Lords Sitting of 20 January 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WAR PENSIONS AND REHABILITATION.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN rose to call attention to the present position regarding war pensions and rehabilitation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring to your Lordships' notice to-day the question of war pensions and rehabilitation. It is a matter that must in its nature be very close to your Lordships' minds and hearts. The year 1943 is the year of decision; it may or may not be the year of victory. It must be the year of battles, and that means the year of casualties. That is, we do not know when all the Private Snookses will come home again, but we do know that before that a great many Private Snookses will come home wounded. When Private Snooks comes back wounded there are certain things he necessarily needs. He wants maintenance for himself and his family; he wants treatment for his disability; he needs rehabilitation so that he may be fit to work for himself and his family; he wants a job, and, above all, he wants independence. The problem of war casualties is in essence similar to the problem of industrial casualties. There are the same problems of maintenance, of rehabilitation, of re-employment. But the problem of war casualties is also very different from that of industrial casualties. Industrial casualties are actuarially calculable, they can be insured against and guarded against, but the scope of accident prevention for those in the Forces is very limited indeed.
War casualties are a special case for a number of reasons. There is the abnormal side of the problem. I do not know whether your Lordships fully realize that the number of war pensioners carried over from the last war is still 400,000. So far in this war the fighting has not attained the bitterness which we must expect, and while so far casualties have been relatively light we must anticipate the time when they are heavy and are measurable in
672
scale with those of the last war. That is an indication of the size of the problem. And then Private Tom Snooks, wounded, has special claims for treatment, and there will be much widespread discontent if the right treatment is not given.
I wish to say quite frankly that actually the position with regard to pensions and rehabilitation is good. The Ministry of Pensions gives the impression of being run in a really businesslike way, and, unlike some Ministers and Ministries, Sir Walter Womersley and the staff under him, as I can testify from personal experience, far from putting themselves on the defensive against inquiries, show a real forthcoming-ness, a readiness to respond and a genuine spirit of co-operation. To say less would be ungracious and unjust, but I have special reasons for saying this. Important as it is, in my judgment, as I think your Lordships will agree, to those already disabled, it is of even greater importance for the morale of those whom the harsh necessities of war make the potential clients of the Ministry, that the vast numbers of men and women in the Fighting Services should have confidence in the Ministry of Pensions. I believe they can feel that confidence. But that is not to say that there is no room for improvement. I have a few observations to make to your Lordships in that regard this afternoon.
I do not propose to spend much time on the question of the rate of pensions, but I think it might be interesting if I were to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that with 100 per cent. disability the soldier with a wife and three children is entitled at present rates to the sum of £3 4s. 7d. per week. This £3 4s. 7d. a week, is, except for the odd 7d., precisely the same amount as Sir William Beveridge proposes as benefit for the unemployed man with a wife and three children. But note that Sir William Beveridge's standard is a mere subsistence standard; and I think the question which your Lordships might perhaps like to ask is whether a subsistence standard is adequate for a man with 100 per cent. disability. Should the nation be satisfied to provide no more than a mere subsistence standard for those who are so grievously wounded as to have been assessed at 100 per cent. disability? Then, by a curious anomaly, the pensioner of this war at present receives somewhat less than the pensioner of the last war for the

673
same degree of disability. A private soldier of the last war with 100 per cent. disability is entitled to 40s. per week; the private soldier of this war with 100 per cent. disability gets only 37s. 6d. per week. The reasons are based on history. The Great War pensions were subject to a sliding scale according to the cost of living, and though pensions went up as the cost of living went up, so that a 100 per cent. disability man got 40s. a week, the pension has remained at the peak notwithstanding some reduction in the cost of living index from the peak. The pensions of this war are based upon the current cost of living. Is it not an anomaly that these different rates should exist side by side? Might it not be proper to bring the pensioners of this war to the same rates of pensions as the pensioners of the last war?
Another rather curious anomaly arises in this way in die case of widows. The widow of a man in the Fighting Services dying in the Service may be ineligible for a war pension under the Royal Warrant. She may, however, be entitled to a widow's pension under the Contributory Pensions Act. As your Lordships are aware, a condition of a pension under that Act is that her husband should have paid two years' contributions under the Act. If he has not paid two years' contributions then there is no widow's pension. You may therefore get, and you do get, the anomaly of two widows whose husbands had died in the Fighting Services side by side under precisely similar conditions, and the one becomes entitled to a pension while the other is not so entitled. The soldier comes under the Contributory Pensions Act from the imminent when he joins the Army whether he was tinder the Act before the war or not. If he had already paid two years' contribution before joining the Forces his widow is eligible for a widow's pension under the Act even if he dies immediately after joining the Service. If, for instance, he has paid eighteen months' contribution before joining the Army, when he has been in the Army for six months his widow would be entitled to a pension.
But take the man who, before the war, did not come under the Act. Take for instance the small shopkeeper. His qualification begins only when he joins the Forces. If he dies six months or even eighteen months after joining there is no pension for his widow, though if he dies
674
after two years there is. Your Lordships may perhaps think that it is a situation which requires amendment. I find it myself impossible to explain to the satisfaction of the ordinary man in the street why death in the Service should, in the one case, qualify, and in the other case not qualify, his widow for a widow's pension. The solution would appear to be simple. It would appear to be that every man on joining the Forces should be deemed to have paid his two years' qualifying contributions whether in fact he has paid or not; that he should receive a credit for two years' contributions is probably the technical means of effecting this. I hope the Minister of Pensions may feel that this is a case upon which negotiations might usefully be undertaken by him with the Service Departments, and also with the Ministry of Health and, I suppose, the Treasury, with a view to dissipating this anomaly. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is one which should be remedied. Death cannot be appraised on a time basis.
The class of case that gives rise to the greatest difficulty for the soldier and the greatest dissatisfaction among the public, is the treatment of claims in doubtful and border-line cases. I agree, and I think we must all admit, that the border line between the eligible claim and other claims is hard to trace. Where is it that the Army is responsible and where is it that the claimant is responsible? The test of eligibility under the Royal Warrant is, in non-technical terms, whether or not the wound, injury or disease was caused by, or aggravated by, war service. If a man is actually wounded—if he gets, for instance, a bullet through the head—there is of course no difficulty about deciding eligibility. He is entitled to a pension. The hole in his head is there for all to see and it has come from an enemy bullet. But if he sustains an accident, is he pensionable or not? The present position is by no means clear. If a man suffers an accident on his way to or from leave, on the railway journey for instance, he is, as I understand, entitled to a pension, though he is not entitled to a pension if he suffers the accident between the time of arrival at home and the time of his departure from home, for during the time he is actually at home he is deemed to be subject to no more than ordinary civilian risks of life. That seems to me an understandable and not unreason-

