HC Deb 02 April 1953 vol 513 cc1395-415

1.10 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

The British Legion, I venture to submit, is a patriotic body of men and women who seek to look after the interests of their disabled comrades but are, nevertheless, mindful of the needs of others. They are a responsible body, and I am convinced that any action they take does, in their view, take into account the best interests of the country as a whole.

Her Majesty's Government have decided to ask Parliament later in the year to consider the merger of the Ministry of Pensions into a new Ministry to be called the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Some part of the work of the Ministry is to go to this new Ministry and another part of it is to go to the Ministry of Health. There will, I understand, be a White Paper and later a Motion.

I do not propose to take up more than one minute of my brief time today in discussing this matter. Some may think that it would be better to wait for the White Paper to see what the proposals are before forming any judgment, and I do not wholly deny the validity of that suggestion. Nevertheless, I think it should be placed on record at this early stage that, so far as my knowledge goes, certainly the British Legion—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is now in order. This would need legislation, I understand.

Sir I. Fraser

With respect, I believe that the merger is an executive act which will be based upon a Motion to Her Majesty.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If it is purely an administrative matter the hon. Gentle-ment is in order, but if it involves legislation then, as he knows, it cannot be discussed on this occasion.

Sir I. Fraser

I think, with respect, that my submission is a correct one. This Motion will come before the House and I do not propose to deal with it for more than a minute now, but I think it right at this early stage to place on record the fact that, within my knowledge, the British Legion, B.L.E.S.M.A., St. Dunstan's and, I fancy, most other organisations concerned with the welfare of ex-Service men are most anxious about this merger. They feel that they will be losing a friend in the Ministry of Pensions; a friend with whom we have argued many times, but who, nevertheless, has over the years come to know our needs.

However well the new machinery may work, we doubt whether the well-being of ex-Service men will, when they are only part of a big Ministry, be so well cared for as it has been during the past years, when they have had what they regard as their own Ministry. However, final judgment on whether the merger is a good thing or not will, in my view, depend much more upon what Governments do for disabled ex-Service men by way of improving their war pensions.

That brings me on to the main matter I wish to raise today. Before continuing with that, may I have the sympathy of the House if I most reluctantly make a personal statement. Being a war pensioner myself I am interested in this matter. Though I have not in 35 years had any increase in my own basic rate of war pension, I have had an increase of 7 per cent. in the total money that I take away each year by way of a special allowance. I have had that 7 per cent. in the 35 years, but no increase in my basic rate; nor do I expect one; nor do I ask for one; nor do I make any complaint that I have not had one.

I mention this most reluctantly, but it is right to declare an interest. I would add that except for myself and a few others, almost the whole membership of the British Legion conducting this campaign are wholly disinterested in this matter. There can scarcely be many pleas that come to this House from great bodies of citizens—in this case numbering over a million—who are wholly disinterested. The greater part of the membership of the British Legion does not receive a war pension, and I submit that makes the appeal we make more important than it would otherwise be.

The British Legion has, in the constituencies, by communications to the House and by deputations to Ministers, invited us all to consider their case. They have carried out what they have called their war pensions campaign. I believe they have carried it out with accuracy and courtesy, and I should like to thank hon. and right hon. Members for the way in which they have met my comrades all over the country and dealt with their requests. I would just add that we have made no discrimination between our claims upon any Government of whatever party.

The British Legion asks that the basic rate of war pension should be increased to 90s. a week, and I want to clear up some misunderstandings about this. This does not mean that hundreds of thousands of men are to have 90s. a week. If our claim were granted and the basic rate for the 100 per cent. disabled private soldier were raised to 90s. this year, the average increase in the war pensions of all war pensioners would be 14s. l½d. a week. Not 90s., not 35s., but 14s. l½d.

Last year, it will be remembered, Her Majesty's Government gave a rise of 10s. a week on the 100 per cent. basic rate. That was the highest rise we had had, and involved more money than all the benefits that had been provided for war pensioners in the past six or eight years. Nevertheless, it did not give everybody 10s. a week. It gave to war pensioners an average of 4s. 0½d. a week. At the same time, in the same Budget, about that amount was taken away.

Now the Chancellor, economists and many hon. Members may think that the incidence of taxation, or of the alterations that are made in subsidies in a Budget, are irrelevant to the war pension. Taking a very precise economist's view, one may think that is so. But the man in the cottage or the street who is getting so many shillings extra is bound to take into account how many shillings less he is getting at the same time, and if to him the result is either negative or all square, he says, "I have had a Dutchman's rise."

