remarkably good work. I want to pay my tribute to the King's Roll Committee and to those employers of labour who came on to the King's Roll and undertook to employ a certain percentage of disabled ex-Service men. From the beginning of the King's Roll scheme down to the present moment, I am glad to say, there has been a smaller percentage of disabled ex-Service men out of employment than of the ordinary civilian population. Even when we had the biggest slumps in trade, that was so. The last count that was taken showed that there were only 13,000 disabled ex-Service men registered as unemployed, and the Ministry of Labour added a note to say that in many cases that unemployment was only temporary. Those men who are employed are, I hope, getting the standard rates of wages, and in addition they are getting their full pensions and allowances for their wives. There will not be any children's allowances now, because the children have grown beyond the pension age. Only the other day I had a letter from an employer asking whether, if he employed one of these disabled ex-Service men, the man would suffer any reduction of pension, and I was able to reply, "Certainly not," and thus to give the fellow a chance.

I have just had a note passed up to me saying that when I spoke of five points just recently it should have been 5 per cent., so it is 5 per cent. of 215. There is not much in it, because if things are going to be as difficult as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, they will not take long to get to that point; but having made that mistake, I have now had an opportunity of correcting it. The increase comes about automatically when that point is reached. There is to be no reduction even if the cost of living falls, and bearing in mind the large number of men now employed and still drawing full pension. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied that we are doing justice all round. Sir I. Fraser: I am sure it would not be the right hon. Gentleman's wish to state anything that was not meticulously correct. I happen to be vice-chairman of the King's Roll National Council, a body which he has rightly praised for finding employment for disabled soldiers. It is true that the percentage of unemployment among disabled men is lower— or it was just before the war— than among the whole of the insured population. The man totally disabled, with 100 per cent. pension, is, in the main, the man who cannot get employment. Although St. Dunstan's and other agencies did find some of these men employment, there remain some hundreds and probably some thousands— the Minister has given the figure at 13,000— of them who can never find employment, because of their disability. They cannot get increased wages and the advantages of inflation, yet they suffer from its disadvantages. The Minister's argument that such a large part of this community is all right makes it all the more necessary for the Government to do something for the small element that is not all right.

Sir W. Womersley

I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be courteous enough to let me finish my remarks and develop my points in my own way. I was about to deal with the very matter which he has raised. I have here an analysis of the figures. They are the very latest figures. They relate to disability pensioners who are unemployed. The figure of those from the Great War is 12,484 out of 400,000, while those of the new war number 15. I have been busy placing the new war cases where they can work. We have had some of the men trained and put: into jobs. Let us go a little further into the figures. This statement says: (a) Those disabled, but able to follow normal occupations; of the Great War 5,312. and of the new war, one."— [Interruption.] Yes, only one.

Mr. Granville (Eye)

Are there no more casualties of the present war?

Sir W. Womersley

These arc the figures of men who are registered as unemployed. It is no use hon. Members saying "Rot" or that sort of thing. I am giving them the official figures. If they can bring me any different figures I shall be pleased. The statement goes on: (b) able to perform light tasks; 6,770 of the Great War and, of the new war, 12 unemployed. (c) cannot work under ordinary industrial conditions; 402 of the Great War, and two of the new war. Let me say here and now that the 100 per cent. disabled men have not, in many cases, registered for employment, but the number is not anything like as large as some people imagine.

What is the position of these men? My hon. and gallant Friend knows that, where a man is so badly disabled that he cannot perform any duties, he gets, in most cases, an attendance allowance. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the matter and suggested that the allowance should be increased, in addition to the pension. I agree that, when it becomes necessary to increase the pension, it will become necessary to take attendance allowances also into consideration, because attendance allowances are intended to be sufficient to pay for attendance upon a man who cannot look after himself. There are, also, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the British Legion, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and many other institutions which are willing and able to render assistance in the very needy cases where there is definite hardship.

If it were possible to set up Regulations so that a Minister of Pensions could deal with different cases in different ways, my job would be considerably easier, but that, it must be borne in mind, is almost impossible. Regulations have to be laid before Parliament. A lawyer can, perhaps, stretch them considerably, but a Minister of Pensions would not be doing his duty if he broke those Regulations without getting the consent of this House. Many cases are brought to my notice where it is the proper thing to make some allowance, if only for a short period, in order to help a man, or a family, over certain difficulties. Those institutions are ready and willing to consider cases. In addition to all this I have what is known as the King's Fund. I am glad to say that His Majesty has agreed that the Fund shall be continued for victims of this war. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that we have been able to do good work in the past from this Fund; I hope that we shall be able to do as good, or even better, work in the future.