675
able theory, but there are cases which are by no means so simple. If for instance a man is visiting a canteen within the precincts of his camp and is run over by a lorry on his way back to his quarters, apparently he is entitled to a pension. If, however, there is no canteen within the precincts of his camp and he visits a canteen just outside the camp, and is run over by the same lorry while returning to the same quarters, he is not entitled to a pension. It is very difficult to understand the basis of this discrimination. I would suggest that cases such as those to which I have referred need review with a view to their assimilation.
But what gives rise to the greatest difficulty, and is the least satisfactory feature of the pensions administration, is in regard to the treatment of those disabled by disease. One would think that if a man is once passed into the Forces with a medical grading A1 and he contracts some disease which involves his discharge, a right to pension would almost automatically arise. But that, in fact, is not necessarily the case and undoubtedly little nests of discontent have been created all over the country because of the situation which has arisen by reason of this way of treating matters. On medical examination a man is asked to state from what illnesses he has suffered during his life; he is asked to give a medical history, and his statement is, of course, taken into account by the examining medical officers. If he has said, and said truthfully, that his health has been good and he is passed A1, it would, in my submission, seem logical that the State should accept responsibility for any deterioration in his health involving his discharge from the Army. Similarly, if he discloses some ailment, and is then accepted for the Army on a proper grading but is afterwards discharged for ill-health, the deterioration would seem to give rise to a good claim for pension.
Take the case of a man who three months after he joins the Army develops, let us say, duodenal ulcer, and is subsequently discharged on that account. Pension or no pension? I believe the practice at present is that in such cases no pension is awarded. But if the man developed duodenal ulcer after eighteen months in the Army there would be an entitlement. Or take cancer. On medical
676
examination a man has declared in perfect good faith that he has suffered from no disease and he is passed A1. A little time after he joins the Army it is discovered that he is suffering from cancer. Admittedly this would not have been discoverable even if it had existed when he was medically examined. Pension or no pension? I understand the practice is that if, for instance, cancer of the leg is disclosed within three or four months of a man joining the Army he is regarded as pensionable because, according to my understanding, cancer of the leg will disclose itself before it is three months old. But if, on the other hand, he develops cancer of the lung he is not entitled to pension because that may have been latent, even though unknown, at the time he joined the Army.
It is obvious, in dealing with the ordinary man in the street and his relations, that it is extraordinarily difficult to explain to the man and woman in the Forces and their families upon what basis pensions are awarded in cases of disease when such apparent disparity in entitlement so often arises. Surely, there is a case for erring on the side of generosity and lenience, and this would have the tremendous psychological advantage of giving to those in the Forces and to their relations. But does not it in fact all lead up to the suggestion that it is imperative that appeal tribunals should be set up at the earliest possible moment? I know the difficulties of finding personnel to man these tribunals. If the analogy of the last war be followed, I believe that it will come within the province of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to select the president and perhaps—I know not—the whole of the personnel for these tribunals. It is suggested, no doubt with a good deal of substance, that it would be difficult, at this time, to find lawyers and doctors to act as chairmen or members of such tribunals. But is it necessary that they should be lawyers or doctors? The problems with which the tribunals would be confronted would be simply problems of eligibility. They would not be matters of assessing degrees of disability—these are matters for the medical boards. The tribunal would be concerned merely with the question of right to pension or no right. In other words, it is a question of evidence.
I should be the last to dissent from the view that lawyers are those who are best qualified to adjudicate on matters of evidence. But if there be a shortage of lawyers for this purpose, as there may be, surely there are many senior officers—each of us knows some—who, on grounds of age, Lave been retired from the Services who could be called in. These officers have, while on the Active List, been entrusted with the greatest responsibilities in regard to matters of evidence. They have sat upon courts martial, presided at courts martial, reviewed the decisions at courts martial, and have adjudicated upon serious offences involving periods of imprisonment. Surely, men with that kind of experience have some qualification for adjudicating on questions of eligibility ender the Pensions Warrant. I know, and I am glad of it, that the Minister has recently set up a small Committee to look into the possibility of now establishing these appeal tribunals and I throw out this suggestion of using retired senior officers as one which I hope will be considered by that Committee. Even if it were not possible to man sufficient tribunals to cover the country as it should be covered, surely it would be good to make a beginning, even if, at the start, the country can only be covered thinly. The problem is cumulative, and unless a start is made now the job will become overwhelming if we have to wait until the end of the war to get these tribunals started.
Now what I have said here by way of comment and suggestion in no way derogates from the remarks I have made earlier on the good work being done by the Ministry of Pensions, and I am sure that, at all events as long as Sir Walter Womersley is at the head of the Ministry, men and women in the Services may rely upon their cases being treated with sympathy and goodwill, and that in the Minister they have a man who is, so to speak, on their side.
I leave Pensions now and come to the question of rehabilitation. Only a few days ago the very important Tomlinson Report was issued. Its formidable title is the "Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons," Command 6415. No doubt your Lordships have taken the opportunity of reading this valuable Report. To me it seems very
678
good. It is penetrating in analysis and positive and constructive in solution. I am concerned with it to-day not in its general aspect so much as with its application to those in the Fighting Services. It would be a pity, however, if it were thought that little or nothing has been done hitherto by the Ministry of Pensions in the way of rehabilitation. In fact a great deal has been done, and done admirably, and I only wish that more publicity could have been given to it. I have recently had the advantage of paying a visit to St. Mary's Hospital at Roehampton. I wish the Minister could see his way to invite members of your Lordships' House to go to Roehampton to see what is being done there, for I am sure that you would be impressed. There you may see men with shattered faces having new faces made for them by the miracles of plastic surgery. You can see these extraordinary and almost miraculous artificial legs being provided for those who are legless. So good are they that, when I was asked to give an opinion as to which of the two legs of one of the men there was an artificial one, I could not make up my mind. As I had to say something, I said that it was the right leg, and then I asked whether this was correct. The answer was that it was correct, but that the other leg was an artificial limb too.
I saw a man walking on two artificial legs who was indistinguishable in the way in which he was walking from the normal man with ordinary legs. That seemed to me very striking, because the fact that he has these two legs upon which he can walk, and that he is to all outward appearance normal, has an enormous psychological effect on the man himself: he does not feel that he is a man to whom anyone can point, or that he has any obvious inferiority of a physical character which would mark him out from amongst his fellows. The work which is being done in this way seems to me quite extraordinary. Men with these artificial limbs have even climbed Snowdon, and have been known to walk all the way to Brighton—not a bad effort for those without the usual complement of normal legs.
It is not strictly relevant to my argument, but it is a striking fact and may be of interest to observe that the ratio of arm amputations to leg amputations in this war is almost precisely the same as in the last war, notwithstanding the differ-

679
ence in the risks taken and the differences in tactics and in the weapons and projectiles employed. It may also interest your Lordships to know that, of the arm amputees, women show a far greater facility than men in using the various gadgets that are supplied to arm amputees to bring them back into normal life and work. I saw one girl there who had been a telephone operator in the North. Both her arms had been taken off above the wrist. She was very jolly and cheerful, and was being re-trained. I understand from an inquiry which I made the other day that she is now back again at her job as a telephone operator, although she has only artificial hands. I think that there is scope for those who are experts in these matters to devise something more satisfactory in the way of artificial hands. Nothing really satisfactory has yet come out of all the inventive work which has been done, although arms and legs are so admirable as to make the damaged person able to perform even the most unlikely tasks.
What I thought was perhaps the most interesting thing that is done for these patients is this. When a man or woman comes to one of these hospitals, fairly badly smashed up, it is always found that he or she is extraordinarily worried about the future. That is particularly true of the married man with a family; he is very worried about what will happen to him so far as his job is concerned. As soon as the first difficulties of his actual disability have been overcome, and whilst he is still in hospital and, it may be, still in bed, a psychiatrist comes to the hospital and talks to him, discussing his past and his possible future, and inspiring him with the idea that he really has a future before him, if not in his old trade then in some new occupation. Later, when he is a little further on the road to recovery or improvement, but whilst he is still in hospital, a representative of the Ministry of Labour attends at the hospital with a view to indicating to him precisely what he can do and where he should go.
I have dwelt at perhaps undue length on what happens at this hospital at Roehampton, because I was most profoundly impressed by it. My only regret was, and is, that the public have so little knowledge of what is being done in that regard, so that too little appreciation of it is shown. I could wish that the Minister's
680
publicity department or Public Relations Officer might be instructed to make all these remarkable facts with regard to the work that is being done known to the public at large. I believe that I shall have your Lordships' concurrence when I say that no time or energy or effort is wasted which inspires confidence in those in the Forces and their relations that things will really be done for, them if they are wounded, and which makes them realize that the utmost care and trouble will be taken to bring them back into a wage-earning life.
I have digressed to say a few words with regard to Roehampton, but I must, before I sit down, say something with regard to the rehabilitation suggestions made in the Tomlinson Report. The outstanding point about the rehabilitation service, taken as a whole, is that it is quite inadequate to fulfil its normal tasks, let alone the tasks which will fail upon it when the flow of Service casualties comes to be dealt with. I cannot emphasize too strongly that success in rehabilitation depends not on good intentions or even upon the right policy in themselves, but on the existence of sufficient personnel and apparatus in the form of doctors, nurses, instruments, institutions, hospitals and clinics. At present there is no doubt that the apparatus is inadequate, although the right policy is known and accepted. There are hospitals at which a special treatment in physio-therapy and occupational therapy is given to reduce the effect of fractures; but that is not enough. There are 21 orthopedic centres and 60 hospitals ear-marked under the Emergency Medical Services to deal with fractures in a specialized way, but most hospitals do not provide more than ordinary surgical treatment, and the number of specialized institutions is quite insufficient.
Moreover, in what has been done so far attention has been paid too exclusively to fractures, and to the rehabilitation of persons with mended fractures. It is one of the virtues of the Tomlinson Report that it recognizes the importance of rehabilitation outside the main field of fractures. It deals with the rehabilitation and post-hospital treatment of persons disabled by tuberculosis, blindness, deafness, damage to the cardiac muscles, neuroses, psychoses and so on. All these aspects of rehabilitation are of the greatest importance in considering the

