HC Deb 18 December 1947 vol 445 cc2012-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

11.31 p.m.

Brigadier Peto (Barnstaple)

In the short time at my disposal, I propose to put the case for an increase in the basic rate of ex-Service disability pensions. I will start by saying that it is in no sense a party issue. It has a large measure of support in the country not only from hon. Members on the benches behind the Minister of Pensions, of whom no fewer than 80 have taken an active interest in this question, but also from my hon. Friends on this side. Though it is true we are in a considerable minority, 75 Members on this side have taken an active interest, by Question or in other ways, in this matter. Fifteen other hon. Members, representing all the political parties and all shades of opinion, have been equally interested.

I would remind the Minister that there is a large measure of support by the British Legion, the council of which passed a unanimous resolution on the subject. The Legion represents more than one million votes in this country—exService men and women. There is also support from the Disability Pensions Committee, a body of men who are interested in the welfare of men with whom they served during the last war and in the 1914–18 war. I would mention one particular member of that committee, a very gallant soldier, Lieut.-General Sir Adrian Carton de Wiart, V.C., K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O. There is also a certain measure of support by an organisation known as B.L.E.S.M.A., but to be quite truthful, they are more interested at the moment in getting increased allowances for the worst cases of disablement, such as the limbless men, than they are in a flat rate rise of the basic pension. They think—and probably rightly so—that they are more likely to get something from the Government by way of an increased allowance for the worst cases than to get an increased basic rate for all pensions. That may very likely be the Government's view; we will hear in a moment. I hold that it is more important to deal with the vast majority of pensions than with those particular cases.

There is also a large measure of support from lett4rs in the Press, and one which I would' venture to mention, appeared in the "Yorkshire Post" of 13th October from Sir David Smith. If the Minister has not seen that letter, I very strongly commend it to him, because it puts the case in extremely clear and easy phraseology, I will quote briefly from it: Why, when the purchasing value of the pound has been halved and wages of workers have risen by as much as 150 per cent. have pensions been raised by only 12½ per cent.? He goes on to say: The official answer seems to be that most of the disabled are able to work and there- fore to benefit by the general rise in wages. Personally, I do not see how a man who is 50 per cent. disabled and who draws a pension of £1 2s. 6d. per week can possibly hope to command an equal income to that of a fit man working in an occupation for which he has been trained. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentence. It is well known that a disability pension is granted purely on medical grounds and not with a view to the earning capacity of the recipient. At the same time, surely it is true to say that a pension is granted mainly with a view to seeing that a man who enjoys that pension feels that he has been reasonably compensated for his disability and is not at a disadvantage financially by reason of his disability when he is compared with a fit man.

If I may choose an example from my own experience, I have lost a large part of my right hand, and I am not a fit man from that point of view. If I had been trained and brought up as a gardener or a manual worker or any sort of farm worker, I should be at a great disadvantage and unable to do what I could do as a fit man. One cannot lift, one cannot grip, one feels at a disadvantage; and that disadvantage in some cases is apt to make a man feel disgruntled and to feel that he has not been given the same rights as other men who are fit—a feeling of bitterness. That is one thing that we must try to avoid.

Up to February, 1946, according to the Minister's reply to a question on November 18th, the basic pension rate was related to the cost of living. Thereafter, when the 5s. rise was given in February, 1946, it was divorced from the cost of living and was related to the new National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act of that year. I think that the crux of the whole matter lies in whether or not the basic rate should or should not be related to the cost of living. I have a few facts that may not be generally known to the public and may not even be known to hon. Members, though, as far as the Ministry is concerned, they are only too well known. I would ask the Minister to bear with me while I give them.

There is a total of 766,000 ex-Service pensioners, of whom 93 per cent. do not draw any special allowance. There are, out of that three quarters of a million, only 50,650 Service pensioners drawing 100 per cent. pension. On the basis of a man with a wife and two children, the average pension for the 100 per cent. dis- abled is just over £5 a week, counting allowances. Of that 50,000, 4,200 draw 20s. a week constant attendant allowance, and out of that 4,200, only 420 draw the maximum constant attendant allowance of 40s. per week, which puts their ordinary pay from the Ministry of Pensions up to £6 or £7 a week respectively, though, in fact, we should not count that allowance for constant attendant as part of the pay packet, since it goes into one pocket and out of the other. There are 351,000 pensioners from the 1914–18 war. Almost half of these men are nearly 60 years old now, and are not in any way fit, as one knows a fit man.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister two questions. How can he or the Government maintain that these 351,000 men should be asked to compete with fit men, on modern standards, on the basis of the present basic pension, with the present high cost of living? How can the Government expect them to compete on level terms? If in 1919, 40s. a week was considered adequate as a basic rate, how can anyone maintain that 40s. is an adequate basic rate under modern conditions? In my opinion, that basic rate should not only be raised, but should be doubled.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

As this is a non-party, or rather an all-party matter, perhaps it would be appropriate if a few points could be made by a representative of each of the Services. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken for the Army. I should like to add one or two things as an ex-member of the Royal Air Force. I want to put four points: the first two are statistical; the third is moral, and the last is perhaps sentimental.