But you cannot generalise and say that because there are certain cases of hardship here and there, there should be an all-round increase. That must be justified by the facts. As I said earlier, although my sympathy is as wide as it is possible to be, with the trust which has been placed in my hands I must see that fair play is given to the men on the one hand, and on the other hand that I do what I can in the right and proper way to conserve the resources of the State. That is the position that I am taking up. In any case of doubt, as far as I am concerned the benefit of the doubt is with the applicant.

My hon. and gallant Friend also mentioned the question of the new war pensions not being on a level with the old war pensions. That is perfectly true. I have explained before how those scales of pensions were arrived at. On one occasion we had a long Debate about it, and I then gave a pledge that when the cost of living increased considerably these scales would be reviewed. I carried out that pledge; the scales were reviewed. They were approved by this House, and when we had a Debate on those scales I stated that when there was a further substantial increase in the cost of living I should certainly consider those scales of pensions again and make certain recommendations to the Government in the light of the evidence then produced. That is what I intend to do, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am watching the position carefully. I am doing everything I can, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, to develop the scheme to which I have referred, and although we have not had a long experience of this war, I am glad to say that we have been able to do a great deaf in this matter already. I commend this fact to hon. Members: In my view, it is far better to help a man to acquire a knowledge of some occupation, even if it is not the occupation that he had before he joined the Army, but something which will give him a real interest in life and enable him to supplement his pension by something that he has earned himself. The satisfaction of earning undoubtedly is something that is worth while to the man.

In my own dealings with these men, when I have gone around hospitals, as I have done recently, men who know that they will not be able to go back into the Army have said to me, "Is there any chance of my being trained for some occupation? I shall not be able to go back to my old job because of my disability." And when I have assured them that every case will be given an opportunity of being trained, they have said, "Life is worth living, after all. I shall be able, not only to interest myself, but to earn something and be a useful citizen." I believe that 95 per cent. of our men feel that way. I feel that when we come to deal with this question— because it may have to come to this House at some time or other— I shall have the full support of hon. Members, and in particular that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale so. that the men may have a fair chance of earning money for themselves.

The question was raised about pensions to wives and children of men who marry after the disability takes place. That is a difficult question. It has been a fundamental principle that the State recognises only those domestic obligations which were in force at the time of disablement. That principle has been laid down throughout the whole history of pensions, and for me to make a promise that that principle will be changed would be wrong on my, part, because it is a matter of major policy. It is not merely my own opinion as Minister of Pensions. Its ramifications are a bit too wide for me to make any promise. In my opinion it is the right and proper thing not to pay a pension to the wife of a man when she marries him after he has suffered his disability. If we require any real experience of this, we have only to turn to the United States of America, where it became such a ramp that it was the object of public indignation. It is not possible to draw a line. My hon. and gallant Friend said he had a suggestion to make as to how it could be done. I would like him to send me particulars, for I would like to see it for myself. With all my experience of pension matters— and it is an extensive one, from the opposite side to where I am now— I can assure hon. Members that this is one of the most difficult problems any Minister could have to deal with. I have never yet said that I knew all there is to know about things, and I have never closed my mind to any reasonable suggestion, so if my hon. and gallant Friend will send along his suggestion, I shall be very glad to consider it. I think, however, that the proper time to consider all these questions is when we have won through to victory, which we are going to do. I am satisfied that this House of Commons will see to it that those who are victims of this war and have been victims of previous wars will have justice meted out to them. This House is the greatest tribunal in the world and the fairest, and I cannot conceive that any Minister of Pensions will be allowed to stand here at this Box unless he is doing the right thing.

Various points have been raised by other hon. Members, and I would like to deal with them, because it is only a matter of courtesy to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised the difficult question of on or off duty. It is laid down in the Royal Warrant that pensions are payable where the disability or death is directly attributable to war service or is materially hastened thereby. I have had this question of on or off duty thoroughly considered by my Advisory Committee; I do not say that we were not as sympathetic to the man off duty as to the man on duty, because if the man dies, what we all have to think about are his wife and children. But although that may be the proper way to look at it from a sentimental standpoint, I can only act according to the Royal Warrant, which I have to administer, and this on or off duty question is one that has given considerable difficulty. It may, of course, be said that during the last war, if a man was killed in France or anywhere else outside Great Britain, whatever the cause, the pension was granted, because he was supposed to be on duty all the time. But we have to watch Service practice in these matters. If a man is on leave, he is not on duty, and to lay down that he is on duty so long as he is in uniform would be a two-edged weapon which might cause greater difficulty than already exists.

Mr. Granville

But he got a pension if killed on leave in the last war.

