§ 35. Major McCallumasked the Minister of Pensions if, in view of the judgment given in the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division on 14th January, 1946, he will consider amending the definition of a war risk injury in the War Pensions (Coastguards) Scheme, 1944, and thereby put coastguards on the same footing as Civil Defence volunteers.
§ Mr. BuchananProvision for compensation for war risk injury, as defined in the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942, was included in the scheme to cover the case of the coastguard who might be required to serve afloat alongside seagoing personnel. The Coastguard Organisation, unlike the Civil Defence, is a normal peacetime organisation, governed in the matter of injuries, sustained in the ordinary course of their employment, by the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Provision on these lines continued during the war. I do not consider, therefore, that any revised arrangements are necessary.
§ Major McCallumIs not the Minister aware that the vast majority of coastguards, although they may be attached nominally to a ship, that ship being really a shore station, never go to sea at all, and that to make their claims for pension contingent upon the injuries received at sea is ridiculous? Does not the Minister think that some revision of this scheme should be put into operation?
§ Mr. BuchananI have gone into this matter, and I cannot see that it is 976 ridiculous. There are other people doing shore jobs, and if we were to do as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, other workmen also who are doing dangerous jobs would have an equal claim.
§ Major McCallumIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.