THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYhad the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, when they are likely to be in a position to make a statement which will render it possible for the adjourned debate on the question of allowances granted for the children of officers who have lost their lives on Service, to be resumed; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think that the House has been very patient in waiting for this statement, because it was as long ago as May 24 that the debate on this subject was adjourned. If the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, can now make any statement, it would seem more convenient and satisfactory and would save time if I reserved any remarks I have to make until the House has been informed what concessions, if any, the Government have 92 decided to make. I beg to move for Papers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): My Lords, the question to which the noble Earl's Motion refers is one which, as your Lordships know, has been many times the subject of discussion within recent months, but I certainly would not wish to complain that he should raise it again; indeed, I think it is very proper that he should do so. On the last occasion on which this question was before your Lordships, the noble Earl put the case with great force for an increase in the provision which is made for the widows and children of officers who have been killed in the war, especially in respect of education allowances for the children, a matter with which a good deal of the debate was concerned.
The House will recall that the moving plea which was made by the noble Earl on that occasion received very considerable support in all quarters of the House. In my reply on behalf of the Government, while I expressed deep sympathy, which, indeed, I most sincerely feel, with the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, I explained to your Lordships the serious difficulties which were felt by His Majesty's Government about altering any of the basic provisions of the Royal Warrant. I indicated—and I would still emphasize this to your Lordships—that this cannot be regarded as a limited issue, to be dealt with purely in a watertight compartment, and I pointed out that any alteration in these basic allowances for the widows and children of officers would be likely to have the widest repercussions over the whole sphere of pensions. In view, however, of the strong feeling in your Lordships' House that something ought to be done to assist a section of the community which has suffered most cruelly by the war, I promised to take the matter back to my colleagues, to inform them of the strong views expressed by your Lordships, and to ask whether anything could possibly be done to meet those views.
Following that undertaking, it was agreed that the debate should be adjourned to enable these consultations to take place. In my view, the first and most essential step was that an opportunity should be provided for those noble Lords who had principally interested 93 themselves in this subject to express their views direct to the Ministers mainly concerned, and it ,vas therefore arranged that a deputation of these noble Lords, led by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, should be received by the Ministers to whom I have referred, so that that deputation could raise the points to which they attached most importance. I think that all the noble Lords who took part in that meeting will agree that an opportunity was given for the fullest discussion of this subject.
The main part of the discussion ranged round the education allowances to be given to the children of officers, and four main points were made, to which I should like to refer. Firstly, it was felt that the qualifying age limit for an education allowance, which is at present eight years, should be lowered to an earlier age. Secondly, it was felt that there should be a varying scale in the allowances, according to tae age of the child. Thirdly, it was suggested hat the present provisions were unduly restrictive, in that a father's advancement in the Services could not be recognized. Fourthly and lastly, the point was made that an allowance should not be refused altogether when the education which was proposed by the mother was not considered suitable, but that in cases of that in an appropriate lower rate of allowance should be granted. Those, I think it will he agreed, were the four main points that were made.
Following on the meeting to which I have referred there has been further examination of this subject by His Majesty's Government in the light of what was said both in your Lordships' House and at the meeting with the deputation; and in answer to the question which the noble Earl has just put to me, I am happy to say that I ant in a position to-day to announce results of the further consideration by His Majesty's Government of these points, which should, I hope and believe, very largely meet the views expressed in the House on the last occasion. I would, however, make it clear at the outset that what I am about to say does not apply only to officers; it applies to all ranks. The governing consideration throughout is this: we must take account in these education allowances of the education which the father, whatever rank he held, would have been likely to be able to give if he had not been killed. That is the essence of the matter.
94 I would now like to go into a little more detail on the points raised by the deputation and explain the decisions which have been reached by the Government on these points. The first point was this. It was proposed that the qualifying age limit for educational allowances, which is at present eight years, should be lowered. It was pointed out, I think by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, that education begins before the age of eight years, and he felt —and I think other noble Lords felt the same—that it constituted a hardship that the expense of the education during the earlier years should fall entirely upon the widow of the officer who had been killed. His Majesty's Government accept that view, and henceforward the position will be that grants can be made in suitable cases from the age of five upwards. The House, I am quite certain, will welcome this decision and I hope that they will agree that it will eliminate any possible cases of hardship such as the noble Earl himself had in mind on this particular point.
The second point that was made was that there should be a varying scale of allowances according to the age of the child. I understand from the inquiries I have made that, with respect to this particular point, there really is a genuine misunderstanding as to the present position. The existing method for awarding sums relating to fees and expenses within the maximum set for these allowances is in effect already a sliding scale. Generally, and very naturally, there are higher claims in respect of older children, and the age of the child can be and is taken into account in deciding whether the education asked for would be suitable. Obyiously, if the child is older the expenses of his education will be higher. We all know that is the case; we have all of us had experience of this ourselves. But this fact is already taken into consideration by the Minister of Pensions in arriving at his decision. I am very glad to have the opportunity of making that quite clear.