Sir W. Womersley

Not necessarily.

Mr. Baxter

In the last war a man anywhere in France was considered to be on active service. Now we are no longer fighting in France, but this country has become the battlefield. The position is practically parallel.

Sir W. Womersley

I have to work according to the Regulations laid down in the Royal Warrant; I cannot go beyond that. On the question of defining when a man is on or off duty, however, I have a certain latitude, which I always exercise for the benefit of the claimant as far as possible. But there are sometimes other features in these cases as hon. Members would see if they were able to inspect the papers. I invite them to come and see the papers in connection with cases in which they may be interested.

My hon. Friend the Member for Can-nock (Mr. Adamson) referred to the case of a man who, unfortunately, had to have both feet amputated. The man was returning from leave, certainly; but he had jumped into a moving train. That could be held to be an act of folly. But I was able to take that case in hand; and, as my hon. Friend said, although we could not give the man a pension, we did the next best thing: we provided him with artificial feet, and, with the help of his trade union, we got him into a job, where he is, I believe, earning full trade union wages. I am giving the matter very careful consideration, and seeing how this on-and-off-duty regulation is worked, with a view to improving the position of those affected, if possible. I have to get a set of regulations. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is not fair to ask any Government to provide compensation for a man who, by an act of folly, has occasioned his disability. It is true that in the case of a man who is injured because of the black-out, if the man had not been a soldier he would not have been in that particular place; but if there had been no war and no black-out, many of the civilians who have been killed in road accidents would have been still alive. However, I am giving this matter my serious consideration. I am glad to say that my Advisory Committee are still in existence, and I have had no resignations. I do not call them together unless there is something of major importance to consider, because they are busy men and women. When I have a meeting of that committee again— which I hope will be before very long— we shall deal with questions which have arisen in this Debate.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West)

Do these sittings last a long time?

Sir W. Womersley

Oh, yes. A very important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). This gives me an opportunity of issuing an ultimatum to the War Office, which I have long wished to have an opportunity of doing. I have discovered that we have been getting cases of men who have one week's real service in the Army and then have applied for a pension, although they have never been beyond the first billet that they were put into. Once a man has enlisted in the Army, it is not sufficient to say after his first parade that it can be seen at a glance that he is no good for the Army. Various Boards have to deal with the matter, and it takes some weeks before the man can be passed out of the Service. When Members write to me and say that a man has had seven weeks' service, I should be glad if they would find out whether this is real service. It usually turns out that he has had one week's service. Men who were called up for service in the Territorial Army did not have an examination when they were embodied. There has been a careful examination of these men, and those who do not appear likely to make good soldiers, or who, it is thought, would suffer from Army service, are being discharged— quite a number of them. But you have also another type of recruit— the man who usually joins the Auxiliary Pioneer Corps or the Royal Defence Corps, perhaps a man like myself who wanted to be back in the Army. Some of them give different reasons. I received a number of these cases from a particular camp of about 3,000 men. I made it my business to go to the camp and find out for myself what really was happening. I met a number of fellows who had served in the last war from almost every regiment in the British Army. They gave various reasons why they came back into the British Army. One man, for instance, said it was because he wanted to "dodge the missus," whatever that meant. I also discovered a man with an artificial leg who had been passed as fit, and another man who was so blind as to come within the meaning of the Blind Persons Act, and hon. Members know that means that a man is too blind to be able to follow an occupation. I believed that, in going to the War Office and the medical staffs, I had here two really good cases. I put these cases up as samples of the careless examination which took place at that time in respect of men who had got, not into the Territorials, but into the Regular Forces.

What was the explanation? It was the rush of recruiting— and there was a bit of a rush when they first started recruiting— of men over the ordinary military age who wished to get back into the Army. It appears that, in this case, some fellow had gone to the recruiting office and had given the name of the man with the artificial leg, who was a fellow of about the same age. This man, who was quite fit, passed the doctor, gave the name of the other fellow, walked out with his papers and travelling warrant, and went into the "pub" around the corner and received 10s. from the man with the artificial leg, who went and joined the camp, and they did not discover him until he had his first physical jerks. These are absolute facts. The same sort of thing applied to the blind man, and it was the same man who had been concerned with the man with the wooden leg. I ask hon. Members how they would guard against cases of that sort, and these were only two cases out of many.

There is, however, a much more searching medical examination taking place today, and I am not receiving the number of cases that I did formerly. Having made a protest to those responsible for this examination, I am glad to say that notice was taken pf it, and I believe that to-day there is a much stricter examination. My hon. Friend, I know, is a medical man, because he once doctored me and put me fit, and he knows very well that there are certain things that might be troublesome to an individual and do not show themselves at the time of examination unless there is a proper examination by means of X-rays. There are many things, such as duodenal ulcer, for instance, and I have seen the attestation papers of many of these men. The question has been asked, "Have you ever suffered from a certain disease?" and the answer has been, "No."