I make these points in order to clear away the idea, which I have heard expressed in some quarters, that "Ninety bob is much too much for us. You should not ask for so much. You should ask for less." Let me just show in terms of a typical example what this rise to 90s. a week in the 100 per cent. basic rate means. A man who lost his leg above the knee—what is called a 60 per cent. pensioner—got 24s. in 1919; today he gets 33s.; we say he ought to have 54s.

We say that if 24s. was right then, an increase to 33s. now does not make up for the fall which has taken place in the value of money during that time. We claim that the basic rate of war pensions is, as a whole, 38 per cent. below what it ought to be if it were put in its proper place in the cost of living scale. Our argument is not so much that we want a rise, or even a preference, but that we have been left behind, and that our disabled men ought to be put in their right place in the cost of living scale.

That brings me to the cost-of-living scales, which I wish to discuss very briefly. There are two. One is the index of consumer goods and services, a very reputable index upon which this Government and previous Governments have based the Economic Survey. Thus, it is an official index and not an invention of the British Legion. According to this index, in order to have the same purchasing power today as it had in 1938, the basic war pension for a 100 per cent. disabled man ought to be a little over 90s. Let me remind the House again that it is 55s. at present.

Of course, the Treasury might rind some other index upon which to base its calculations or some other datum line from which to start. There are two main indexes, and hon. Members may be sure that the British Legion has chosen the better. Clearly, the Treasury might choose the other, but, if they did, they would be appealing to an index which had its origin in the Boer War and was so out of date that the Government changed it, knowing that it was unrepresentative.

Moreover, in 1948, during the period of office of the first Labour Government after the war, a large number of my hon. Friends, including most of the notable figures on the Front Bench, voted against the Labour Government when they refused to set up an impartial outside inquiry into this matter. Although we did not vote on a rate of pension, we clearly implied to our ex-Service citizens that we had in mind to do better, and many of us said that we thought that the basic rate of that time was inadequate. Therefore, I cannot believe that the Minister would appeal to the Boer War index. On the other hand, if he thinks that the index of consumer goods and services is too good and raises too high the point at which we think we ought to be on the index, the British Legion would always be very willing to talk to him about that.

What we ask is that the Government shall accept the principle that compensation for loss of limb, health or sight should at least be on the basis that it buys now as much as it did in earlier years. The Minister might argue that the cost of living was very high in 1919. So it was, but thereafter it fell rapidly and it did not return to that point until the last war began, so that for 20 years our older ex-Service men were enjoying a higher rate of pension. I say without fear of contradiction that the basic rate of war pensions buys less today than it has done at any time in the last 30 years. That surely is a prima facie case for action or for inquiry.

I would also add that there are many widows of ex-Service men who did not receive widows' pensions for technical reasons or for reasons of administrative convenience, which the Legion does not think is just, and that there are many civilian widows who get more from National Assistance than war widows get from the Ministry of Pensions, which we also do not think is right.

I promised to be very brief, but I do not want to be accused of being unfair, and, therefore, I want very shortly indeed to indicate what has been done in recent years for war pensioners, because it will set the scene for consideration of this matter and will also lead me to my concluding point. Five major acts have been taken by Governments over the past 20 years by way of improving war pensions. The first, and, in some ways, one of the most important, was the stabilisation which took place in 1928 of the war pension at 40s. per week. According to the fall in the cost of living at that time, it could have been dropped very considerably. But it was not dropped; it was stabilised. The importance of this point is not merely the benefit it then gave to all the pensioners of the first war but that for 20 years the nation established that as the minimum basis. Many thought it was inadequate, but it was at least established as the minimum basis. Therefore, it does not seem unfair that we should take the basis in 1938 as the basis from which to calculate what our figure ought to be now.

The next very important act of State was that in 1943 the benefit of the doubt was given to the pensioner in discussions as to his eligibility and the onus of proof as to his rights was transferred from the claimant to the Ministry. It is impossible to say how much that cost the nation, but it was a most generous gesture and a most just gesture, and it brought into the ranks of the war pensioners very large numbers who were not in in earlier days.