On 20th October, the last available late for this information, of the 503,483 disabled ex-Service men on the Register of Disabled, kept in compliance with the Employment Act, 1944, 39,054 were unemployed, which is nearly eight out of every 100. This shows the proneness of disabled men to unemployment. My next point is to make a comparison between the pension rate of those receiving 100 per cent. benefit in this country and those in the Dominions. Taking a typical family of a man with a wife and one child, in the United Kingdom an increase of only 9 per cent, has been made in pension rate between 1919 and 1946. In Canada there has been a 27.7 per cent. increase; in New Zealand 42.8 per cent.; in South Africa 82.5 per cent. They all started higher than our pensions in the first instance. I think the answer is not that the cost of living in the Dominions is higher than ours, because what the Dominions have done has been to step up their pension rate by this increase, thereby recognising their obligation to their people to provide adequately for those in receipt of pensions, in view of the increased cost of living due to two wars. Is the Mother Country going to be less willing to recognise the gallant services rendered by those here who are also in receipt of a disability pension? Are we to be less generous in fulfilling our obligations?

The third point to which I would draw attention is the matter of property which was damaged during the war. We are paying compensation in full to those whose property suffered damage. An owner of damaged property is subjected to little or no hardship, as a result of the generosity of the War Damage Commission. Are we, as a country, going to bow down, pagan-like, to the sacred right of property and forget to act the Good Samaritan to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen among thieves? Let us remember that the war was not won by bricks and mortar, but by flesh and blood.

My last point is an appeal to the Minister. We are having practically the last Debate before the Christmas Recess. Could not I appeal to the Minister's sense of generosity? Christmas is the time of good cheer. I believe that this small, but important, section of the community would feel a great sense of relief, and would respond to the sense of good cheer, if the Minister would take this opportunity of announcing that he was prepared to make an increase in the basic rate.

11.47 p.m.

Commander Noble (Chelsea)

I would like to say a few words in support of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstapie (Brigadier Peto) who, I think the House will agree, has raised this matter in a most fair and straightforward manner. I was particularly interested to hear the Minister of Pensions, in reply to a Question on 18th November, say that he would like to see the people who now rely on pensions even more humanely treated. I think that that is the very root of what we are trying to say tonight. The Minister also said on that occasion that he was not sure of the best way to make an increase. I hope that I am not forestalling him tonight when I say that I feel he may state, when he comes to reply, that he has had a meeting with the associations and societies concerned, and that they have recommended that an intermediate step should be on this occasion an increase for those who are most in need. That may well be; but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us what was the background of such a discussion, if it actually took place. Did the Minister say at such a meeting that he was prepared to spend a certain amount? If the Minister does say that, I fully agree; but I do not think that in any way detracts from the case made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnstaple tonight.

I particularly ask that the basic rate should be related once again to the cost of living. I do not want to see it tied to a particular cost of living figure, but I think it is an accepted fact that wages in this country have risen substantially. Take, for example, industrial workers. They have received increases of about 80 per cent., I think, throughout the whole field. It is also an accepted fact that the pound now does not buy what it used to buy. It seems fantastic to me that more consideration has not been given to those men who are partly disabled.

The Minister may say, as I think he has said before, that these men, also, can benefit from the higher wages; but I think my hon. and gallant Friend has already made out the case for the men of the 1914–18 war. How can the partly-disabled men of that war, at their age, compete in jobs today with the young and fit men? I think we ought to consider also the money which has been spent on other services during the last two or three years, and that we should again consider whether something more cannot be done for these partly-disabled men. I fully realise that this is, finally, a Treasury decision, but I hope that the Minister of Pensions will make a bold and, to use his own words, "humane appeal" to the Chancellor. If he does, and if he succeeds, many will live to thank and respect him.