681
problems of Service casualties, and any scheme will stand or fall by the extent to which the necessary apparatus and personnel can be found to deal with the scale of the problem. Where I think that perhaps the Tomlinson Report is weakest is in the assumption that the means for carrying out its proposals will be available. This is not only a question of finance, though of course finance has its importance, but it is also a question of administrative and technical apparatus and personnel. It is no good deciding to carry out this policy or that policy unless at the same time steps are taken to see that the necessary apparatus for carrying it out will be forthcoming at the right place and the right time. The great danger is that, unless this practical point is fully realized and foreseen, nothing effective will be done, whatever policy is accepted; that is to say that by shooting too high you may hit nowhere. The urgent need is not only to see what is to be done, but also to work out how it is to be done arid to decide what in practical terms is possible.
The Tomlinson Report deals with rehabilitation in general, but all its recommendations and all its assumptions concern very specially ex-Service rehabilitation, because of the scale of the ex-Service casualties which we must expect, and because of the claims of ex-Service men and women. The Tomlinson Committee lay stress, and welcome stress, not only on restoring disabled persons to health and fitness, but also on the restoration of the utmost possible degree of working capacity by special treatment and, more important than anything, on re-employment. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that rehabilitation only starts when hospital treatment ends. Re-education and re-training, with all the necessary apparatus and skill, are crucial. Re-employment, either in the old field of occupation or in a new one for which special training facilities are provided, is the crucial test of a rehabilitation policy. Here the Tomlinson Report is most highly to be commended, for it stresses the fact that the rehabilitated person can be made fit for full work, and it has produced, as your Lordships will have seen in the Report itself, ingenious suggestions for ways and means of securing re-employment in ordinary occupations and especially in scheduled occupations set apart and reserved for those unable to follow
682
their normal pursuits. I will not weary your Lordships with the details, for your Lordships will have read them in the Report.
Finally, I would say this. The real problem, as I have said, begins when hospitals have done their work, and the real problem is how to re-employ the rehabilitated. This question of re-employment is, of course, an essential part of the large post-war economic problem. If there is work for all who are willing to work then the disabled and rehabilitated Snooks will have a better chance of finding his niche, but if there is mass un-employment, or anything approaching mass unemployment, Snooks will be left by the wayside. He must not be left by the wayside. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, after the eloquent and exhaustive speech on pensions and rehabilitation which we have heard, I feel your Lordships will agree with me that there is very little that can be usefully added. I should like to thank the noble Lord for an extremely interesting exposition of the whole subject. I rise only for a very brief moment to outline to your Lordships a line of investigation into the last problem which the noble Lord mentioned, that of reemployment, which was being followed in certain industries in this country before the war. It had been noted that a man who was injured or had fallen sick was frequently on the sick list for a very considerably longer time than was necessary because he was unfit to take up his old employment, which required 100 per cent. fitness, though in fact he could have engaged in some lighter employment. This was very unfortunate, both because it impaired the man's earning capacity at a time when it was most essential that there should be adequate money coming into his home to pay for perhaps special feeding or treatment, and also because of the bad moral effect of being out of work and dependent upon some form of pension.
To this end labour in a number of industries was subdivided into three classes. There was first of all the A class, where a man was 100 per cent. fit; then there was the B class which did not entail the lifting of any load greater than 56 lb.—which is I believe medically considered the maximum load that should be lifted by a woman; and then there was the C class

683
where no load of more than 10 lb. need be lifted. An analysis of the man-hours employed in a number of industries of these three classes of work over a number of industries so examined—and obviously your Lordships will realize that these figures can only be tentative—tended to show that 25 per cent. of the man-hours in the examined industries came under the C class, 60 per cent. under the B class and only 15 per cent. under the A class. Quite clearly it would be impossible to put only Grade C men to do C class work, and only Grade B men to do B class work, leaving A men to do A class work only, because the strain on the A class men would be too great. But it has been computed by competent medical opinion that every industry could possibly, without putting an excessive strain on its A class men, carry as much as 25 per cent. of the men of the B and C classes to do that work. This line of inquiry seems to me to be worthy of the attention of the Ministry of Pensions, and to link up usefully with this problem of re-employment, and that is why I have ventured to bring it to your Lordships' attention.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is altogether appropriate, even in the midst of a desperate war, that sympathetic consideration should be given to the needs and the claims of those who have been disabled in its service, and the fact that this problem is not being neglected will give assurance and bring some comfort to the men and women of every rank in the three great Services. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has a long-standing and commendable and useful interest in the matter which he has brought before your Lordships' House, and the Government welcome the discussion which his Motion has stimulated. The problem is in fact everybody's responsibility. Everybody has a responsibility to see that all that can be done in this matter shall be done in a generous way. We should be accused and we should be shamed if men who have suffered for our safety and our freedom were left uncared for. Therefore I am sure your Lordships will welcome the Motion that the noble Lord has introduced. As far as I understand the argument which Lord Nathan has put forward with force, it is that the anxieties of the men who are serving are greatly increased
684
by the fear that they may be dismissed wounded and incapacitated and that insufficient help will be provided for them. Lord Nathan has summarized his criticisms on this matter by saying that the men demand maintenance for self and family, treatment for their disabilities, rehabilitation until they become self-supporting, and, above all and most important of all, they demand a job when they are able to resume their work. The noble Lord has laid proper and particular emphasis on the needs of the individual man whose life has been spared but whose health has been lost and whose industrial efficiency has been impaired.
It may be worth while to remind your Lordships that the problem as it exists to-day is not immense nor is it unmanageable, and also that the vast majority of those already discharged have been discharged on medical grounds and not on account of wounds. It may also be useful if, in a few brief phrases, I greatly abbreviate a description of what the actual provision is for these men. So far as pensions are concerned, disability pensions are available to men whose disability is accepted by the Ministry as being due to, or aggravated by, service in the present war. The rate of pension depends on the degree of disability and on the man's rank, and it may also be affected by the length of his service. The degree of disability is measured in comparison with a normal healthy person of the same age and sex, and the pension, it is to be noticed, is not disturbed by the amount of wages that the man receives. Then there are some family allowances. These include allowances in respect of wife and children. The rate varies according to the degree of disability, and the allowances for children are ordinarily terminated when the children reach the age of sixteen. There are certain conditions required as to eligibility. In regard to education, there are allowances available not exceeding £40 towards the cost of education, if the Ministry is satisfied that family circumstances justify it. Then there are certain allowances for cases where constant attendance is required upon 100 per cent. disability. These do not exceed 18s. per week in the case of the men and are not over £90 Year in the case of officers. Finally, there are certain allowances for limbs and appliances. The Ministry arranges these if no other source is available. Those

685
afflicted may, during treatment, receive allowances based on pensions, together with any additional allowance for which they may be qualified in respect of their families.
That is a highly summarized account of the present provisions, and I thought it might be useful to your Lordships to be reminded of them so as to form a basis upon which to think of the future. Lord Nathan has made certain criticisms in regard to the rates and so on which are paid. His general position is that the situation in regard to pensions is on the whole satisfactory, but there are certain points of criticism he has to make. One of these refers to injuries received when a man is on leave. This difficulty is commonly described as the "on and off duty" question. Under the Royal Warrant a disability must be attributable to, or aggravated by, war service. This is generously interpreted, but there must be a limit. Accidents on duty are always accepted, as are accidents occurring directly between stations and billets. Accidents when going on or returning from long leave are accepted. Accidents in an immediate battle area and accidents due to unfamiliarity with foreign conditions, or with some unsuspected danger peculiar to a locality at home, are accepted. Accidents while a man is on pass or while he is actually on leave are not accepted. What a man does when on pass or whilst actually on leave is not subject to any Service compulsion, and any accident with which he meets might equally befall a member of the civilian population. Accidents of the most common kind are those arising from traffic and black-out conditions which are general to all of us, unfortunately, in these times.
Lord Nathan made certain criticisms in regard to tribunals, and I promise him that both his criticisms and his suggestions will receive the consideration of the Minister. His desire is that these tribunals should work with the utmost publicity, because this will allay dissatisfaction with decisions in border-line cases. The Government have announced their intention to set up independent appeal tribunals at the earliest opportunity. Their immediate institution would require a considerable medical staff and some hundreds of lay staff. Qualified personnel are not at present available, and to the extent to which some could be made available it would be at the expense
686
of activities more immediately vital to the war effort. The whole problem is being further explored by a sub-committee of the Ministry of Pensions Central Advisory Committee. I repeat that the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will be transmitted to the Minister and will, I am sure, receive his consideration.
LORD NATHAN: Is my noble friend in a position to say anything upon the anomaly regarding widows to which I referred? If he is not in a position to say anything now I understand.
LORD SNELL: I regret that I am not informed on that special point, but it will receive consideration. The question of the rehabilitation of afflicted men and reemployment for them is one of the most important that your Lordships have to consider. Let us always remember, however, that merely to find work for a man is not a satisfactory solution of the problem. It must be suitable work. Merely to throw a man into some sort of job for which in any case he would be unfitted, is not to deal with the problem effectively. In regard to rehabilitation there is, I think, very little basis for Lord Nathan's criticism that rehabilitation only starts when hospital treatment has ended. It is recognized in the general treatment of these men that rehabilitation should begin as soon as possible after the injury or operation and continue throughout the whole period of convalescence. For instance, if a man has a fractured limb it is important that he should begin to use it at the very earliest moment and that is looked after by the authorities.
The criticism that the Tomlinson Report is rather weak on that point would, I think, not be accepted by the members of that Committee. If I may I will refer your Lordships to page 42 of that Report where you will see that rehabilitation is dealt with under five points. I will not trouble your Lordships to listen to my reading of them, but the Report does deal with this matter, and I think on the whole fairly efficiently. Much has already been done in the matter of rehabilitation in the Ministry's hospital. Their object is to bring the man back to the stage when he is either able to resume his old occupation or be trained by the Ministry of Labour for a new one. The interim scheme for the training of disabled men