Then in 1945 came the extension of children's and wives' allowances to all children and wives instead of only to women who had been married or children who had been born to the man at the time the disability occurred. That was a generous act by the new Labour Government of 1945 which was very much appreciated. In 1946 the Labour Government added 5s. to the basic rate, and last year a Conservative Government added 10s. to it.

It is clear that all parties have had a share in dealing with this matter over the last 20 years, and I make no point as to whether one party has done better than another. I merely say that at this moment the basic rate of war pension buys less than it has ever done in the past 30 years and that 94 per cent. of our war pensioners do not get adequate allowances, or compensation of any other kind, to make up for that deficiency. The Budget is due on Tuesday week. We earnestly hope that it may contain provisions which will recognise the duty which this great nation owes to its disabled ex-Service men and women.

1.29 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch (Bedwellty)

I join the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) in his plea for an increase in the basic rate of war pensions. There can be no doubt at all that, with the increased cost of living and the increase in the standard of living, disabled ex-Service men are at present finding themselves in a very precarious position. That applies particularly to those who are totally incapacitated. We marvel sometimes how they exist on the present rates. We are justified in making a strong plea to the Minister to reconsider the whole question of basic pensions.

This takes on added importance as the bulk of those in receipt of pensions are less than 100 per cent. disabled. Apart from the basic pension which they receive, the only other allowance they may get is that for loss of occupation or for "lowered occupation"—under the Industrial Injuries Act we term this a hardship allowance—at a maximum of 20s. per week.

There are many disabled men who, before disablement, were in occupations which, in many cases, afforded them a high standard of living and large remuneration. I need only cite the cases of skilled engineers, those in the profession and skilled miners underground who became disabled after serving their country and are now unable to follow their pre-accident occupation. In recent years there has been an increase in remuneration in the professions and in industry generally.

We have only to cite the case of the skilled miner. Formerly, he was earning £6 or £7 a week, but now it has gone up to £10 or £12 a week. The disabled miner has no redress in these circumstances. He is tied to the 20s. He may be following an occupation which gives him £5 or £6 a week, which is a big difference compared with the money paid in his former occupation The maximum he can get on that £5 or £6 a week is 20s. a week.

Mixing with large numbers of these disabled men, I find this is a greater cause of discontent than anything else. These disabled men see around them their contemporaries of pre-war days getting a fairly high remuneration in the trades or professions of which they were members before disablement, but which they cannot follow any longer. They cannot, therefore, enjoy the benefits of these high wages. No wonder there is a growing feeling of discontent in those circumstances. I hope that as a result of this debate consideration will be given to what I term the occupational rate or special hardship allowance, because it does not make up at all for the loss which these men have made as a result of being disabled.

There is one other point I should like to stress before I sit down, and that is the unemployability allowance. We are inclined to get confused about these allowances. Under the Industrial Injuries Act, unemployability allowance is payable to a person only in respect of himself, whereas if he is in receipt of sickness benefit he receives an amount for himself and his wife and first child. I understand that, in the case of war pensioners, if a person is not entitled to sickness benefit he may be entitled to unemployability allowance at the rate of 35s. for himself and a certain amount for his wife. If he is entitled to sickness benefit the amount paid for his wife is £1 1s. 6d. If he is entitled to unemployability allowance he gets a lower rate than he would get if he were entitled to sickness benefit. I hope that the Minister will give attention to that.

Those are the two points I wanted to make. They are very important and are causing a good deal of discontent to our war pensioners. If something could be done by the Minister to remedy that position it would be widely appreciated. I hope he will look at the problems of lower occupation allowance and unemployability allowance in order to ease the serious situation in which many of these disabled war pensioners find themselves at the present time.

1.35 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I should like to support as warmly as I can what my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said today, and I hope that the Minister will look into the points put by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). I myself feel that we sometimes overlook one of the most important features of this war pensions matter. We tend too often only to give war pensions for war disability at the same time as we are able to give increased social service benefits of other kinds to the civilian population.

I do not in any way wish to make the division any more marked than it is at present, but I believe that there is a difference between those who have rendered service to their country very often abroad, and have been injured as a result in a time of grave national emergency, and those who have been injured in civilian employment when they have been within reasonable access of their homes or have actually been living in them. I have always felt that that distinction has never been made clearly enough in this House, nor has any Government of any party been prepared to make that distinction and to appreciate the fact that the war pensioner is in a special position.

