§ 29. Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the numbers of 1914–18 war pensioners who now receive awards of pension at 40 per cent, or more, and the numbers of such pensioners who have not yet attained the age of 65 years and, in consequence, do not receive the age allowance; and whether he will state the cost of granting the age allowance to the latter group who have suffered severe disabilities for 42 years or more.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAbout 96,000, of whom some 30,000 have not yet reached the age of 65. To give age allowances immediately to those aged below 65 would at present cost about £500,000 a year, on the assumption that similar provision was not made for similarly dis- 994 abled men of the same age who suffered their disabilities in the 1939–45 war.
§ Dr. KingIs the Minister aware that, while disabled ex-Service men appreciate the splendid work he has done in the whole field of disability pensions, there are certain grievances still remaining? Having conceded five years ago the principle that limblessness becomes an increasing burden with advancing age, will he not turn again to the point of view always put to him by B.L.E.S.M.A., an all-party association, and consider stepping down the age at which he makes these allowances for limblessness available to ageing ex-Service men?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIt is very much a matter of judgment where one places the point of qualification for this or for any other special allowance. I think we were right to put it at 65 when we made the decision some years ago and, since then, the only change of circumstances, as my main Answer indicated, has been that a very substantial proportion of the First World War men qualified are now of an age to draw the allowance.
§ 31. Mr. I. Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the pension paid to an ex-private soldier of the 1914–18 war with a leg amputation more than five inches below the knee, and the pension paid to an ex-private of the 1939–45 war with an identical amputation; whether, in normal circumstances, these pensioners are fitted with identical artificial limbs; and what are the reasons for differences in compensation for identical disabilities sustained in the Service.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterForty-eight shillings and ninepence a week for the 1914–18 pensioner, and 39s. a week for the 1939–45 pensioner. The artificial limbs provided by my right hon. Friends the Health Ministers are built to meet the medical requirements of the individual and do not, of course, vary between casualties of the two wars as such.
The reason for the difference in pension is simply that when 40 per cent. was fixed in 1940 as the proper assessment in respect of the disability mentioned in the Question it was not thought right to reduce assessments which had provided entitlement to pension at a higher rate for some time. This was, in my view a wise 995 and humane, though arguably illogical, decision.
§ Mr. FraserWill my right hon. Friend continue to do anything in his power to mitigate such inferiority as there may still be in the position of the 1914–18 war pensioner in connection with the fitting of artificial limbs? Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is reason to believe that some of these cases may be having greater difficulty in the fitting of the appropriate limbs than we would wish?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterLimb fitting is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I will certainly see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is conveyed to them.