"Have you ever suffered from some other disease?" and the answer has been, "No," and it goes on, "No," "No," "No," so that the men themselves have been responsible for deceiving the examining doctor. Afterwards it has transpired that perhaps six years before that time, a man had been under treatment for something from which he had said he had never suffered.

I want hon. Members to realise how these things come home when you are in a Department and receive a letter saying, "I have been turned out of the Army as I am unfit." But that is not sufficient. I have wanted to see the papers myself. I will tell the House the position that I have taken up. It has to be proved to me that it is a constitutional disease, that a man has suffered from it and that it is ascertainable from his medical record. There are men in the Army to-day who are alive and well but who would not be but for the medical attention they have received. These are the cases of which we never hear, but I agree that it had become very necessary to tighten up these medical examinations. When a man is told he is A.I he naturally feels A.I, and if anything happens, he thinks he ought to be compensated.

Many of those who went into the Pioneer Corps were not passed A.I, but C.3, and were allowed to do clerical work. Hon. Members, I am sure, will not mind my suggesting that if they have any cases brought to their notice, they will bring them to me or my Parliamentary Secretary. We are only too anxious to go into them and let them see what is the real position. There was in the old days such things as "swinging the lead" and "working your ticket." I had a case brought to my notice the other day of a man who made desperate efforts to get out of the Army on medical grounds. He succeeded at last and promptly put in a claim to my Department for a pension. When interviewed, he admitted that he was working on his old job, receiving full pay, and was not under the doctor. He said, "I thought it would clinch the matter if I put in an application for a pension. If I did not put in an application, they might have thought I was kidding." As a matter of fact this man "got his ticket."

Let me say again how glad I am to have had the opportunity of discussing this matter to-day. Hon. Members have been very kind to me, and I want to assure them that I take a personal interest in the cases they send to me. They need not be afraid of sending them, although perhaps it would not be a bad thing for them and myself if they "vetted" them a little before doing so. With good will, I am sure we can all do something for those who may suffer disability as a result of this war.

Sir Robert Tasker (Holborn)

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give consideration to another aspect of the 100 per cent. disability pensioner. The noble conception of Sir Oswald Stoll which he carried into effect at Fulham has given gratifying results. His scheme was to preserve family life to enable medical treatment to be carried out in the disabled man's home, with the result that over a series of years a very large proportion of those 100 per cent. cases are now 25 per cent., 55 per cent., or 75 per cent. Enabling men to be treated in their homes is a very different thing from their being treated in hospital.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the full explanation that he has given, but one matter cropped up in the course of his speech in reference to soldiers who get wounded while unmarried, but who marry later in life. I have pressed the point on many occasions, and the right hon. Gentleman is not unsympathetic to the point of view, but he feels that he wants some expression of opinion from the House in regard to the matter. The country calls on its young people to serve in the Army. Many marry before they go, but some do not. They do not feel inclined to marry. They would rather come back and face life afterwards, without being encumbered by a wife. If they get wounded and disabled and then marry, the wife is not entitled to any allowance, neither are the children. Is it right that they should be in a different category? I claim that that is entirely wrong when you ask people to give of their best for the country and then deprive them of an entitlement that everyone ought to have. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a major question which involves a large amount of money. We come across many major questions, but is it justice to the soldier? No one can say that it is justice that a man who comes back wounded and then gets married should not be on the same plane as anyone else. That is my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. It is one of those things that every Minister of Pensions has been afraid to face.

We are involved in the greatest war in history. Whatever other Ministers have burked because of the cost of the thing, the present Minister ought not to take that as a reason why he should not tackle it. I want him to consider it seriously. He has asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to send him on some scheme that he has in mind and I hope he will. I have put my point of view in more detail, I have provided safeguards where a designing woman attempts to get hold of a man, but what I am more concerned about are the children, who get no allowance. I would point out to the Minister that after this war we shall want to do all we can to increase the birth-rate. The depletion of the nation's manhood during this war will make us all eager to increase the child population. One of the reasons for France's downfall was their declining birth-rate. By this method, because of economic factors, we are restricting many of our soldiers from having children. I plead with the Minister to review this matter in a wider and broader aspect, and to see whether there is justice in it. If he agrees that there is justice, I ask him to come forward and demand the money. I do not want him to hide behind what has been done in the past. Money should not enter into it. We can find the money if only the Minister of Pensions will help us.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.