§ 6. Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the numbers of 1914–18 war-disabled pensioners who are pensioned at the 40 per cent. or higher rate for wounds and ailments, respectively, the average age of each group, and the numbers of each group who qualify for the age allowance.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs at 31st December, 1957, there were 115,600 pensioners of the 1914–18 war whose disability was assessed at 40 per cent. or over. I regret that the rest of the information asked for is not available.
§ Mr. SimmonsCould the Minister say what percentage of these disabled are receiving the age allowance?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI think that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a Question on this subject for Written Answer today.
§ 7. Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the weekly rates of disability pensions awarded to unmarried ex-privates of the 1914–18 and 1939–45 wars, respectively, for amputation of a leg exceeding five inches below the knee, and for the loss of vision of one eye; what are the reasons for the differences; and whether he will state the weekly values of the pensions awarded to unmarried ex-captains for the same disabilities.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterFor the amputation referred to, the rates in respect of the 1914–18 and 1939–45 wars are 42s. 6d. and 34s. a week, respectively, for ex-privates and £173 and £138 8s. a year, respectively, for ex-captains. For loss of vision of one eye, the corresponding rates are 42s. 6d., 25s. 6d., £173 and £103 16s. The reason for the differences is that when the Schedule of Injuries was reviewed in 1947 by the Expert Committee presided over by Judge Hancock, 1914 war pensioners who had higher assessments than the Committee considered appropriate for these injuries were allowed to retain their existing rights, whilst those with lower assessments were given the benefit of the Committee's recommendations.
§ Mr. SimmonsDoes not the Minister think it remarkable that, with the price of everything going up, the price of limbs must go down as compared with the First World War? Cannot he say why I, with an amputation more than five inches below the knee, should be receiving several shillings a week more than a man who received the same injury in the Second World War? Cannot this question be reconsidered in the light of the fact that it is obviously unfair to penalise men who fought in the Second World War as against those who fought in the First World War?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe reason was very well given by the hon. Gentleman when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions shortly after the time of this decision. He made it clear that what was done was to provide that where, as a result of the Hancock Committee, assessments were put up, injured 593 men of both wars were to get the benefit of it; and that where, as a result of the Hancock review, in one or two cases the assessment was reduced, no reduction was to be made in the already existing rights of the men of the previous war. The hon. Gentleman commended that decision at that time, if I may say so, very properly.
§ 8. Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of deaths amongst married war-disabled pensioners during the past year, and the number of war widows' pensions awarded in respect of those deaths.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterDuring 1957 there ere, I am sorry to say, 9,547 deaths of married war disablement pensioners. I regret that I have no figures of awards of war widows' pensions relating to these deaths, but 1,690 war widows' pensions were awarded during the year.