I want to declare an interest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale. I am in receipt of retired pay as a result of war disability and in consequence I have an allowance in respect of my family. I am probably in a more fortunate position than a great many people. There are some disabilities which never can be fully compensated. For instance, a person who follows anything in the nature of a cultural activity like piano playing, or one which depends on hearing, suffers irreparably if war disability interferes with those interests. Minor injuries to ear or limb can cause an amount of suffering for which no money will ever compensate.

I hope we will try to encourage the House and, indeed, the country to take a rather different attitude in this matter.-I see a paradox in the arguments for and against treating differently the volunteer or the conscript soldier. It can be argued, on the one hand, that a man who volunteers knows what risks he is taking when he volunteers, and, therefore, ought not to be entitled to greater compensation than those who have been conscripted into the Forces. On the other hand, it can be argued that the man who volunteers is a better man than the one who is driven and, therefore, he should be paid more. My belief is that those two arguments cancel each other out.

I know that there are many hon. Members who feel that those who volunteered for the First World War before conscription was ever brought in ought to be in a different category from everybody else. I have a great deal of sympathy in favour of that view, but there is the argument that the person who is taken into the Forces whether he likes to or not ought to have, as a result, a greater assurance from the State as to his security if he is injured during the course of his activities in the Forces, because it was something for which he did not volunteer.

As I have said, those two arguments about cancel one another out, and it is a pity to allow them to influence the bigger decision with which we are faced, namely, should not the ex-Service man who has been disabled in the service of his country be paid a higher rate of benefit than those who suffered in civilian life, whether in peace or war?

Of all the things I disliked in the last war nothing equalled the aerial bombardment of London. Although I served for a good many years overseas and had many unpleasant experiences, the bombing of a big city was about the most unpleasant. Civilian populations in the last war went through unpleasant times which were comparable to those being suffered by the people in the Forces, but there was one great difference to which the House and the country have never given enough regard. It is that the civilian population were among friends and within reach of home or the homes of their friends, to which they could go. Forces overseas were not in that position.

I hope the House will not think I am saying that the nursing services and all other services responsible for the wounded in war-time were not the splendid people I know they were, but there is a difference between being treated for injury in a place where relatives can visit us in a homelike atmosphere, and being treated in a military hospital miles away from this country.

I was one who welcomed the Government's decision in the last Budget to increase the basic rate of disablement pension by 10s. It was a generous gesture and it was made clear that it was a first step. I very much hope that the Government will take further steps in the forthcoming Budget. If there is anything going at all in the way of increased social benefits, I hope that the ex-Service men disabled in war will have an absolute priority over everybody else. I grant my right hon. Friend that it will require considerable courage to take such a decision, because much pressure will be brought to bear to prevent it; but if that courageous decision could be taken it would put heart into ex-Service men all over the country in a way that would be immeasurable and immensely great. We have a Minister of Pensions whose heart is in the right place with regard to the ex-Service man, but we are not certain whether the Treasury have quite the same view as he has on matters of this kind. We give as much support to him as possible in putting his case to the Treasury.

I would go so far as to say that if it should come about as a result of the Budget that any social benefits which are given do not give priority to the ex-Service man, I should seriously consider putting down a Motion of censure about it. The time has long gone when this priority ought to have been given; nevertheless, better late than never. For that reason I would be prepared to take that step if it appeared, as a result of what comes out of the Budget, that the ex-Service man is not being given the priority which he ought to be given. It is very easy in this House to play the demagogue and want to spend money lavishly all over the place, and it is easy to think of ways in which money can be spent.

If Parliament had spent more time since the First World War in looking at these matters from the slightly different angle of compensating those who, through no fault of their own, had to make immense sacrifices in the causes for which the country stood, this debate would not be necessary today. The fact that they did not means that somebody has to do it some time. That is why I hope that if there are any social benefits in the Budget they will go to the ex-Service man before they go to anybody else. If they do not, the Government must realise that there will be very serious criticism.

1.46 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Test)

For the first time since the war we have tried to deal fairly with the men who made sacrifices on our behalf. A great line of Pensions Ministers have built up a great national, humane institution, which people of all shades of opinion would be sorry to see go. From my own knowledge and the various contacts I have had with the Minister of Pensions, I am sure that he will regard the present debate very sympathetically.

People who are in trade and industry can sometimes raise their profits, and workers who are powerful enough can raise their wages, to meet increases in the cost of living, but these increases fall also upon those who have fixed incomes. It ought to be the duty of any Government to assist those groups in the community who find rises in the cost of living a great burden. If that is true generally, it must be acutely true of ex-Service pensioners whose fixed income is our tribute to the sacrifices they made during war.