Now I come to the third point. The third point is that the existing provisions are unduly restrictive. It was suggested that the father's advancement in the Services cannot at present be recognized in deciding what education allowance should be given for his children. This point, too, I understand, also arises from a mis- 95 understanding of the basis on Which these grants are made. These grants are not directly connected with the rank which the father held in the Armed Forces; they are based, as I have said before, on the education which the child would have been likely to have received had his or her father survived. I think it is reasonable and right to argue that if the father had improved his position as the result of the war and if as the result of taking a Commission or for any other reason—but for the purposes of this argument as the result of taking a Commission—he had increased his income and was likely to be able to give his children a better education, this should, be recognized in the education allowance that is given by the State in the event of his death in action. We can all, I think, recall instances of distinguished services in war which have entirely altered the outlook of a family. But in fact it is already the practice of the Ministry of Pensions to take account of such considerations in assessing allowances. The allowances, the House will remember, are awardable at the absolute discretion of the Minister, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions assures me that he certainly would not withhold an appropriate grant if he had evidence that the father would have committed himself to a certain measure of expense had he lived.
That brings me to the last point made by the deputation. This is the point. It was argued that where application was made for a certain standard of allowance and where it was considered by the Ministry that the standard which was asked by the applicant was excessive the application should not be entirely turned down but that an appropriately lower level should be allotted to the applicant. Were it to be the existing practice that the Minister makes no grant at all where he considers the claim excessive, that I think would clearly be unfair. But fortunately I am in a position to reassure the noble Earl and the House on this point. The system is really not so rigid as has been supposed. The grant for these allowances is entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Pensions, and he can and does make whatever grant he considers appropriate in individual cases, taking into full account the circumstances of the father, both during the pre-war and the 96 war periods. He is not bound to give all or nothing. He can make whatever allocation he thinks proper in the light of the circumstances of the case.
There is one further point which, if I remember aright, was raised in the debate but I think was not actually raised by the deputation. Your Lordships will remember that under the Royal Warrant the education allowances are limited to a maximum of £50. It was urged by noble Lords in the debate the last time the subject was discussed that this ceiling was too low and that it would not bridge the gap between the straitened financial circumstances of the widow and the expenses of a school to which the father would have sent his child had he lived. The Government feel that there is considerable force in this contention and it has therefore been decided that the maximum grant shall be increased from 513 to £80. I feel certain that this decision also will be welcomed by your Lordships. The increase of this maximum allowance from 5o to go payable to the children of deceased officers and other ranks will of course help to meet increased expenses due to rising costs, but it should I think be recognized that the position will be greatly altered in consequence of the present Education Bill and the Government's education policy.
In the first place, as the House knows, tuition fees in all county and voluntary schools will be abolished. No parent will therefore be called on to pay for tuition at such school and power is given to the local education authorities under the Act to meet extra expenses for pupils at these schools. In addition, maintenance allowances will be payable, where the financial circumstances of the parents justify them, for pupils over the statutory school-leaving age—that is, of course, after the automatic payment of children's allowances has ceased. In the second place, there will undoubtedly be a development of boarding facilities at county and voluntary schools, and provision is made in the Bill for boarding fees to be graded according to the means of the parent. Finally, any action which is taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Fleming Committee, whose Report your Lordships will have read in the last few days, will undoubtedly make it easier for children to 97 have access to public schools in the widest sense of the term, including not only the great boarding schools but also some of the older grammar schools. No doubt these new conditions will have a bearing on future arrangements for education allowances.
The modifications that I have announced should in themselves be of material assistance in alleviating the hardships of those for whom the noble Earl made so powerful a plea two months ago. His Majesty's Government recognize as much as any noble Lord in this House the (ay we owe to those who have not hesitated to risk all and to give their lives for the liberties of this country. We are their debtors, and it would ill befit us not to do all in our power to see that the families of those who have given their all should not suffer through. Their sacrifice. That I know very well is the view of your Lordships, and that I can assure you is also the view of the Government. It is for that reason that I am particularly glad to be able to make this announcement this afternoon.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I have listened with very great interest to what has been said by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I shall not touch on the main question of his speech, which was the education allowances. I am more concerned with the pensions of the widows of officers who have been killed and the allowances to their children before they reach the sclis of age. A case has been brought to my notice in the last few days of a friend of nine. Her husband was a Regular officer. He had been ten years in the Army. He was a Captain with, for the last two years, temporary rank tits Major. He was in the Royal Armoured Corps and was killed the other day in Normandy. There is one child aged between two and two and a half and the mother is going to have another child in the course of the next few months. I am informed by her that her pension will be £140 a year and £36 for the child, and presumably the re will be another £36 for the child that is coining—making in all £212, less Income Tax. It looks to me as if her time before she begins to get allowances with regard to education, which I am de ighted to hear about, will be pretty thin.