687
is working well. Officials of the Ministry of Labour and National Service dealing with this particular matter visit the man while still in hospital and discuss his position with him and his doctors. Training is available for all who need it, and with the present demand for labour there is no difficulty in placing in employment those who have been trained.
In regard to re-employment, this, as Lord Nathan rightly said, is a major anxiety of the men. No one who remembers the grim tragedy of unemployed men after the last war can possibly seek to minimize the importance of that anxiety, and I will see that the attention of the Minister is brought to the suggestions which Lord Faringdon made in his interesting speech. So far as the re-employment of disabled men is concerned the problem is undoubtedly a difficult one, but it is one to which the Government are giving full and serious attention. A strong Committee under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service has just produced a comprehensive Report on the whole problem of the rehabilitation and re-settlement of the disabled. The proposals in this Report are not limited to the war disabled, and they will be discussed with the British Employers' Federation, the Trades Union Congress and the Royal National Council. They cover the whole field, but at the moment the position is that they have been accepted as a basis of discussion. The House will forgive me if I have not dealt adequately with particular points mentioned by Lord Nathan in his interesting speech. I was entrusted with this duty at very short notice, and I have tried to indicate as far as possible what the general attitude of the Ministry is in this matter. There is the fullest sympathy with what has been said to-day, and a desire to see that the needs of those to whom the nation is so greatly indebted shall be adequately provided for.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his full, careful and sympathetic reply. I shall not in these final words indulge in any controversy, but I should like to protect myself against possible misapprehension arising from what the noble Lord has said and in regard to which I have perhaps in my opening observations not made myself
688
sufficiently clear. My noble friend seems to think that I was speaking in a critical spirit when I said that rehabilitation starts when hospital treatment ends. I was not speaking in a critical sense, I was speaking in a chronological sense, although I agree that rehabilitation and hospital treatment may to an extent overlap.
Again—and this is perhaps a little more serious—I should not like there to be any misunderstanding in regard to another point. My noble friend seems to have thought that I attributed to the Tomlinson Report a weakness in that it had not dealt with rehabilitation, and then my noble friend pointed out how rehabilitation is dealt with in that Report. Far from attributing this as a weakness I pointed out in my observations that it was a special virtue. Where I referred to a weakness was in a different context. I said that where the Report was weakest was in the assumption that the means for carrying out the proposals would be available. That is rather different from what was attributed to me by my noble friend, but I do not pursue that matter any further except to point out that it would be a misapprehension if it were suggested that I had blamed where in fact I had praised. Finally, I hope my noble friend may possibly think it advantageous to suggest to the Minister of Pensions that the proposal I made as to members of your Lordships' House being given an opportunity under his guidance of visiting the Roehampton Hospital is worth while pursuing. With that closing remark I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn may I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Snell, with respect to one point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nathan? We do not expect him to reply to it to-day. The point is that concerning the case of widows of men killed side by side mentioned by Lord Nathan. May not both be eligible for a pension? Will the noble Lord assure us that he will ask the Minister to look into that matter and perhaps give the House some information and some hope for the removal of this manifest hardship in the near future?
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord will realize that I cannot give an authoritative answer now, but I will see that the point

689
is put to the Minister and perhaps some other opportunity of explanation will be available.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ARMY AND THE BEVERIDGE REPORT
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government why the publication of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs summarizing the Beveridge Report was withdrawn from circulation; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I desire to draw your Lordships' attention, according to the terms of my Motion, to the withdrawal, after it had appeared on December 19, of the publication of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs dealing with the proposals in the Beveridge Report. I hope that this may give the Government an opportunity for making a more ample statement than they have been able to give hitherto in another place, and I think it is one of the advantages of the procedure of your Lordships' House in war-time that it gives so much time to the raising of important matters of public interest by private members.
In case some of your Lordships are not familiar with the activities of A.B.C.A., as it is commonly known, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words by way of introduction. Fortnightly pamphlets entitled War and Current Affairs respectively are used in the Army to stimulate discussion and talk about the wider aspects of soldiering and citizenship. I speak this afternoon as one of the junior officers who have been given the job from time to time of starting the ball of talk rolling at these periodical gatherings. I can say from my own experience—and I am sure it is borne out by the experience of the great majority of those who have taken part in this work—that these talks have helped to build up the best possible relationship between officers and men. They have also acted as a splendid stimulus to morale, because they do meet the anxious questions of the average soldier about the progress of the war on its different fronts and about the prospective conditions that will be met when he returns home. I know from experience what subjects of discussion attract the men and
690
what subjects will probably require a hint from the Sergeant-Major in order that some nervous subaltern may not be confronted with rows of empty benches. No topic has attracted larger audiences than life after the war. This is not unnatural when one remembers that the vast majority of men in the Army to-day are civilians in khaki, not regular soldiers, and that military service for them is a brief interruption of their ordinary life.
Every soldier is thinking, not without a good deal of anxiety—the anxiety to which the noble Lord opposite alluded with so much emphasis in the speech we have just heard—about events that affect, or that may seriously affect, the job awaiting him and the home to which he will return. It was therefore a real encouragement to those of us who have been doing this work when a number of Current Affairs appeared dealing in a condensed form with the proposals of the Beveridge Report. No account of these important recommendations could have been more strictly accurate and unpartisan. I believe it has been stated that the account was not altogether objective. If that is the view of His Majesty's Government I think it ought to be said publicly in what respects this summary does not represent a fair picture of the Report. The pamphlet contained a short introduction by the editor of the series, which pointed out that the summary should be read not from the point of view of personal advantage but to see whether and how far the proposals would benefit the country. This introduction was followed by a potted version of the Report written by the author himself. Nothing, I think, could have resembled less an apologia pro vita sua either on the part of Sir William Beveridge or on the part of the Prudential Assurance Company. It was, if I may so describe it, a succinct, schoolmasterly précis. This simple narrative drew attention to the salient facts without for one moment raising the question of merit. The reader was invited by implication to judge for himself the value of the Report in the context of the whole postwar economic and political situation.
The impression created by this sudden ban on what appeared to be an inoffensive pamphlet could not have been more unfortunate. The noble Lord opposite says it had not been issued. I can only reply