I hope it will be possible for the Minister of Pensions to give very serious consideration to the request from the ex-Service men for some increase in their basic pension.

1.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I support the plea that has been made in favour of review and reconsideration of pensions, and I concentrate upon the position of the vast majority of disability pensioners who are not drawing the 100 per cent. basic pension. When an increase in pension is awarded, it does not mean that more than a very small percentage of the present pensioners will get the 90s. The problem concerns those who do not get that supplementary allowance, and who draw only 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the disability rate.

The disability pension is based not upon the cost of living but upon compensation for injuries and loss of amenities, and it therefore has no relation to wages or earning capacity in any specific trade or occupation. No attention is paid to whether the pensioner is in one occupation or another or to the rate of wages. Many of these 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. disability pensioners are living as best they can. It is sometimes overlooked that they carry on their jobs at very considerable inconvenience of pain and suffering, which may last only two or three days, or for such a short time as to make it not worth their while to claim the sickness or other benefit to which they may be entitled.

Nevertheless, they are subject to not inconsiderable pain and suffering, for which there is no financial recompense, because it does not last long enough to justify them in going into hospital or taking to their beds, or drawing from the other social services which are provided for the general population.

These less than 100 per cent. disability pensioners are, of course, getting older. The disability from which they are suffering becomes just a little more irksome and difficult to bear as the years pass by, and what may seem to be a slight disability at the time the original assessment was made tends to increase with age. I hope, therefore, that when considering all these other things the Minister will not ignore the plight of the vast majority of the people who now draw disability pensions and who are not entitled to supplementary allowances, and who do not draw even the 100 per cent. disability rate.

In these circumstances, the cost of giving some measure of justice or consideration to the vast majority of pensioners would not be anything like as great as the public are sometimes led to believe.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Droylsden)

I ought to say a few words on this subject, because I had the privilege, a fortnight or three weeks ago, of meeting a delegation of ex-Service men from all parts of my constituency in the Droylsden division. It was made clear to me at the outset that the delegation were a good cross-section of ex-Service men from the whole of the constituency. They were an entirely non-party delegation, and they came to try to convince me that they had justification for asking for my support in any effort that was made in the House to try to improve the conditions of our disabled ex-Service men.

I agree with most of the points which have been made by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friends. There are, however, one or two points that I wish to emphasise, but I do so with very great diffidence, remembering the help that I have received both from the Minister and from his very able and sympathetic Parliamentary Secretary. Whenever I have had occasion to deal with them, apart from one case in which I might have thought that they could give a more favourable decision, they have been most sympathetic in stretching the regulations to the utmost in order to do something for the people whose cases I have represented to them.

There are, however, one or two arguments which the delegation put to me which I ought to transmit to the House and to the Minister. The first is the growing feeling of some of these pensioners that they are at a disadvantage compared to other people in the community with whom they live together and are correlated in their amenities and activities. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) made the point very well when he said that as the years roll on, disability becomes more aggravated. More than that, the disabled person himself recognises the full force and effect of his disability and feels it more.

A number of the men who came to see me—many were disabled in the 1914– 18 war—said that they now feel so tired because of their disabilities, as a result of the exacting nature of the work they have to perform, that when they finish their duties they must return home to rest. They cannot take part in the normal amenities and community life of the area because they are too tired. Their disabilities make them tired men, and, therefore, they are losing a good deal of the ordinary amenities and pleasures of life.

The second point which they put to me is the differences that have taken place in the emoluments in certain occupations. Two of the men told me that before the war they were in occupations which afforded them a high standard of life and emoluments. Now, however, they cannot return to those occupations because of the effect of their disabilities. They feel, therefore, that they are penalised because they have served their country.

I do not say that I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who may have exaggerated, but these men have the feeling that their wounds and disabilities were in many cases incurred voluntarily in order to save the freedom of the country. I agree that for some things no amount of money could provide recompense, but having regard to the fact that they are losing the amenities of life and are not now able to follow the normal occupations of their pre-disability days, these men feel that it is not too much to ask. as some slight compensation for all these things and so that they may have a little of the pleasure that money can buy, that a grateful country should be able to help.

I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to the Minister, who, I am certain, will transmit faithfully to him the feeling on all sides of the House that he might do something for these men. It may not be possible to meet their claims in full, but a gesture of good will at this stage would be welcomed by a large number of disabled ex-Service men.

1.58 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heath-coat Amory)

We all feel that it is a good thing to have a talk every now and then in the House on war pensions, and I only wish that this afternoon we could have had an opportunity when it would have been possible for more Members to be present and to take part in the discussion. I know of no one in the House who has a better right than my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) to speak for the ex-Service man, nor anyone who puts his case with more skill or with more persuasive advocacy. I thank my hon. Friend also for the very reasonable and moderate way in which he has made the substantial points that he has put forward.

I should like to take this opportunity, because I do not often have the opportunity of standing at the Dispatch Box and may have even less chance in the future, of thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for the help they have given me, as they gave to my predecessors, in trying to do our best to look after the interests of the ex-Service man. However efficient and keen are my staff —and I am proud of them and I believe that they are keen and on their toes—it is impossible for us to ensure that we always keep in touch with the changing circumstances of individual cases.

It is most helpful when Members send us information which we do not possess. When we find that we can do something to assist, no one is more delighted than my staff and myself; when we find that we cannot do more we wish that we could. I am getting the same help in the wider field all over the country from the thousands of voluntary workers who are helping me in this task.

I should like to refer, first, to the question of the basic pension, of which my hon. Friend has spoken. I have received a deputation from the Legion and have promised them that the views that they put before me would be conveyed to the Government and would be considered. I will not go into the history of the basic pension, because time is short, beyond reminding Members that in 1919 the rate was 40s., in 1946 it was increased to 45s. and in 1952 was raised to 55s.

We were glad that at a time of rather exceptional economic difficulty it was found possible last year to increase the basic pension by 22½ per cent. and the basic pension for war widows with children or the widow over 40 by 20 per cent., a 25 per cent. increase in the constant attendance allowance and 25 per cent. increase in the means standards for parents' pensions.

Is the present rate the right one? What a difficult thing it is to decide what the right rate should be. One can get very tangled up in statistics. My hon. Friend referred to two different methods of calculation, one of which he called the Boer War method, which is a sort of mixture of the old cost-of-living index and the present retail price index. Adopting that one the relative rate compared with the 40s. in 1919 would work out at 52s. 4d. Comparing the 45s. rate in 1946 the relative rate would be 62s. 3d. But adopting the purchasing power formula which we sometimes call the Legion method—

Sir I. Fraser

That is not fair; it is a Government method.

Mr. Amory

I have even heard it called the Fraser method.

Sir I. Fraser

No. It is quite respectable; it is the Government method.

Mr. Amory

I agree, it is the purchasing power method and is most official in every way.

Adopting that method the comparable rate to 40s. in 1919 would be 65s. 10d. and the comparable rate to 45s. in 1946 would be 64s. 6d. We can get all kinds of results. The one which I think is not very appropriate is comparing the 40s. in 1938. If we did that the figure would work out today at 90s. 6d. It will be seen why I call it the Legion formula. I do not think it is appropriate, because the cost of living dropped between 1919 and 1938 and in that year the comparable figure would have been 29s.

Sir I. Fraser

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government of 1928 should have let it drop to 29s., or is he approving of their stabilising it at 40s., because if they stabilised it at 40s. it is surely not unfair to start from that datum line?

Mr. Amory

No, I thoroughly approve of the highest possible rate being given and of the Government not having reduced it, but when the Government made a fresh start the rate they took was not 40s. but 32s. 6d. in 1939 and that was the rate they applied to peace-time injuries in the Services at that time.

Getting away from statistics for a moment, we have to face the fact that no Government have ever accepted an obligation to vary pensions automatically with rises in the cost of living. I doubt whether any Government could accept the obligation to do that automatically unless they agreed to do the same downwards if and when the cost of living fell. Of course, the trouble in the whole of this business is inflation. As we all know that is a terrible disease, because it hits those sections of the community hardest who can do the least to help themselves. So long as that disease is rampant and continues it is an appalling job for any Government to hope to catch up and any increases in rates are bound to be palliatives. Also, any increase in Government expenditure is obviously in danger of aggravating the trouble.

The best service which any Government can render to those in receipt of pensions —and the disabled in particular—is to tackle this problem at the source and do their utmost to kill inflation so that we can ensure that pensions shall continue to retain their value. That is what the present Government are trying their best to do at present, I think with some success, because during the last nine months the Interim Index of Retail Prices has been held about steady at 138 to 139. What it will do in the future I have not the courage to predict.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred to the link with industrial injuries. Quite clearly, a link of a sort does exist because that scheme when it started was actually founded and based on the war pensions scheme. The provisions are not identical and where there are differences between the provisions for war pensioners and industrial injuries pensioners those differences are to the advantage of the war pensioner.

Sir I. Fraser

Except in the supplementary.

Mr. Amory

My hon. Friend refers to the miners' supplementary, but that is quite a separate matter and outside the industrial injuries scheme itself. I think there is some substance in the view that the circumstances behind war pensions and industrial injury pensions are not precisely similar and that that link should not be carried too far nor made too hard and fast.

Some people point to increases which have taken place in wages as if that were something which was hitting at war pensions but we have to remember that, fortunately, a very big majority of the war disabled are able to be in employment and so benefit from increases in wages. Fortunately, that even applies to the 100 per cent. disabled, a very substantial proportion of whom are in employment at present.

Mr. Finch

The point is what they would have been earning had it not been for their war injuries. With the rise in wages they have lost that when the lower occupation allowance is restricted to a maximum of 20s.

Mr. Amory

I will refer to the point which the hon. Member raised during his speech in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale mentioned that under the last Budget although they had this improvement, 4s. had been taken away. He may have been referring to the food subsidies and the effect on a family of three, but we have to remember—

Sir I. Fraser

The extra 9d. a week stamp which, together with food subsidies, knocked out 4s. or 5s.

Mr. Amory

Many of them were in work and there would be substantial advantages in regard to Income Tax.

There are the special allowances. Some people say that they only refer to a small percentage of total pensioners. It is true that only a small proportion of total pensioners fall into categories of severely disabled and that is something about which we all rejoice. The proportion is tending slightly to increase and is about 6½ per cent. at present.

I will now refer to what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) mentioned, the question of the allowance for the lower standard of occupation. I admit that this allowance is a rough and ready thing and does not fit comfortably and well into the war pensions provisions. In principle, it almost cuts across them because it is related to earnings. It is also limited. All we can claim is that it makes a limited but, we think, useful contribution to those who, because of war disabilities, have had to change their job and take one on a less remunerative scale. I agree that it is only a limited contribution because it is limited to the 20s. While I agree it does not compensate in full the kind of case the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we find it much appreciated, and we do not get many complaints. But I will examine carefully what the hon. Member has said.

His second point concerned the unemployability allowance. I am not sure that I understood his point, but I think he is wrong. Unless the wife is working —and that may have been his point— we increase the unemployability allowance by 11s. 6d. per week, and for the first child by 3s. A wife should be slightly better off than if there were sickness benefit going into the household. If the hon. Member will write to me on that point I will inform him further, but I do not think the figures he quoted were right.

Mr. Finch rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt too often, because we are running a little behind time.

Mr. Finch

I merely wish to point out that the sickness benefit for the wife is £1 1s. 6d.

Mr. Amory

That is the rate we pay in the case of an unemployability allowance if the wife is not working. Owing to the lack of time I do not propose to say anything about widows except that I realise that a widow with no other income, and with children, must experience extreme difficulty in making both ends meet. No one will dispute that.

I appreciate the tone of this debate and the tributes paid to the work of the Ministry of Pensions. I do not think there is anything much wrong with our service at present though we must not be complacent. I agree there is room for difference of opinion about whether the rates are all of them adequate for the present price level. I would emphasise once again that the enemy is inflation. While the Government have been able to go part way to making good the loss of purchasing power caused by inflation the only satisfactory solution is to beat inflation and to stabilise, and eventually to bring down the cost of living.

The national economic and financial position is still serious and our dominating aim must be to put that right. In the meantime, let us seek out and try to mitigate every case of hardship. I hope hon. Gentlemen will continue to inform me of any individual cases when they think hardship exists. The Government have the very difficult job of trying to ensure, within the resources available and without aggravating the basic troubles from which we are suffering, that justice is done to many competing and sometimes conflicting claims. With resources limited, as they clearly are, help must be given where it is most needed and we are trying our best to do that.

I can assure hon. Members that the Government realise that it is the wish of the whole House that the needs of the war disabled and their dependants should be kept well to the fore, and that we will continue to do.