There is more in this than merely stating a case We are asking now that people should nary and have children. 98 We have shown a great effort on behalf of the country, among all classes, during this war. I must say that the compensation that is given by the Government to those families who lose their mainstay in life is very meagre, and many families, who perhaps at the beginning of the war were fairly comfortably off, are now very badly off indeed and likely to continue so. I hope that this is not the last word of the Government with regard to the basis on which all pensions of the nature I have mentioned are to be allocated. I hope the Government will do more than is being done at present. In these days, when we are voting almost weekly millions upon millions of pounds to do various things, I should like to see this particular question put as priority No. I. I feel it is of the utmost importance in the future that the dependants of those who have gone forth to war on our behalf, and have lost their lives, should receive more generous treatment than they do at the present time. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of my noble friend.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I feel that the House will have heard with great satisfaction the concessions which have been made by His Majesty's Government as a result of your Lordships' interest in this matter. I wish to thank the Government on behalf of those who will benefit by what has been done, and I should like to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for his help and sympathy in the deliberations which have taken place. He told you of the deputation which visited Ministers on this subject. I agree that we had the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter, but it would be hypocrisy on my part to pretend that I am altogether satisfied. I regret, with Lord Teviot, that it has not been found possible to make some increase in the £36 maintenance allowance to each child. That that is not enough is really admitted by the fact that when a child has to be boarded out, having no mother, the allowance is £60, which is presumably the estimated cost of bringing the child up. Therefore, in an ordinary case, the widow has to find £24 out of her own small pension for the benefit of the child. I am not going on with that point, which was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Teviot.
I consider that the increase in the education allowance is generous and will 99 benefit a great Many, but there is one shortcoming. I am very much afraid that the Government are going to spoil a good ship by trying to save a ha porth of tar. Who is going to benefit by this increase in the education allowance depends too much on how the regulations are interpreted by those who administer them. I would remind your Lordships of the regulations which govern the grant of education allowances. These allowances may, at the discretion of the Minister, be granted to each child of eight years and over—now five years, I am happy to say —provided the pecuniary circumstances of the family require it, that the Minister is satisfied as to the type of education in view or received, and that the child would have been likely to have received an education of the same type had the father survived. The amount of the education allowance shall be determined by the Minister, and in any case will not exceed £50—now £80. I have said that this education allowance cannot be counted upon. Its granting or withholding depends entirely on the circumstances of the case.
It has been said, and it has been practically said this afternoon, that in practice it will be granted. But not a bit of it. I have in my possession copies of letters which have passed between a widow and the Ministry. The widow, on her son attaining the age of eight, sent him in all good faith to a small school and applied for an allowance. The answer was a blank refusal to give him anything. No reason was given. On my advice the widow wrote and asked what the reason was, and the answer was one that I will read to your Lordships. I will read it from a photographic copy I had taken of that letter which I intended to inflict upon your Lordships during the Recess but you will escape that now. The letters reads:
I am directed by the Minister of Pensions to refer to your letter of the 1st June in which you ask for the reason your application for an education allowance was refused. I am to inform you that under 'the provisions of the Royal Warrant an educational allowance cannot be awarded unless, among other conditions, the Minister is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of a family a child is prevented from receiving the education it would otherwise have received had the father not been killed in the present war.In view of the information furnished by you regar ling the pre-war and present income 100 of your family, which shows that your present income exceeds that of the pre-war income, the Minister is unable to regard the necessary conditions as fulfilled and it is regretted that it is not possible to authorize a grant in your case.If I may detain your Lordships I should like to go into the details of that case. My information comes from the widow, and I see no reason to question what she told me because it can be so easily verified. In the first place she has only received two letters. The first one gave a blank refusal of an allowance and the second one likewise gave a refusal and also the reason for it which I have read out. According to her own statement her husband was earning approximately £220 per annum in the General Post Office. Until June of this year her pension was £130 per annum. That has now been increased to £150. She receives £36 a year for each of two boys, so I am told her income altogether amounts to £222. I do not think there is any dispute that the income she now receives is £222, which is within a very few pounds of what her income was in pre-war times, even if we do suppose that she has slightly exaggerated. Her income was £200 a year before the war started. Is that difference of £20 really sufficient to justify denying her any help to educate her son? To most people it would appear that the smaller her income the 'more the need of financial assistance, particularly as she has a second boy approaching school age. The same argument can be advanced again by the Minister of Pensions in the case of that boy.This particularly bears out what I have said on three previous occasions, that it is upon the ranker officer, the man who has made his own way by the qualities he has shown himself to possess, that this sort of rule bears with the greatest hardship. If this rule is always applied obviously scores of young men whose start in their professions was delayed by the outbreak of war would not qualify. To me this seems grossly unfair. It ignores all that might have been, that the father had he lived might have earned better wages, or might by his war experience have got a better position, or if the war continued might have got further promotion. I am not arguing that an allowance should be paid regardless of how it is expended to all now that the upper limit has been extended, or that the whole of it 101 should necessarily be given. But I do ask that a substantial part of it should be given as a right, provided that the type of education is interpreted as meaning an ordinary British education of the sort teat the son of the dead man's brother officers might be expected to receive. In the particular case which I Mention the school to which this boy is sent, and which is considered too expensive for the son of an officer killed in the Service, is a small school on the outskirts of Lone on. It is an ordinary type of day school and the fees including extras come to about £14 a term. I have seen the prospectus of that school and the boy's school report for the first term which was quite satisfactory.