691
that a copy reached me and I believe copies reached many others who are doing this work, and we were told that a decision had been taken according to which our copies were to be immediately returned. It was only in that sense that I used the word "ban." The natural and inevitable reaction to the withdrawal of the summary—unreasonable, no doubt, but entirely human—was that someone high up wanted to blanket discussion of the Beveridge Report. I know that was not the desire of the noble Lord opposite, or, I imagine, of any member of the Government, but that was the impression given. It gave quite a severe, though small, jolt to morale. The only people I believe who have benefited from this episode have been the few political extremists for whom this sort of action provides, and can be used as, effective propaganda both inside and outside the Army. If the inclusion of the Beveridge Report among the official publications of A.B.C.A. was inadvisable or premature—a view I personally do not share—surely once the pamphlet had appeared in print less harm would have been done by allowing it to circulate than by suddenly calling in the thousands of copies that must have been distributed. It should either not have been published at all, or, the fatal and irretrievable step having been taken, those in authority might well have seen that suppression would only aggravate the original mistake.
Two main reasons have been given for this action. Firstly, that the Beveridge Report contains proposals that will give rise to political controversy, that are of a controversial nature, and should not therefore be the subject of official talks conducted by officers during hours of duty. But I think we are entitled to ask ourselves this question: Is there any matter of policy relating to the vital needs of the man in the street that does not provoke differences of opinion and occasion political, if not Party political controversy? The inevitable result of cutting the live issues out of these fortnightly talks and confining them entirely to military matters or to dry academic domestic topics, would be, I fear, to kill the A.B.C.A. scheme. That is why I am extremely anxious that this decision should not become a precedent.
One thing which I should like the noble Lord opposite to explain, if he would be good enough to do so, is this: Why is
692
there this cavilling at the discussion of the Beveridge Report when a number of subjects of a controversial nature have already been passed as suitable for discussion by the troops? I will draw your Lordships' attention to those topics. When I looked up recent issues of Current Affairs, I found in June last an article on India with a brief account of the Cripps Mission, and in September a contribution on town planning, written by an ardent advocate of national and local planning after the war. I am sure your Lordships will agree, with the memory of recent debates on India and post-war planning fresh in your minds, that both these subjects have given rise to lively exchanges. About a year ago I myself initiated a spirited discussion on the subject of Russia, again with a brief consisting of one of these pamphlets. On this occasion I think the contents were provided by Sir Bernard Pares, the acknowledged authority on that subject. What I fail to understand, and what I hope the Government will explain, is why the Beveridge Report should be regarded as more controversial than the problem of India or the social system and conditions prevailing in Russia, or the vexed question of future developments of our towns and countryside. I apologize for firing so many questions at the noble Lord opposite, but I am sure he will be glad of this opportunity of answering questions which are uppermost in many people's minds. May I ask him further, does this decision mean that postwar reconstruction is henceforth banned or excluded from all talks conducted under A.B.C.A. auspices? Is it not merely a departure on one point but a departure of policy and principle?
The second reason that has been mentioned was that the Beveridge Report has not yet been debated in Parliament, and that it would be improper for the War Office to sponsor official discussions in the Army until Parliament had had an opportunity of giving a lead. This is surely a surprising argument to hear from those who still maintain, so far as I am aware, that this war is a fight for democracy. Democracy, in the accepted sense of the word, is surely the rule of public opinion through a popularly elected Assembly. It is a new, and, I think, dangerous doctrine, quite foreign to our traditional practice, that public opinion should wait patiently to take its cue from the proceedings of Parliament. Quite

693
apart from the merits of this particular case, I cannot help feeling a certain alarm about this principle of discouraging the free and general discussion of important social issues, until they have beforehand been thrashed out in Parliament or until the Government have announced their official policy. It is somewhat puzzling—and again I seek enlightenment—that these reasons for withdrawing the pamphlet should lead to precisely opposite conclusions. If the Army is not to discuss, under official auspices, any matter giving rise to political controversy, it is fairly obvious that this particular ban or decision will not be lifted or withdrawn. If, on the other hand, the authorities are only waiting for a Parliamentary debate on the subject then presumably this number of Current Affairs will be released in the near future. I should like to know very much from the noble Lord who is sitting opposite—if he would be so good as to give a reply on this point—whether its the intention of the Government to release the number at the appropriate moment or whether this is an irrevocable decision?
I have heard it said, in other circles, that this veto on official talks about the Beveridge Report does not really matter because soldiers have the same opportunity as civilians to read about it in the Press, to buy cheap summaries from bookstalls, and to study and discuss the whole subject when they are off duty. But, in fact, the Serviceman is at a grave disadvantage as compared with the civilian. He is less well paid and the threepence or sixpence that he would have to spend on a pamphlet makes a bigger hole in his pocket. Also he has considerably less leisure, and he leads a tougher arid more strenuous life. I cannot imagine people really seriously expecting him to organize a debating society, or to pore over miniature Blue-books during his few spare moments. The right time for serious study is, surely, during working hours, when he can apply himself to these complicated social problems with a fresh and active mind. Moreover, there is an advantage in having an officer present who can answer questions, and, perhaps, help to solve difficult points. Lectures by Army education officers are no substitute at all, excellent as they may be in themselves, because they take place in spare time and because they only reach a comparatively small number of the
694
troops. They are a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, the present system.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. I have stated my case as briefly as I could. I should like to end by saying this. It is a truism that I think can bear repetition that the modern Army is a citizen Army and that every soldier has the right and the duty to vote at Elections. But how can he exercise this right to the satisfaction of his own conscience, and choose the candidate lie considers will make the best M.P., without a full knowledge of the most widely discussed scheme of social reform published in recent years, and without ample opportunity to argue the pros and cons with well-informed people? How can he develop the basic virtue of a good citizen, an instructed judgment about public affairs, if essential facts and opinions that would enable him to form a sound judgment are withheld? I should like to urge that any policy placing obstacles in the way of good citizenship in the Army should be reversed at the earliest possible moment.
My final plea is this. I want to ask the Government to reconsider their decision in deference to public demand, and to lift the ban at the earliest possible moment. This, I think, is a rare opportunity for making a generous gesture that would be enthusiastically welcomed both inside and outside the Army. I am handing this petition to the noble Lord opposite in the, name of thousands of serving soldiers, officers and men. I regret that the noble Lord opposite does not agree with me on that point, but I can assure him that there is a very wide measure of anxiety. I am not speaking for myself alone; I represent a very wide section of the public and a very great number of serving men who are deeply anxious about this matter, and I am handing the noble Lord my petition in their name. They are forbidden by King's Regulations, and rightly forbidden, to speak for themselves, but they firmly believe that Parliament will always give them a fair hearing and allow them a square deal. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the noble Earl who has just spoken has rendered a useful public service in bringing this matter to your attention. He has stated the case with great clearness and lucidity. I share his view that an

695
error of judgment has been committed in this case, and it is necessary for me to add only a few supplementary observations to what he has so ably put before you. The proposals of the Beveridge Report do not constitute an item in some Party programme. They are not put forward on the part of any sectional interest within the nation. They are the outcome of an official investigation; they are the Report of a Commissioner appointed by a Government, and, as it so happens, by a Government which is a Coalition Government, and non-Party. In the country at large they have been acclaimed, and acclaimed enthusiastically, by a very wide body of impartial opinion; and undoubtedly they have enlisted the interest of the whole nation, to a degree which has surpassed that of any other domestic issue of recent months. Furthermore, we have been told on good authority that the troops in the Middle East have shown a keen interest in such accounts of these proposals as have reached them through the Press and otherwise; and what is true of the Middle East will most certainly be true of the men in the Forces in this country as well.
The Army Bureau of Current Affairs and the Army education scheme are both admirable conceptions. They show a far better conception of the relationship between the Army and the nation than has ever prevailed in previous times, and both are rendering most useful service; hut, if there is to be an Army Bureau of Current Affairs, what could possibly be more appropriate for its consideration than this very important matter of the Beveridge Report? It appears from some interjections made from the Government Front Bench that the Government draw a distinction between this memorandum having been stopped from circulation when only a certain number of copies had been issued and its having been openly published. If it had not been openly published, or if it had not been circulated, that also would have been a matter for censure; I think that public opinion would have condemned the Army Bureau of Current Affairs for not having brought forward this proposal of their own free motion.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for War, speaking in another place, gave an answer on this subject which I shall be in order in quoting, since it is an official
696
statement made on behalf of the Government. In the course of it he said this:
"Any soldier can read the Report or the abridged form of it as much as he likes, and the Command education authorities are being encouraged to provide lectures on the subject by qualified lecturers, both military and civilian, under the ordinary Army education scheme."
They are not merely permitted to give lectures on this subject to the troops, but encouraged to do so. There is nothing said there about the matter not having been brought before Parliament, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords not having been able to give an opinion. Entirely irrespective of such a flimsy argument as that, the Army lecturers are encouraged to give lectures to the troops on this very subject of the Report. It is a somewhat fine line to draw, I venture to suggest, if while the Army education scheme is being encouraged to give lectures on this very subject the Army Bureau of Current Affairs is not merely discouraged from dealing with it, but, apparently, for the time being is not permitted to deal with it.
It is not perfectly clear—perhaps the Government will make it clear—whether this ban on the memorandum is a ban on the lectures. As I understand it, lectures can be given only on subjects on which a brief is circulated to the officers concerned. An official brief was prepared and was bound up in the same pamphlet with Sir William Beveridge's synopsis of his own Report. Both have been withdrawn; and, that being so, since no brief has been circulated to the officers on this subject, they are not permitted, as I understand it—if I am wrong, perhaps the spokesman for the Government will correct me—at all events for the time being, to open discussions on this subject. We have therefore the extraordinary anomaly that while one set of officers is encouraged to lecture on this subject to one group of soldiers, another group of soldiers in the same battalion or squadron or whatever it may be is prohibited from discussing the matter.
The Secretary of State gave three reasons for this action. The first is that the A.B.C.A. has compulsory characteristics, while the Army education system has not. The men are required compulsorily to attend the A.B.C.A. discussions, while they are free to attend the Army educational lectures or not as they choose. But is there anything so very obnoxious about