11.50 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan)

This Debate has been well conducted, and the issue perfectly fairly put. I make no complaint of the form and manner in which the issue has been raised, though I would have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) might have been as fair to me as was the last speaker, who said, rightly, that this is not a question merely for the Minister of Pensions, but a question for the whole Government to decide in relation to its expenditure. It is beyond even a new Member asking me to make an announcement tonight.

In regard to the general issue raised, it is true that if you take comparison by comparison, you can make a case, provided that you do not mention all the other things that the Government have given to the ex-Service men. It is not fair for people claiming to represent ex-Service men, who have seen reform after reform put into effect by this Government, never to mention them as an offset against all the other things. I made this statement in answer to a question. It is true that one has to answer Questions quickly in this House, to think on one's feet, but looking over what I said, I am not ashamed of it. I said this. For 25 years I have been in this House, and over those years the thing on which I have felt most deeply was never the rate of pension, but the fact of the very large number of decent men who were refused any pension at all. I said in reply to that Question that the first thing I would like to do—and I defy any hon. Member opposite, or behind me, to say that I have not translated it into actual practice—was to see that men who were denied any pension and who had anything like a case should be granted one. I say this frankly. If a man is paid too low, then he is one of a large section of the community and is in common circumstances with them; but if he is denied a pension, he is isolated from his fellows, and in that sense, in my view, he is the most deserving of all.

Let me say a word about the comparisons. Let me take the comparison of 1919, when a Coalition Government with a preponderance of Conservative Members was in office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who raised this matter and I have one thing in common: he has a damaged right hand, and so have I. His hand was damaged in the service of his country in the field of war. My right hand was damaged in industry. I presume he gets a regular pension of so much a week. I will tell the House what I got from a generous industry—£25 in all. Whatever he may say about the Government, it is much more generous. Wage rates in 1919 were on an extremely high level, not much less than they are today. When the rate was fixed in 1919 it was 40s. a week for the 100 per cent. man; but there were none of the attendant allowances we are now granting. Today the man in the 100 per cent. category, the normal case of a man with a wife and one or two children, and leaving out family allowances and other additions the State is now giving, can without any exaggeration get well over £5 a week. What is the use of making a comparison that is not fair? What is the use of leaving out the supplementary allowances that have been given since?

Again, in 1919 more than 50 per cent. of the men were unmarried. They were married subsequently and no pension was payable to their wives, and no pensions or allowances were allowed to their children. To 50 per cent. of them nothing was given.

Brigadier Peto

Could the Minister answer my two questions? There are but a few moments left. How can a man of the 1914–18 class compete in industry today——

Mr. Buchanan

I was about to say a word on that. Fifty per cent. of them got no allowance for their wives and children. Forty shillings was all a man got if he was married afterwards. He could have a wife and five children, but he got only 40s. Now in these cases he gets an allowance for his wife and each child he has. He gets 10s. for his wife and 7s. 6d. for each child. It is asked, how can an ageing man compete in industry? We endeavour to meet the case now—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned this: we give a hardship allowance in such a case of 11s. 3d. per week.

Brigadier Peto

How many get it?

Mr. Buchanan

Fairly large numbers. Perhaps, a man's ability in industry has tot been in any way impaired. But a man whose ability in industry is impaired receives the allowance. One reason why at the moment he is not, perhaps, receiving it is that there is very good trade now, so that a man with a slight defect can yet earn his full standard rate of wages. I am prepared, to see what can be done, to look at the case of the man with a 50 per cent. injury. I am prepared to look at the case of the very seriously disabled man. The position of such men has been put to me very strongly and feelingly, by a deputation I received the other day of ex-Service people not connected with the bigger organisations. They put to me the case of the blind man, of the man who has lost a leg, or who has had part of his face destroyed. We give them a maximum of £6 odd. That, however, is 120 per cent. more than they would have got in 1919 under the Coalition Government. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the rising cost of living, let me remind him that in 1939, when wages had risen considerably, the rate of pension was 32s. 6d.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

That is not the point.

Mr. Buchanan

It is annoying, I know, to hon. Members. I am prepared to look at and re-examine the case of the severely disabled man. I am not unsympathetic. However, I think that even if hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power tomorrow they would make no change in the fundamental, basic pension. What they would do would be to look at the field of pensions generally, and make the administration as humane as possible. It would be easy for me to raise the pension to a much higher standard, but at the same time there would be a much more rigid interpretation of the qualifications for pension. It would be stricter and yet more strict. I prefer the humane administration, an administration as humane as it can be made, even though, possibly, the sums paid may be a little less.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

There is only one question I want to ask. The Minister raised a point of some consequence when he said——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute past Twelve o'Clock.