In the Sunday Times of last Sunday there appeared an article on the public schools and in it the writer advocated that every decoration earned in war should carry with it the right to send a son or daughter up for a bursary. That I suggest is entirely the right principle to apply in the case of a man, no matter what walk of life Le was in, who has shown enough intelligence and energy and other qualities to enable him to rise to commissioned rank. Surely it is worth while in the national interest to give the children of men who have proved their ability a chance to develop any of the same qualities which may be dormant in them. There is an advantage at present in the private schools of the type I have mentioned because there are more teachers in proportion to the number of boys than in larger schools, and that will continue to be the case for many years until we have recruited and trained the schoolmasters we hear so much about and built all those modern schools that are to be put up all over the country so that the classes can be reduced to sensible numbers. It is far better hr a little chap to go to a school where he gets individual attention. I suggest that such an advantage might well be allowed to those who have fallen in the service of their country after having proved their worth in the field. It is not too much to ask that the children of such men should be enabled to have these extra advantages.
I have expressed myself as feeling satisfaction at what has been said and I do not propose to press this matter at the present time. Presumably there will be an inquiry after the war, as there was in 102 1919, into this whole question, and I think I may have to return to this matter and ask for your Lordships' support again. I wish however to thank the Government for what they have done and, if I may presume to do so, to congratulate your Lordships on another case in which your interest has enabled people to get something which otherwise they would not have got. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to answer a point which the noble Earl has made because he has not given all the facts, and I should not wish your Lordships to be under any misapprehension. As the noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this particular case, I have obtained full details. He referred to the case of a lady who applied for an educational allowance of ,£49 in respect of her elder child—she had two children—and he said she had written a letter showing quite clearly that she had not received the whole sum for which she asked but that she is receiving nothing at all. He suggested that was an extremely unfair position. As I have indicated, I have taken pains to obtain the full details of this particular case. I think it will be clear when I have given your Lordships the figures that no real hardship was involved, and that the decision was taken in entire accordance with the basic principles of the education allowance.
The House will recall the nature of this education allowance. It is not a right; it is not like a maintenance allowance. It is granted in particular cases where it is needed in order to enable the child to receive the education he would have had had his father lived. If the income of the widow already ensures that he shall have the same education as he would have had if his father had lived there can be of course no grounds for an additional grant. In the particular case which was mentioned by the noble Earl, the father before the war, so I am informed, received an income of £148 a year. In 1939 he joined the Army. In 194o he received a Commission. At the time of his death he held the rank of Temporary Captain with the pensionable rank of Lieutenant. Were he alive to-day with all due increments and his war bonus he would be receiving £225 a year. The widow is now receiving a pension of £150 a year and 103 an allowance of £72 in respect of her two children. Therefore, her total income is £222, only £3 less than the income had the father lived. The income is far higher than that which the family were in receipt of before the war and almost, as I say, exactly equal to the income received before the father was killed. When the father was alive, the child was in fact going to the ordinary State school. That is, when the full income was coming in from Army pay. It was only after the death of the father that the child was transferred to a private school. I really do not think it can be maintained that in this particular case—although I have the utmost sympathy with the lady—a higher standard of education would have been available to the child if the father had not been killed. I thought it right to explain that because otherwise a wrong impression might be created.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMay I ask whether these wages in 1939, some months before the war, would be the same to-day?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI do not think it possible to say what they would have been. You cannot say that. All you can do in a particular case is to take the full pay which the man was receiving in the Army, which in this case was considerably more than that received in civil life. Upon that basis the widow is at present receiving exactly the same income. I do not think you can take any other basis.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.