697
the proposals of the Beveridge Report that anyone's conscience is likely to be strained by his being required to attend a discussion of this subject? I cannot imagine any soldier going there and stopping his ears for fear his mind should be contaminated by a discussion of the Beveridge proposals, nor do I think that we are likely to have a new set of conscientious objectors who would resist compulsory attendance at a discussion of this character. The Secretary of State said that his second reason, to quote his own words, was that
"it might easily have conveyed the impression that the scheme set out in the Report was settled Government policy whereas in fact no decision of any kind has been taken."
Does not that apply equally to Army lectures under the other scheme? If there were anything in this point, what could be simpler than to preface the pamphlet by a clear statement that this must not be presented as a matter of Government policy, that it is the Report of a Commissioner which has aroused widespread discussion, and that this point must be brought home to every audience whenever the matter was raised? That would be amply sufficient to meet that point.
The third reason was that the Secretary of State for War, who was one of the founders—and rightly took credit for it—of the A.B.C.A., was distressed to think that the effect of bringing forward matters of a controversial character, or which in some quarters, might possibly be regarded as controversial, would be to discredit the whole A.B.C.A. scheme. That would be so if matters which were the subject of bitter and raging controversy up and down the country were foisted upon soldiers who did not want to hear about them. This, however, is obviously no such matter, and I venture in conclusion to suggest to your Lordships that the A.B.C.A. would be far more likely to be discredited if matters in which everyone was taking a keen interest were not allowed to be discussed. Since the action was taken with so little justification, suspicion will be bound to arise that vested interests and reactionary influences must have brought pressure to bear upon the Government in order to obstruct discussion in the Army of progressive proposals.
VISCOUNT DOWNE: My Lords, I must first ask you to extend to me that generosity which your Lordships extend to any
698
member of this House who has the honour of addressing you for the first time, and I hope that you will forgive any short-comings on my part. For over a year I have served in the Adjutant-General's Department at the headquarters of a district. I have watched the growth of the A.B.C.A., and it has been a matter of considerable pleasure to me to observe the genuine interest that all ranks take in these discussions. In my branch I have to deal with the problems of personnel, and had there been any widespread feeling in the district in which I serve that this pamphlet should not have been withdrawn, I should have learnt about it, because complaints or suggestions would actually have reached my desk. I can say quite honestly that I have not heard one single complaint about the withdrawal of the pamphlet. There is enthusiastic discussion on the pamphlets which are issued, and that must mean that a very great weight of responsibility is placed on those who write and issue them. There is no doubt in my mind that it is most important that we should steer clear of any subject which has the flavour of Party politics, and for my part I feel that the Beveridge Report, at any rate in its administration after the war, has such a flavour. When I say that pamphlets on subjects which have a flavour of Party politics should not be issued, I refer to any matters of public interest which are the subject of impending legislation.
For the past 280 years we have had a national Army, and during that time the country has had its ups and downs economically and politically. We have had our good and our bad Governments—I might almost add, our good and our bad Armies—but as yet we have avoided the worst of all forms of government, that is, the military government, and my great fear is that if we in the Army are to discuss controversial political points there will be some danger that certain individuals will try to form a military party in the country. We have been told this afternoon that there will be lectures delivered on the Beveridge Report, and doubtless that is so, but there is a vast difference between lectures delivered to troops and the canvassing of the political leanings of troops, which is what one inevitably gets through the medium of the A.B.C.A. discussions. That has been my experience. The next logical step will be that the members of

699
the illustrious Loamshire Regiment will write to their Members of Parliament and point out that at various A.B.C.A. discussions entered into by the 5th Loamshires they were unanimous that this or that particular Bill should be voted on in one way or another. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also said that the troops found difficulty in getting papers owing to the shortness of their purses, but in practically all units there is an ample supply of papers, which are found from the regimental funds.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon for interrupting, but what I was referring to was not ordinary daily or weekly papers, but summaries of the Beveridge Report which will have to be bought at the bookstalls out of the pockets of the soldiers concerned.
VISCOUNT DOWNE: I can only say that if there is this widespread interest in the Beveridge Report these little pamphlets, which can be bought at the bookstalls; are very cheap—3d. or 6d.—and I am perfectly certain that all units can supply the men with these pamphlets in their reading rooms. As regards newspapers a man's contact with a newspaper goes on from week to week, and even if he has the misfortune to find himself in the detention barracks he has a range of papers which he can peruse at his pleasure and for which he pays nothing whatever. He therefore is able to keep himself just as well informed on the Beveridge Report as a civilian. The question of the impression caused by the banning of this pamphlet, I suggest, carries us nowhere, because it is well known that any new and struggling novelist who produces a book is quite delighted if his book is banned by the censor, so long only as the ban is lifted after a short time, and then the book immediately runs into a whole series of editions—such is the interest taken in the matter. I think that is precisely what has happened in this case. The men are told that this interesting little booklet has been published and that the War Office have now banned it, and they say immediately: "I wish I had got a copy first." I will close by saying that personally I regret that this pamphlet should ever have been printed at all, but, as it has been printed, the right and proper step was taken by the War Office in ordering that the matter be not discussed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, before I come to the subject of debate, your Lordships would wish me to say one word of very warm welcome to the noble Viscount who has just made his maiden speech. We greatly welcome his presence here to-day, and we hope, now that he has taken the plunge, that he will often in future take part in your Lordships' discussions.
Speaking for the Government, I should like to say we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for putting down his Motion, because I hope and think it will enable me to remove some widespread misconception on this question. There has been a suggestion—it was in the noble Earl's own speech—that there is a sort of ban on any controversial subject in connexion with Army educational affairs. Of course there is no ban on all controversial subjects. Indeed, if you have a system which allows debate, debate without controversy would be a very hollow affair indeed. The noble Earl himself mentioned the question of India. He said there had already been a debate on India. That is the answer to his own question. What is important for educative purposes—and, after all, this is an educational scheme—is that the conditions under which a debate is carried on should allow of a full understanding of the problems which are being dealt with. Not only the details of any given scheme like this scheme, but the background should be understood both by the troops who listen to the lecture and by the officers or other ranks who initiate the discussion. That, as I hope to show, was the difficulty in this particular case.
There seems to be sonic strange idea in certain quarters—I am very glad it was not mooted by the noble Earl—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, either for reasons of political bias or for some other sinister reason, had done his utmost to prevent the Beveridge Report coming to the knowledge of the troops. Of course that would be not only foolish on his part but completely illogical. After all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has reminded your Lordships, the Secretary of State for War is a member of the Government, and the Government appointed the Beveridge Committee and have themselves published the Report in a Command Paper. Indeed, they have done more than that. They

701
have published a summarized cheap edition in order that the Report may more readily be available to the public. The suggestion therefore that there could be any attempt, either by His Majesty's Government or by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, in such circumstances, to prevent the Report from coming to the knowledge of the Army is clearly quite absurd. It would be rather like King Canute attempting to control the waves. No one who knows my right honourable friend would consider him capable of adopting so ostrich-like an attitude. Clearly the Beveridge Report is going to be a main topic of discussion in tins country among all sections of the community for a great many months to come, and in fact, as your Lordships know—the majority certainly know—no attempt has been made by the Government to discourage such discussions at any time.
Perhaps the easiest way for me to make the position clear would be if I explained the character of the educational work which is at present being done in the Army. Lord Listowel has referred to it, but perhaps he will allow me to go into it in a little more detail. This educational work may be divided into two categories. There are, first of all, classes on technical subjects, and lectures by qualified civilians and military lecturers on subjects of general interest. That is the first category. Under this category, as has already been stated this afternoon, lectures on the Beveridge Report are being encouraged so long as they are purely objective and informative in character. That is obviously essential. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said he did not see why we should have lectures going on by qualified lecturers and at the same time place a temporary ban upon debates under the other scheme to which I am going to refer later. I see a very great difference between the two. Firstly, the lectures are voluntary and are conducted by lecturers who are qualified by experience to speak on their particular subjects. The other scheme, the A.B.C.A. scheme, is not only compulsory, but the officers or other ranks who give the lectures have very often no personal experience at all in these subjects and entirely rely on the official briefs which they are given. Therefore quite evidently the two conditions are not at all the same.
702
I now come to the second category—the category with which we are concerned today—the educational work which is conducted under the it ægis of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, A.B.C.A. This is of a different character. It consists of compulsory discussions on various subjects. In alternate weeks, as your Lordships know, A.B.C.A. issues Bulletins, which are called War and Current Affairs, to regimental officers in charge of units. Discussions take place among the troops which are compulsory discussions, initiated and guided by the officer or other rank in charge of the unit, on the subject which is dealt with in the Bulletin. The troops are obliged to attend these lectures. The Bulletins are not distributed to all the troops; they are the official briefs for the man, whoever he may be—officer or other rank—who initiates the discussion. Those in charge of A.B.C.A. have, as the noble Earl will agree, been given a very free hand in the selection of their subjects since the scheme came into operation. On this occasion, they chose the Beveridge Report as the thesis for discussion. I understand they approached Sir William Beveridge and got him to write a summary, which was accompanied by a short supplementary official brief, to appear as an article in Current Affairs as the basis for the discussions which might take place. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War was shown an advance copy of Current Affairs he took very strongly the view, in which I may say the Government concur, that a compulsory discussion of this extremely complicated subject was at least premature.
I would assure the noble Earl that there is no suggestion that there was any intentional bias in Sir William's article. He said himself it was a factual account. It is a factual account, as one would expect, but necessarily it was most incomplete. The noble Earl said it was "succinct." What "succinct" means in plain words is that Sir William, in order to get the article into the requisite space, had to cut out a very large part of his Report. There was in fact only an absolute skeleton there. I do not think it is the slightest criticism of the Beveridge Report to say that it raises very fundamental issues. Your Lordships are all aware of what these issues are. They are issues of the widest possible description, both in connexion with the proposals themselves and in connexion with those other matters of general policy

703
which must be weighed in conjunction with the Report if a wise decision is to be reached by Parliament and by the Government. Some of these subjects of the first importance, which require most expert and careful examination, are dealt with in one or two sentences in Sir William's article in Current Affairs, and others are not mentioned at all.
As noble Lords know, the Beveridge Report has not yet been discussed in Parliament, and what is the reason? The reason is that it is generally felt that time must be given to noble Lords and members of the House of Commons to digest the Report before a debate can usefully take place. If Parliament, with all its experience and all its knowledge, is not yet in a position to put forward considered views on the subject, how can it be expected that officers and men of the Army, who have not the same background as your Lordships, can as yet take a useful part in a debate on this subject?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Does not that apply to India?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, with all deference to the noble Viscount, I do not think it does. India has been the subject of discussion in Parliament for years and years. The noble Viscount himself has made a number of very important contributions on that subject and certainly he could not possibly argue that India and the Beveridge Report stood in exactly the same class.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: They are at least as controversial and just as difficult and it requires as broad a knowledge to deal with the one as the other.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is perfectly true, but what is also true is that the British public on the whole has had much more opportunity to gain a wide knowledge of India as a result of the discussions that have taken place so frequently on public platforms and in Parliament. For years India has been the subject of discussion, while the Beveridge Report has only just been put before the public. Moreover, as I think my right honourable friend has already explained in another place, the issue of Sir William Beveridge's Report as an official brief might easily convey the impression, and is likely to convey the impression, that it was the settled Government policy,
704
whereas in fact, as your Lordships know, no decision has yet been taken either by the Government or by Parliament itself upon it. Therefore, to hold a debate at the present juncture on this very difficult and delicate subject seemed to my right honourable friend, and the Government share his view, to be clearly premature. Education in the Army; I would remind your Lordships, is the same as it is elsewhere. It does not consist in encouraging people to reach conclusions on inadequate premises. It must be conducted upon a basis of the fullest possible information. I was a little surprised that that view was not taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who has a great experience of these subjects. I would have thought it would have been quite clear to everybody that to hold a compulsory debate on a subject on which those who had to take part had not had the opportunity to obtain a comprehensive view of the problem that they were discussing would, from an educational point of view, be worse than no debate at all.
For these reasons my right honourable friend, and I think quite rightly, came to the conclusion that compulsory debates on this subject should be postponed, I will use his own words, "at any rate until a preliminary debate in Parliament had taken place." Unfortunately—and I think this was unfortunate—the matter was only brought to his notice at a late stage, and he found that copies had already left the printers for distribution. The only course open to him, therefore, in his view, was to give instructions for their withdrawal, and this he did, and in the view of the Government, who have considered this point very carefully, he was absolutely right. Those, my Lords, are quite simply the facts. There is no question, as I have said, of a ban on discussion of all post-war problems—I think that was suggested by some noble Lord—nor is there in fact a ban on the right of discussing the Beveridge Report by the troops. Of course there is not. There seems to be a sort of suggestion in the House this afternoon that the Army is being penalized in comparison with the civilian population. Do I understand that that is suggested?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Unless that is true, there is no ground for criticism at all.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: But it is true.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Is it? Wait a moment. The troops can get the Report if they want it, they can get an abridged Report if they want it, they can discuss it among themselves, they can attend voluntarily lectures by qualified lecturers if they want to do so, under the Army education scheme. All that is happening is that they are not being compelled to attend debates on this particular subject under A.B.C.A. Noble Lords will not tell me that the civilian population is compelled to attend debates. The Army is in exactly the same position as the civilian population in that matter, and unless any noble Lord wishes to controvert me on that point, I know of no case where the civilian population is being compelled to attend debates on this question at the present time. Even the House of Commons and the House of Lords can absent themselves if they wish from the debates.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Of course the civilian population is not compelled to attend debates on any subject whatever. The Army are. The only question is whether, if there are debates which they are required to attend, this should be the subject of one of them. The question is not one as between the Army and the civilian population.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Not to the noble Viscount, but to the noble Earl it is. He has said, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has said, that the troops were being penalized. There appears to be a difference or opinion between critics of the Government in this matter. In any case, in the view of the Government, they are not being penalized in comparison with the civilian population. Moreover, I would say this, because I have been asked a definite question on this matter. There is no irrevocable ban on the discussion or debate of the Beveridge Report by the Army under A.B.C.A. I would refer noble Lords to some words spoken by my right honourable friend yesterday in another place. He said he took the view that
"compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been at any rate a preliminary debate in the House on this subject."
His view was that knowledge of this subject was not widely enough distributed
706
to enable debates to be held at present, and when he alters that view no doubt he will alter his view about the debate also. I hope I have explained this matter to your Lordships' satisfaction. A debate held on a very difficult and complicated question of this kind at the present juncture would not really have assisted very greatly to the education of the Army, but no doubt when a proper time comes such a debate will be held.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure everyone must admire the ingenuity and friendliness and, I may say, plausibility, of the case made by the noble Viscount. I think he presented his case with a singular facility which rather appears to be lacking in the explanation given by the Secretary of State for War in another place. But when he sits down and seeks to comfort himself with the suggestion that he has convinced us as to the wisdom and the necessity for this decision, then I really must take the opportunity of pointing out to him that in that he must be seriously disappointed. Quite frankly, I do not think even the Army is compelled compulsorily to debate anything under the A.B.C.A. These things are to be circulated. I am not going over the case so ably put by my noble friend and by Viscount Samuel, but I would like to know whether this deplorable blunder, because that is what it is, will be undone so far as it can be undone, as early as possible, and can we have some assurance that this synopsis, entirely objective, as the noble Viscount said, and prepared dispassionately by skilled persons, will be made available for the Army after the public has had the benefit of reading, as far as it does read, the reports of the debates in Parliament on the Beveridge Report which will be held shortly? Will it then be released?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think the final form of this brief will inevitably depend on the discussions in Parliament. The noble Lord, perhaps, has not read the account of the debate in another place yesterday, and I think I had better read what it was that my right honourable friend said. He said that it would be much better to wait and see what final edition might be sent out in the light of the situation after the debate in the House. That, I think, is clearly the correct attitude. Members of your Lordships' House and members of the House

707
of Commons will no doubt make very valuable contributions which may alter in some respects the brief that is finally sent out, and I think it might be better to wait until the final edition is produced before any distribution is made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I hope the time will come when King Canute will have ceased to continue that ostrich-like attitude.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is perhaps a somewhat mixed metaphor, but at any rate the temper of mind of the ostrich and King Canute was the same.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that the noble Lord, although he has made out a very strong case with great ingenuity, was not very much more at home or easy or satisfied about the case he was making to-day than the case he made out yesterday on behalf of secret debates. I would say that in matters such as that which we have under discussion no one would expect the Service Departments to be logical, but I would like to ask why it is that the Secretary of State for War thinks that the Army is so ignorant as to believe that the Beveridge Report is already endorsed by the Government. A strong point has been made that it would be dangerous to encourage the Army to think that the Government have endorsed the Beveridge Report. The Army really is much more well aware of what is happening in the world than to think anything of that kind, and it is a mistake to suppose that the Army is ignorant of the action taken by the great insurance companies. I would like to ask what is A.B.C.A. for? What is the purpose of its existence if it is not allowed to discuss anything except agreed matters? What is the point of allowing A.B.C.A. to discuss a question if there is no argument about it? Surely the whole purpose of A.B.C.A. must be to forward some sort of discussion on matters about which there is not full agreement.
I was very interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Downe, and I would like to add my congratulations, but I thought a certain amount of what he said was rather unreal. He stressed the point that the object of A.B.C.A. was not discussion but merely information. I can see no purpose in the existence of A.B.C.A. in that
708
case, because the Press and other organs of public information are perfectly capable of affording information on this subject.
VISCOUNT DOWNE: May I be allowed to point out that I did not say A.B.C.A. was not for discussion? A.B.C.A. is for discussion, but it would not be right to canvass the men in the Army on their political views. A.B.C.A. meetings are a series of discussions. They are held every fortnight exactly for discussion.
LORD WINSTER: I pay great respect to the views of the noble Viscount, but if discussions in A.B.C.A. are to be confined to matters on which the Government have already made up their minds, I really cannot see that discussion is worth very much. I would say, with great respect again, that I think it would be wrong from what I have heard of them to say that the discussions which take place in A.B.C.A. are made a means of canvassing the political opinions of those who listen to these discussions. I think it is an entirely unreal point of view to say that as a result of these discussions there will be a spate of representations made to Members of Parliament by those men in the Forces who have listened to the discussions. I think the noble Lord raised a point of very great importance when he spoke about the supply of newspapers. One of the great difficulties at the present moment is that, owing to restrictions upon the amount of wood pulp which we may import and the consequent restriction upon the number of newspapers that may be printed, large bodies of men in new camps—I am not talking about old-established camps—are very largely deprived of the possibility of getting the supply of newspapers which they would like. Consequently they are very largely ignorant of the matters which are agitating public opinion at any given time. I agree that the Beveridge Report may be easily bought. It is on sale and various summaries are on sale, but that seems to me only to add weight to the argument of those who feel that A.B.C.A. has made a very great mistake in restricting the discussion of the Report.
I would like to ask a simple question. I listened with great attention to what the noble Viscount said, but I do not think he really gave us any explanation on this matter. If there is no political bias involved in this matter—as I understood

709
the noble Viscount to say—why did the Secretary of State for War stop discussion of this matter in A.B.C.A.? I really entirely fail to understand that. If there is no political bias on the part of the Government, why may not this discussion proceed?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am sorry if I did not make my point clear. The point really is not whether there is political bias but whether the article, as written, covered the ground or did not cover the ground. There are some very big issues involved in the Report. But this document is a very brief one and some great problems are dealt with literally in one or two lines. It might very well be that the lecturer would be somebody without much more background than the troops listening to him, and in such circumstances the troops would not be given a real chance of reaching an informed and valuable conclusion. When the Report has been debated in Parliament and the matter fully ventilated, and when the Report has been fully digested, then I think there will be a very strong case for discussion. But I do not think it is much good having a debate which does not give an opportunity of a full and considered judgment.
LORD WINSTER: Then I understand the real objection to the document is that it does not state the facts of the case fully and adequately. That is the objection to it. There is no political bias.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have said already there is no question of political bias on the part of Sir William. His article in Current Affairs is an objective account of the Report. But it is very brief. It is not really an assistance to democracy to expect people to express views until they have some chance of fuller knowledge of the subject. That is why the debates in Parliament have been postponed, to give everyone an opportunity of digesting the Report and considering the problems raised. I certainly think that if Parliament finds that difficult the same thing must be true of the Army.
LORD WINSTER: I am most obliged to the noble Viscount. I could not agree with him more in what he has just said. Then I gather that the reason that A.B.C.A. is not allowed to discuss this matter is that the report issued to A.B.C.A. is considered an insufficient and
710
unsatisfactory account. That is what the noble Viscount is saying—it is not considered an adequate account of what is contained in the Beveridge Report. May I ask the noble Viscount has that been brought to the attention of Sir William Beveridge? Has the pamphlet been issued to him, or has he been told that the report prepared for the use of A.B.C.A. is considered an unsatisfactory and inadequate representation of what is contained in his review?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not know whether the noble Lord is wilfully misunderstanding me. The point is that this is a very abbreviated summary of Sir William's Report, whereas in order to get a really sound judgment on this Report you must take into account all sorts of considerations some of which do not come into the Report at all. It involves questions of general policy which have to be balanced, one issue against the other; and this will be done in the exceedingly important debates which are coming on in Parliament. Even if the copy of Current Affairs had been rather longer, and had contained more about the Report, I do not think that the troops would yet have been in a position to come to a considered judgment. I think that they will have to hear the views which are expressed in Parliament, for those views, after all, are the views of their representatives. That is the opinion which has already been expressed in another place by my right honourable friend. He said, as I have already stated:
"I took the view that compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been, at any rate, a preliminary debate in this House on the subject."
That is to say, until not only the troops but the people who are going to lecture to the troops—not official lecturers but officers and N.C.Os, who lead these debates—have had an opportunity of hearing the whole subject fully ventilated. That seems to me to be merely common sense.
LORD WINSTER: Then I understand from the noble Viscount that it is the intention of the War Office ultimately to prepare a report which in its judgment embodies the views of all political Parties on this subject as well as the views of Sir William himself.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn again. The noble Lord had better look at what my right honourable friend said in the House of Commons yesterday. He will get his answer there.
LORD WINSTER: I leave it there. But I would sympathize with those at the War Office responsible for the task of preparing a report such as I envisage. I will not detain your Lordships any longer except to say that I do feel there is something rather unnatural and rather unreal about A.B.C.A. when we are told that debates, not attendance but debates, on matters brought up before A.B.C.A., are compulsory.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): Attendance.
LORD WINSTER: The words have been used this afternoon. I have listened very carefully and have written them down. We have often heard in the past about compulsory church services and I have frequently heard that matter debated with great warmth. But at a compulsory church service a man who attends has only got to sit down and listen. Now we have had the point of view advanced this afternoon—I wrote this down very carefully—that A.B.C.A. is a matter which provides for compulsory debate.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Attendance.
LORD WINSTER: No; the words have been used "compulsory debate." I do not feel that what the noble Viscount has told us to-day will in any way remove the impression which the public and the Army have formed that there are political reasons behind this decision of the Secretary of State for War not to allow discussion of the Beveridge Report under the auspices of A.B.C.A.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the discussions to-day have shown that here, at any rate, in view of the admirable fare that is provided, it is not necessary to have either compulsory attendance or compulsory debate. I think your Lordships will also agree that the Government
712
have one of its most able advocates in the noble Viscount opposite, and that he has put before us with the utmost skill what most of us still consider a rather weak case. I must confess that in my own mind I have been very considerably relieved by what he has said, and I think that that relief will be shared by many people outside this House. Our anxiety is primarily that it should be possible for the Forces to discuss the most urgent and important issues of the day, and it is quite evident from what the noble Viscount said that, although for the time being this ban is still in force, when opportunity has been provided for a discussion in Parliament, and for full consideration of its contents, this pamphlet will be issued as a basis for the consideration of the problem by the troops. That was a very great relief to me. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having made it perfectly clear.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I confined myself to the answer given by my right honourable friend yesterday in the House of Commons. The noble Lord will be able to see that for himself. I do not want him to be under any misapprehension. I repeat my right honourable friend's words:
"I took the view that compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been, at any rate, a preliminary debate in the House of Commons on the subject."
I think the implication of that is fairly clear and I leave it to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No doubt, if the implication of what was said in another place is perfectly clear to the noble Viscount, it will be perfectly clear to us also and to the general public. I take it that I am not wrong in assuming that in the course of time the Army will be able under the auspices of A.B.C.A. to discuss the Beveridge Report. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer on this matter, but I should like to say that I think the very full and ample discussion to-day will have served a very useful purpose, from the point of view both of the general public and of the Forces, in view of the misconceptions that have been caused. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ADOPTION OF INFANTS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent disclosures regarding the traffic in adopted infants, they will consider putting into early operation such provisions of the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939, as are necessary to bring to an end the abuses which have row arisen.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the question whether it would be right to bring this Act into operation at an early date is still under consideration. Its operation was originally deferred by the Postponement of Enactments Act, 1939, as the outbreak of war imposed a large number of new duties on local authorities as well as on Government Departments, and it was not felt right to divert time and attention to the measures required for operating the protective pro-
714
visions of the Act. It has, however, been suggested that there are new circumstances calling for reconsideration of the decision taken by Parliament in 1939, and efforts have been made to obtain such information as is available. This information has, however, to be reviewed in the light of the present urgent need for economizing man-power, even if this means postponing certain activities which are desirable in themselves. The Government hope that it may be possible for them to announce their decision on the matter at an early date.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned.