Lords Sitting of 14 March 1944

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

  PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS OF THE POOR BILL. [H.L.]
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill. The reason for the necessity of dispensing with the Standing Order is that this Bill Was unexpectedly held up by the opposition of the Ministry of Agriculture. This delay was unavoidable as under our Standing Orders there is no provision for a deposit of such a Bill with them, and they only heard of it by chance through the Veterinary Surgeons' Institute, who were opposing the Bill.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill.—(Lord Stanmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  Bill read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in his name.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Addison over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  INVITATION TO CONGRESS
  LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to resolve, That this House, desiring to promote a closer association between the British Parliament and the Congress of the United States of America, requests the Lord Chancellor on its behalf to invite the Congress of the United States to send a delegation of its members to visit Parliament at as early a date as may be convenient.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the honour and privilege to move the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name. This is a proposal of great significance and one that we earnestly hope will prove to be of historical importance. The Congress of the United States and this Parliament are the world's greatest embodiments of free institutions.

  3
  They are the bastions of liberty. Now and then, as to-day, we are able on some special occasion to sense the vital part they play, and have played, in promoting human progress. The form of the institutions of government are not the same in the two countries, but Parliament and Congress alike are the directors of the instruments of freedom. A few days ago there was an interesting discussion in this House on the problems of small nations and racial minorities. I remember wondering as I listened to that discussion how it was that a reference was not made to the great lesson which may be learnt from the history of the United States. In that country there has been built up a great nation whose seeds come from all parts of the world. Every race in Europe besides our own has made its contribution. In come cases, I believe, the number of such people in the United States even equals the number of those remaining in their former parent countries. But to-day they are all united as members of a great American nation. They have developed and become consolidated by the influence of liberty, strong in their sense of its rights as well as its obligations. It is the fact that they are free that has made them united—the fact that in their hands is the shaping of their own destinies. The consolidating influence of these forces has proved to be greater than the separating influences derived from the differences of race or language.
  What a lesson it is for the world to learn. How important it is that the children of both nations should be well taught their histories and come to understand this vital lesson, because it is on this that the future stability of the foundation of peace depends. The German mind for some reason is unable to comprehend this thing at all. The only cement for people they can think of is compulsion or some form of subjugation. This war is one of its desolating results. There is nothing, I think, in human history more glorious than this proof of the power of personal liberty as it has been seen, and is seen, in the United States and in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Their Congress and our Parliaments are the expression of it. The Atlantic Charter, framed by the heads of the two States, is a noble statement of aims, but we know that the possibilities of their realization depend upon the willing association of the free nations that have
  4
  given adherence to it. Most of all the continued and concrete support of the United States of America and of the British Commonwealth of Nations is essential. Without that there can be no sure hope for the future. It is therefore of vital importance that we should make every effort to know one another better, to compare experiences and points of view, and thus help to foster that increasing solidarity that will lead more and more to unity of purpose and of action. To this end, my Lords, I pray you to extend this invitation.
  Moved to resolve, That this House, desiring to promote a closer association between the British Parliament and the Congress of the United States of America, requests the Lord Chancellor on its behalf to invite the Congress of the United States to send a delegation of its members to visit Parliament at as early a date as may be convenient.—(Lord Addison.)
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it is intended that this invitation should go from Parliament to Parliament and therefore in this House and in another place it is proper that the Motion should be proposed and seconded not by members of the Government but from the body of the House. It is because of that that I have the privilege, on behalf of my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe and of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, to support the Motion so admirably moved by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. I do so with the greatest pleasure because for years past I have been one of those who have preached in season and out of season that Anglo-American co-operation is really the keystone of the civilization of the world. During four visits to the United States, spaced out over a period of fifty years, I have enjoyed so much hospitality in America, so kind and so generous in its character—as very many of your Lordships must have done—that I am only afraid that we shall be hard put to it to match here the hospitality that is given in America. Perhaps we may be able to do so because our welcome will come from a very full heart. It will be the expression of the deep gratitude felt by this nation for the part that America has been playing and is playing in the great struggle which is now shaking the world.
  When, after the defeat of France and the disaster to our Armies in Belgium,

  5
  this island stood in the greatest of perils, it was America who gave us the help that was urgently necessary, in full measure and with the utmost speed. We remember, too, that when the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand stood in the greatest danger, it was America again—our own naval power not being able yet to render them assistance—that brought them safety. Now that the might of the great Republic is being developed in overwhelming strength, as we see all around us on every hand, it is that that gives us complete assurance of victory for us all. If, as we hope will be the case, Senators and Representatives should come from the United States, they will personify all their fellow-countrymen and we, on our part, members of the two Houses of Parliament, in greeting them in the name of our nation, will be clasping hands with the American people.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, although in Congress there are no Benches corresponding to that from which I am now speaking, I think it is only fitting that I should join in supporting this Resolution which has been put before us in such eloquent terms by the two noble Lords who have preceded me. We send this invitation for various reasons. We are glad to have the opportunity of showing in this way our gratitude for the really wonderful hospitality which the Americans have shown to so many of cur people, especially those in our Navies, during this war. We send this invitation because if it is accepted we believe that it will encourage that personal intercourse between representatives of the two nations which must make for better understanding and for the future peace of the world. But we send this invitation for yet another and deeper reason, for we, like the American people, believe in representative institutions, in government by the people for the people, and when our American visitors come here they will see, amidst all the stress of war, the representative Constitution still working. They will see the House of Commons, the old House of Commons, ruined and destroyed, but they will find that the House which worked within it continues its labours without an hour's interruption. And they will see that, notwithstanding the war, democratic government still continues in this country. We shall welcome them here, and we hope that we shall give them a most interesting time. They may be certain of the warmth
  6
  of the reception they will receive, and, speaking for the Church of England, I can say that I am certain we shall do our best to welcome them and to make their visit useful and happy here.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I feel it is right that every Party in your Lordships' House should acquiesce in this Motion. I entirely agree with and uphold every word that has been said by my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Samuel. Naturally, having come back from a visit to another country not very long ago, I do appreciate the enormous importance of personal contact with those who are in this war with us. I suppose there is nothing which brings people more together than fighting together and suffering together, and that is what that great nation, the United States, and ourselves are doing. I feel confident that this visit will enable us both to understand each other better, and to draw the reins of friendship tighter than they have ever been in past history. I most heartily support what has been said by my noble friends who have already spoken.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, this to my mind is an unique and historic occasion, and I should like, if I may, to associate myself with all that has been said, and especially with what has been said by the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York. The invitation proposed is not from the Government but from one people to another people, and thus it emanates from the High Court of Parliament in this country, and is addressed to the Congress of the United States of America. This is a symbolic act of deep and momentous significance. It sets the seal upon the friendship and singleness of purpose of the two English-speaking nations. What the Old Book says is true: "Where there is no vision the people perish." In this invitation we see a vision of creative unity of thought and action, but it this is to be enduring it must be inspired and energized by spiritual power. In common with members of all other branches of the Christian Church this invitation will, I am confident, be viewed with deep thankfulness and unfeigned delight by Free churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic, and let me remind your Lordships that there are some seven million Methodists in the United States and even more Baptists, as

  7
  well as numerous members of other Free Churches.
  Like so many members of your Lordships' House, I have travelled through the United States from coast to coast, and with that experience in mind I rejoice the more at this spontaneous expression of our kinship with and admiration for the American people. It so happens that in recent weeks a great crusade has been carried on in the United States by the American Methodist Church, the theme of which has been: "The Coming Peace and the Prince of Peace," and arrangements were made some time ago for next Sunday week, March 26, to be observed as a Day of Consecration to Jesus Christ as Personal and World Saviour, and the Methodist Church in this country has been invited in like manner to observe that day as one of intercession and dedication. I believe I see the hand of God in this overture to the American people, and most warmly, therefore, do I commend this invitation which is now before your Lordships' House. May it be the precursor of and a contribution to that peace which shall establish a World Order grounded in freedom, racial and economic justice and the brotherhood of man.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, may I also support this Resolution, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, to ask a delegation of Members of Congress to come over here. I cannot say more than that having also returned very recently from that great country, the United States, I can think of nothing more likely to bring about friendship between the two countries than that elected representatives of each should meet in their representative capacity over here. May their visit also have the effect of bringing and joining together still more closely, and of welding into closer relationship, the three Services. On those three Services now depend victory in this war and the peace of the world in the future. May they by this meeting cement the will to unity, and the will of the nations to work together to ensure the peace of the world.
  LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I should like in a few words warmly to welcome the Resolution which has been proposed in such felicitous terms by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, Leader of the
  8
  Opposition, feeling convinced, as I do, that it will be much appreciated in America and that the result of it can be nothing but good. In the strenuous years ahead we shall require the help of and close co-operation with America, and in my opinion the best way of securing these, with their abiding friendship, is by personal contact. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who so eloquently supported the Resolution, I have always felt that the Confederation of the English-speaking peoples is the greatest bulwark of safety for the world; and indeed I think I voiced that opinion in the first utterances I made to your Lordships in this House. To-day I feel more strongly than ever that that is the case. When visiting Canada and America last year with other members of the Empire Parliamentary Delegation, I had the great honour of meeting the delegation which came from Washington to Ottawa. We met them in informal conferences in the Houses of Parliament there and we also spent a very pleasant week-end together at the Seignory Country Club. There we opened our hearts to each other and discussed the problems which confronted each nation and the world generally. We found that their ideals and ours had very much in common; they were in fact identical. They gave us then a very definite assurance that they would be with us 100 per cent. in fighting Hitler and the Axis Powers until victory was achieved, and to the same extent in rebuilding the world of liberty and freedom on solid foundations which would last for all time. They were so transparently sincere in their assurances that not a doubt was left in our minds about their intentions.
  I hope to see these visits develop into a permanent application of the principle of Lend-Lease and the interchange between our two countries of ideas, ambitions and aims. In an Allied partnership such as this, which has to stand the test of time, the guiding principle must be "Each for all and all for each," with mutual trust as its inspiration and foundation. I feel, indeed, that it is a blessing that the two great leaders in America and in this country are such close personal friends and have such a comprehensive understanding of their duties and responsibilities. It is this happy combination which has brought us so far along the road to victory, and leads us to the fortunate position in which we now find

  9
  ourselves. With this in mind I welcome what is being done to-day and look forward keenly to the arrival of the American representatives, feeling that we shall be forging yet another link between America and ourselves and helping to establish a permanent partnership, working unitedly and unselfishly in the highest interests of humanity.
  LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I should like in one sentence to claim a privilege of a more personal kind. As an ordinary member of your Lordships' House who has had the honour of being received by the Senate of the United States, as they say, "on the floor of the House," and of opening its proceedings with prayer, I ask the privilege of being allowed in this one sentence to support most warmly the Resolution before the House.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, as a member of the Executive of the British-American. Parliamentary Committee I should like to add one word of appreciation to the tributes paid in another place to Major Braithwaite, the Member for Buckrose, for his part in preparing the way for this invitation, and a word of support for the Resolution which has been so admirably moved here to-day. I have two particular reasons for doing so. The first is that I spent a large part of my life in the United States, and learned early to realize that, as Lord Addison said, Anglo-American co-operation in every sphere alone provides hope for the future. The second reason is that in May, 1941, I had the honour to be on the floor of Congress when the historic warning was given to both Houses by the President of the United States which so largely influenced the future course of events. I enjoyed the privilege traditionally extended to members of this House. For both those reasons I welcome this invitation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, in the enforced absence of the Leader of the House, before I put this Resolution to the vote I should like to be permitted to add a few words. It is evident from the speeches which have been made and from the way in which they have been received that this proposal meets in this House with universal approval. Some two hours and a
  10
  half ago, in the House of Commons, a Motion in similar terms, moved from the Back Benches but supported by the Leader of the House, was unanimously adopted, and in a very short time, Mr. Speaker and I will be authorized to transmit, as we shall very willingly do, the invitation which Parliament as a whole desires to send to the great Congress of the United States.
  I should like to make this single observation before I put the question. In the course of this war and throughout this war the United States and ourselves have been strenuously co-operating at many levels. We have co-operated, for example, at the level of high statesmanship, producing the Atlantic Charter, to which Lord Addison referred just now, and many other declarations and decisions of stupendous importance. On the level of high statesmanship, therefore, we have been actively co-operating. Again, we have been co-operating at the level of the higher conduct of the war. Decision after decision has been reached, many of them yet to be revealed in history but all contributing to the common purpose of securing victory, on which we are resolved. We have also had co-operation on the level of supply, of a mutual lend and lease, which has meant so much in the carrying on of the war. Most of all, perhaps, we have had co-operation at the level of the comradeship of fighting men on land, on sea and in the air.
  These Resolutions to-day have indeed, as more than one of your Lordships have observed, a very deep significance, because we are seeking to promote cooperation at yet another level, at what I may call the Parliamentary level of the two nations. It is right to describe, as I think was done by Lord Addison, these two institutions—the British Parliament and the American Congress, and indeed the American Constitution as a whole—as the two greatest constructions of the thought of man which have secured democratic advance in this world. There is not one of us at this moment who does not feel from his heart that this Anglo-American co-operation is not only the basis upon which we may confidently hope for ultimate victory, but is the foundation upon which alone can be built the happiness of a future peaceful world.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.

  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time. In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Snell it falls to my lot to pilot the Bill on this stage and on subsequent stages through your Lordships' House. Let me say at once that, although the measure may appear a little complicated and only of a temporary character, it is nevertheless a Bill with which I think your Lordships can wholeheartedly concur. The Bill has not been drafted in any hasty manner, nor have the Government forced their views upon unwilling employers. On the contrary, consultations with both sides of industry have shown that full co-operation for a scheme based on the lines of this Bill can be assured, and that we can further rely upon the good will of employers to reinstate into their former occupations, whenever it is possible, men and women who have volunteered for Service or who have been compulsorily directed into the Armed Forces of the Crown.
  There must be a large number of members of this House who, in one way or another, were in the past large employers of labour, and who would quite naturally wish to make their contribution, in so far as is reasonable and practicable, to the reinstatement in pre-war employment of Service personnel. But it would be erroneous to suppose that the scheme which is embodied in this Bill is intended as a contribution to the maintenance of the general level of employment in any post-war period. It does not touch the more fundamental issues of any future economic policy. That, of course, will be dealt with by other measures to be laid before the House in the future. The Bill, therefore, has a limited objective, but it is none the less one of great importance to all men and women serving in the Armed Forces, who have, I believe, confidently expected that Parliament would make some provision to ensure their reinstatement into their former civil occupations.
  Some noble Lords may remember that the Military Training Act of 1939 contained a safeguarding clause to the effect that
  12
  men called up compulsorily for a short period of military training should be reinstated into their former occupations at the completion of their six months' service with the colours. A similar provision was made in the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, but so far no provision has been made anywhere for volunteers, and there can be no desire on the part of any of us to discriminate in any way whatever between compulsory and voluntary service. Indeed, I have been told that to-day one-fifth of the men in the Forces have given their service voluntarily, and the proportion in the women's Services is a great deal higher still. No one would wish that volunteers should have any lesser rights as regards reinstatement than others who have been compulsorily recruited into the Service, and who already have those rights under the existing law. We therefore regard it as our bounden duty to extend these similar rights to volunteers, and provision is made to that end in this Bill.
  Let me now endeavour to interpret very briefly the more important clauses of the Bill and explain to your Lordships the procedure which demobilized persons should follow in order to obtain reinstatement into their former civil occupations. Under the Bill the obligation placed upon all employers is twofold. First, there is an obligation to reinstate; and secondly, an obligation to continue to employ the person reinstated for a minimum period. Clause 1 of the Bill deals solely with the former obligation and re-enacts the existing rights to reinstatement which are now contained in the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. Clause 2 is of real importance, for everyone who makes an application for reinstatement must be clear as to the mode and procedure which should be followed. Persons leaving the Armed Forces should make up their minds promptly whether they desire to be reinstated or not. If they should desire to return to their former occupations, then under the terms of Clause 15 of the Bill they must make a written application either direct to their former employer or through the local offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service on or before the fifth Monday after their war service ends. My right honourable friend proposes to have issued to every man and woman on release from the Forces a form on which to apply for reinstatement, and

  13
  an explanatory leaflet drawn up in the most simple terms will also be provided. There is no obligation upon the applicant to return to work forthwith, but he would be expected to be prepared to start work after a few weeks of well-earned rest. It will be seen that unless he renews his application it lapses after a period of thirteen weeks.
  Clause 4 of the Bill gives reality to the reinstatement problem, and it places an obligation and a duty upon all employers to employ the disabled man, as far as is reasonable and practicable, for the following twenty-six weeks, or, in certain cases which are laid down in the Bill, for a period of fifty-two weeks. Your Lordships will probably have observed that under Clause 1 there is specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) the kind of employment which the employer is required to provide. Under the first of these two paragraphs the employer must keep a man in the job in which, and on terms and conditions on which, he reinstated him, or at any rate in a job with terms and conditions not less favourable. If, however, it ceases to be reasonable and practicable for the employer to do this, then his duty, as is laid down in the second paragraph, is to employ the man in the most favourable occupation and on the most favourable terms and conditions which are for the time being reasonable and practicable in his case. Clause 5, as its title denotes, deals with the priority of claims to employment. I do not wish to draw the attention of the House to the many different cases which are bound to arise, but the most usual one which has been so far cited is that where a number of persons have in turn joined the Forces after occupying the same job, and this clause lays down a definite order of priority to reinstatement.
  My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has given most careful consideration to the best procedure to be followed in the event of any disputes arising between the employer and the applicant. Under the existing law the only way of settling disputes is by the institution of criminal proceedings. We propose to repeal this method and set up in its place, under Clause 8, Reinstatement Committees which will be composed of a chairman, a person to represent employers, and a person to represent employees. In certain circumstances—I need
  14
  not dwell on this at this stage—appeals can be made under Clause 10 to an umpire whose decision shall be final. The only other clause to which I need draw the attention of the House is Clause 15. There will undoubtedly be many cases where an employer, and probably an employee as well, will wish to dispense with the formality of a written application. This clause enables an employer to waive certain formalities, but at the same time—a very important point—it protects the rights of the applicant under the other clauses to which I have just referred. I do not think I need weary the House with any of the other miscellaneous or general clauses of the Bill, and I confidently present it to your Lordships for Second Reading. Perhaps I might add this, that subject—and only subject—to the agreement of the House, I shall with your Lordships' permission put the Committee stage down for the third sitting day this week. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill used to be in the old days what was called a hardy annual, but the war has rather interrupted its course, and the last time a Bill of this kind was introduced was in 1941. This present Bill provides for an amount of £15,000,000 which will last probably about eighteen months or two years. Your Lordships will see that the Bill is in the usual form. It proposes to write off, under Clause 2, the principal of various loans to the amount of nearly £10,000, and in accordance with the procedure indicated this sum will require to be made good to the Local Loans Fund by Vote. Those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in this Bill in the past—I do not know whether there are any—will have seen year after year an item referring to the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees. I regret to inform your Lordships that this is the last appearance of that old friend because the principal, amounting to £457, is extinguished and the arrears of interest are remitted by

  15
  Clause 3 of the Bill, so that we shall see it no more. There is one novel feature of the Bill, and that is Clause 4, which empowers the Commissioners to appoint one of their assistant secretaries to perform any or all the duties of the secretary, if he happens to be ill. The reason for the insertion of this provision is that the late secretary had a somewhat long and serious illness. He was so bad that papers and documents had to be taken down to his house in the country to be signed, which really was not conducive to the dispatch of public business and caused a great deal of delay. That is the reason for the insertion of the provision. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships any further, but I shall be happy to answer any questions any noble Lord may wish to ask. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ALLOWANCES FOR OFFICERS' CHILDREN.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps, if any, it is proposed to take in view of the Resolution adopted by the House of Lords on 8th December, that "in the opinion of this House the rate of allowances for children of officers killed on service is too low, and should be raised"; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I make any remarks on this Motion I should like to offer my apologies to your Lordships for not having been in my place a week ago to-day when the Motion was down to be moved. My absence was due to private reasons, and I had no possible chance of being here. I feel sure your Lordships will acquit me of any intention to be discourteous to the House, and if any individual came down to support or oppose my Motion that day I hope he will accept my apologies. The subject of this Motion—the allowances granted to widows and children of officers who have died or been killed on service—has been before your Lordships' House on two previous occasions. I do not apologize for bringing it before your Lordships again,
  16
  but I ask the indulgence of the House if in the remarks which I make there is a considerable amount of repetition. On June 30 last I introduced a Motion calling attention to the low pensions and allowances granted to the widows and children of officers killed on service. The instances I gave referred entirely to naval officers, but I took care to point out that my remarks were meant to apply to all the officers of all three Services, because equivalent ranks receive the same pensions. It was my endeavour to argue that what was really required was a considerable increase in the basic rate of the pensions and allowances given to the widows and the children, and that no tinkering about with the rise and fall of the cost of living would meet the case. The reply given by the Government on that occasion was that matters affecting war pensions and allowances were at that moment under review and that the Minister of Pensions hoped to make a statement on this subject in the following month—in July. There was nothing for it, therefore, but to withdraw my Motion, but as I did so I said that if the increases were not adequate I should ask your Lordships' help again on behalf of the widows and children of those who had fallen in the national cause.
  The result of that review of pensions was issued in a White Paper in July, 1943. It had been awaited, I have no doubt, with high hopes by many widows striving to bring up their families on inadequate means, but, if so, their disappointment must have been very great, for the result of that review was that widows' pensions were raised by 5s. 3d. a week and children's allowances by 2d. a day. Not considering that these adjustments were in every way adequate, I put down a Motion which was in perfectly straightforward terms—"that in the opinion of this House the rate of allowances for children of officers killed on service is too low, and should be raised." That was perfectly definite. Your Lordships' attitude on that occasion left no doubt as to your views on the subject, and the Motion was accepted without a Division. No expression of opinion could have been more pronounced. Three months have now elapsed, but so far as I know no notice of any sort has been taken of your Lordships' considered opinion on this important subject. There are others far better qualified to defend

  17
  the dignity of the House than I am and I shall say no more on that subject, but I know very well what I think.
  As many of your Lordships may not have been present on the occasion when these matters were discussed before, I will very briefly give an indication of what these allowances and pensions amount to at the present time—that is after the rise of last July. I must refer continually to widows' pensions although they are not mentioned in my Motion. The widows' pension and the children's allowances are so closely associated that they cannot be discussed apart. I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time or weary the House with a long list of figures. I am going to confine my instances to two ranks. The first will be that of Captain in the Royal Navy, whose opposite numbers are full Colonel in the Army and Group Captain in the Royal Air Force. These are men of mature age, with years of experience and service behind them, who have to bear great responsibilities and have every prospect of advancement in their own Service should they survive the war. Their children would probably he of school age—that is over eight years. If one of these officers dies on service his wife receives £230 a year pension and £36 for each child. To assist in the education of a child over eight years a further allowance fixed at a maximum of £50 is procurable. Therefore if there are three children and they get the maximum possible the widow will get £488 a year, less Income Tax on her pension. That does not seem much when you know that there are unmarried girls in factories earning much more at the present time.
  Now I will take the next case, the junior officers, Lieutenants in the Navy, Captains in the Army and Flight Lieutenants in the R.A.F. We know what they are doing. We know of the gallant young men that we hear flying about over our heads night and day, of the Lieutenants in command of our destroyers and submarines. The captain of the "Stubborn" is a Lieutenant. Your Lordships know better than I do what has been done by Captains in the Army, who are now dying in scores every week. Their children are, particularly if they are the families of Regular officers, probably under eight years of age. Their widows receive a pension of £150 per annum and
  18
  each child gets £36. If there are two children then the widow gets £222 in all. My Lords, boys are getting more than that in wages at the present time. A young widow of this sort cannot do much to supplement her pension because the care of two children of tender age will occupy most of her time. Those two children by their very existence are a bar, or at all events a prejudice, to her chances of remarriage. It certainly is not worth while for a young couple to have children at the present time. It is not only not worth while, but it is unwise and improvident of them to do so. These young officers are among the finest stock we possess from which to propagate our race. Can we afford to disregard that aspect at the present time?
  Twenty-five years ago we lost the flower of one generation, and at the present time at a rapid rate we are losing that of the succeeding generation. Surely we ought at the present time to be doing everything in our power to develop our children, morally, mentally and physically to the highest degree, for a lot lies ahead of them in the years to come. What I am asking for now is not in any way extravagant. If the nation really cannot afford to increase widows' pensions it can at least make it possible for widows to bring up their children in the way which their dead fathers had intended and for which they had worked. A child's subsistence allowance lasts for eighteen years and its school allowance for ten years, so that at the end of twenty years the whole charge would disappear. And not every officer that is killed is married, and not every widow has children, so that the charge is not a very great one, and it is a very economical way of helping the widows to get through the most difficult years of their widowhood during which they have to provide for their children's education. If we do that generously we shall at least have done something towards paying off the debt that we owe their husbands who have lost their lives in our defence. It is upon the poor men that meagre allowances fall most heavily, upon those who have no private means with which to supplement their pay. There are great numbers who have nothing to look to besides their pay. No doubt the desire to do well for their children has been one of the chief incentives which enabled them to carry on. Surely we

  19
  can and should enable their widows to carry on their struggle and give the children the education their fathers had hoped to provide.
  The principle has been acknowledged, for it is laid down that the Minister before authorizing the payment of an education allowance must satisfy himself that the education proposed is of the same type as the child would have had had the father survived. With the total allowance for a child fixed at £86 a year that is impossible. If your Lordships would consult Whitaker's Almanac you will find a list of 200 schools, the headmasters of which attend the Headmasters' Conference. In only four of those schools can a boy be taken as a boarder for less than £70 a year. No doubt some of these schools have special arrangements for the sons of fallen officers. I reckon that 90 per cent. of the officers killed have always hoped to send their children to boarding schools. They believe education ought to go on all through the day and not during school hours only, and for that reason they like to send their children to a boarding school. No doubt some of these schools have arrangements for helping the children of fallen officers, but that is a charitable act on the part of the school authorities. Why should these children have to look to charity? They belong to the nation and it is the nation's duty to see they do not want.
  Perhaps the Government are withholding the allowances because of the great schemes they have in view to help education, but these schemes, however good they may be, are not now in working order and it will be some time before they can be made available. There will be time enough to consider forcing pensioners to come in under those schemes and enjoy their benefits when the time comes that they are in working order. Meanwhile, the health and education of these children have to be looked after by means of the system which now exists. In the interval the children have to be fed and clothed as well as educated. My Lords, I beg you to support me in asking the Government to deal generously in this matter. I very much hope when the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government makes his statement it will be to assure you that in view of the almost unanimous opinion expressed in this House three months ago the matter has
  20
  been reconsidered. I hope he will go further and say this time that increases are about to be made which this time it will be possible to calculate in pounds and not in pence. I beg to move.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I did not happen to be present on the previous occasion when my noble friend brought this question before your Lordships' House and I wish now most earnestly and sincerely to support the Motion that is before us. All of us who think about these things, and particularly those of us who have served as soldiers, realize the tragedies that have occurred in the lives of some officers not only in the last war but in this one. We know how the whole life of an officer can be wrecked by war. We have seen him go off to fight for his country, leaving those near and dear to him behind. This is not a matter that will wait. I have no doubt that all those in this House know of instances where assistance is required now, and instances where there is definite poverty. It may be asked why this Motion does not embrace the men, too, but ipso facto if anything is done for the officers of course the men also will profit in a like way. I feel that in view of what is going on in our country in regard to analogous matters of this sort we ought to respond to this Motion. In fact I do not see how we dare not to do so. It is a worthy one and one which must touch us all. I fail to see why there should be any laxity in coming to a decision on this matter. After all, as my noble friend has said, it is not an enormous sum that is involved and it is not a permanent sum. Surely in these days, when so much is being expended on people who are not risking their lives, it is time that we in this House should register the strongest possible opinion that something should be done in the direction which my noble friend has suggested. As I have said, there is no question that some of these families are in dire poverty at the moment. I feel that I should give wholehearted support to my noble friend in his Motion.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I would like to make one brief point on this matter in support of the Motion. In past days it was always assumed when a man became an officer that he had certain funds of his own, and was in fact a man of substance. In those circumstances the pension that was given to his

  21
  widow was a good and proper gesture by the Government, but it was, not so essential to the officer's family as it is nowadays when officers may, and very frequently do, come from families which have no substance of their own for the youngsters to live on if the father is killed. Therefore I feel that an increase should be made now when it is no longer the case that officers come from moneyed families.
  THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House is unfortunately unable to be in his place for the next few days, he has asked me to reply to the Motion which the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, has moved. I think I should inform your Lordships that immediately after the noble Earl last moved on this subject, my noble friend took the matter up with his colleagues to see what could be done to deal with the points that the noble and gallant Earl impressed on the attention of the House. I had a conversation with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, again this morning on the subject. It is quite clear that the problem is not one that can be dealt with in the simple form in which the noble and gallant Earl presented it to us. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, indicated a moment ago, the question of pensions is one which affects all ranks in the Services, and it would quite obviously be impossible to deal with the question of allowances for officers' children in isolation and without regard to the allowances for other ranks in these days when other ranks often come from precisely the same class as officers came from in the past and are equally anxious to send their children to public schools.
  As your Lordships are aware, the Government, following representations in another place, have announced their intention of undertaking discussions on the pay and allowances of members of the Forces. Whilst the allowances, which your Lordships have under consideration to-day, are not directly covered by the discussions to which I have referred, and whilst I am certainly in no position to undertake any commitment whatever on behalf of His Majesty's Government, it would I am sure be wrong for me to make a final reply to the Motion before your Lordships when these conversations are still in progress. I think your Lordships
  22
  will understand that the statement of Government policy on an issue of this nature should be made in both Houses at the same time. I will undertake, on behalf of my noble friend, that this shall be done, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, and I can assure the noble and gallant Earl that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has already adequately represented to Ministers concerned, his feelings and the feelings of those who support him.
  I would add, if I may, that I realize how widespread is the support of the views of the noble and gallant Earl in this matter, but I trust the House will be good enough to defer any further consideration of the subject until these conversations have ended. The delay for which I am asking is not a long one. I dislike asking your Lordships to defer this matter, but in view of the whole of the Parliamentary position I hope that in the circumstances you will be good enough to do as I ask.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I be allowed to make a suggestion? If these conversations are going on with members of another place, although they do not specifically cover the subject raised by the noble and gallant Earl on this and previous occasions, why should not the noble and gallant Earl and others who have taken particular interest in this matter be included in these conversations? The noble Lord who is so admirably leading your Lordships' House in the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that any announcement should be made simultaneously in both Houses. But apparently there is to be no simultaneous consultation of both Houses. I throw out the suggestion hoping that it may commend itself to the Government and to your Lordships.
  LORD JESSEL: My Lords, may I ask what is the position now in regard to this Motion? What is the effect of the proposal made by the noble Lord who is representing the Leader of the House? Shall we be called upon to negative this Motion, or shall we be asked to agree that it be adjourned? I should like an answer to that question because if we are to take any action we should be clear how the matter stands. I do not often agree with my noble friend opposite, Lord Strabolgi, but I do agree that the noble and gallant Earl, who has taken infinite trouble over this matter, and has so frequently championed

  23
  the cause of the sailors, soldiers and airmen, should be asked to take part in the consultations which are now going on. I hope that an expression of that view from both sides of your Lordships' House may lead to such a course being adopted. My immediate reason for rising was to ask what is meant by the noble Lord's statement, because it is not quite clear whether we are to accept this Motion or defer it.
  LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, if I may be allowed to intervene, I am sorry if I did not make my meaning clear. All I am asking is that the noble and gallant Earl should be good enough to defer his Motion for a short time.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: To adjourn it?
  LORD WOOLTON: To adjourn it. I perhaps may be allowed to add that I have myself represented to the people who are considering this matter the sense of the noble and gallant Earl's speeches on previous occasions which I spent Sunday in re-reading with great interest. I will certainly talk to the Leader in another place who is at present engaged in these conversations and see whether the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made can be accepted.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before the noble and gallant Earl replies, I think we ought to have it made quite clear what really is the position with regard to this question of pensions. So far as pay and allowances are concerned, the issue was raised in another place in the general discussion on the Estimates. The Government then agreed to inquire into the question of the pay and allowances of serving members of the Forces. About the same time a Bill came before another place which referred specifically to pensions, pensions of civil servants. Pensions of officers were also to be dealt with in connexion with it, but, nevertheless, it was a Bill entirely connected with pensions. The noble Lord has suggested that this question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, which is a question entirely connected with pensions and not with pay and allowances, is to be considered in the course of consultations on pay and allowances. Well, I would like to know before we dismiss the subject to-day whether that will be in order, and whether, when those consultations take place, it may not be said: "This is a question of pensions and
  24
  not of pay and allowances, and it ought more properly to be considered in connexion with the Pensions Bill." Two or three weeks ago I raised in your Lordships' House the issue of officers' pensions. Surely this is a matter connected with officers' pensions, widows' pensions and the pensions payable for children. Therefore I venture to ask the noble Lord who is replying for the Government, before we come to a conclusion on this matter, that he will make it quite clear that the issue will be committed to this pay and allowances discussion and that it will not be thrust aside as being alien to it.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Cork, replies, I would, like to appeal to the noble Lord who is replying for the Government to take note of what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. The noble Lord said that pensions for the children of officers and pensions for the children of other ranks were related; they are, but I should like to ask him to bear in mind Lord St. Davids' point that when pensions for children originally started a great number of officers had some private means. Not one officer in a thousand has any private means to-day. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance—in case your Lordships' House is not consulted in this before the Government decide—that that point will be brought out and given attention to by the Government.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government if I correctly understood his reply to Lord Strabolgi to be to the effect that the Government consider it would not be possible, in the event of any discussions taking place in which members of the Government and members of the other House were concerned, to include members of this House in those discussions.
  LORD WOOLTON: I did not say so.
  LORD BARNBY: I raised this because, if it were as I thought, I wanted to support the point made by Lord Strabolgi. It will be within the memory of your Lordships that a very definite expression of the opinion of this House was recorded in support of the plea put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, on a previous occasion. There ought, I think, to be no misunderstanding, or any feeling that when the subject was previously discussed

  25
  here an inconclusive attitude existed. As a matter of fact the view of your Lordships was made very plain and an unmistakable expression of it was given. If it is possible for representatives of this House to be included in the forthcoming discussions, is there not the clearest reason why the noble Earl, Lord Cork, who, as Lord Jessel said, has devoted so much time to this matter, should be one of those chosen? The noble Lord really has had the support of the House given to him unmistakably in this matter. The point which has been raised by Viscount Elibank gives an additional reason why we should have some clarification from the Government spokesman in this connexion. I appeal to the noble Lord who is replying for the Government to make it clear in representations which he may put before the Government that the Earl of Cork has already had the support of this House.
  LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I think that what most of us here want is an assurance from Lord Woolton, who is replying for the Government to-day, that two things should take place. First, we should like an assurance that there will be a widening of the scope of the informal inquiries which we understand are proposed in another place. That is to say that they should be enlarged so as to in-chide the specific point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, about the children of officers killed on active service. It is a very hard case, the particular case in which he is interested, and we all think that it requires to be dealt with. An assurance, that that would be included in whatever consultations take place in conformity with the promise given in the House of Commons would go far to satisfy many of us. The other point which, I think, appeals to all of us here, is that if members of the other House are engaged in consultations on the wide question of pensions as affecting all classes and ranks, would it not be a good plan that members of this House who have taken a special interest in it—notably Lord Cork himself, if I may say so, for he is a man who has done perhaps more than any other to help in this matter—should join in these consultations in some way? If these two points were conceded, if we could be told that they are considered reasonable by the Government, I, for one, and I think most of us here as well,
  26
  would be entirely satisfied, provided, of course, it is made plain that there is not going to be too long a delay. I think we all feel somewhat uneasy about these matters, and I hope it may be possible for the noble Lord to meet us on both points.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, it was to ask for that assurance that I rose from my seat while my noble friend was speaking and was suppressed by semaphore from the Front Bench. That was the assurance that I wanted to get—that the noble Lord would undertake to see that this matter would be discussed in the course of these representations which are now being made to the Government and that a statement would be made in this House. I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and I feel sure that everybody here will be glad that the matter is being discussed again. I do not understand that it is being discussed because of the unanimous—or almost unanimous—expression of opinion in this House, but rather because of the somewhat rough handling the Government received in another place. How much better for the prestige of the Government it would have been if they had taken a friendly warning given by those who are their friends in this House. We have at sea a signal which we make to any ship which appears to be steering into trouble: "You are standing in to danger." The captain of a ship who receives that signal, if he is wise, makes haste to verify his position. The Government ignored that signal, and are very nearly on the rocks in consequence. I have, all along, fully recognized that if the wives and the children of the officers were to have pension allowances increased, it would follow that the wives and children of other ranks and ratings would have theirs increased, and that was what I hoped would be the result. I felt quite sure that if the officers obtained this the men would do so too, but I was not so sure that if the men obtained it the officers would do so. That is why I referred particularly to the children of officers.
  Now that the whole range of allowances is to be reviewed, we must hope that the fighting man will obtain some sort of recompense for the dangers which he runs. I do not believe that the men do care so much about themselves, even if the basic pay cannot be raised, but they care very much about the conditions in which their

  27
  families have to live now, and in which they will have to live in the future. The position is accentuated where those families lived in a community where almost everybody is engaged in the same trade. Your Lordships will recall that in the Bury St. Edmunds by-election two Ministers took the trouble to go down to speak on behalf of the Government candidate, and they said that the Government were going to look after the widows. Let the Government start to do so now, with the widows of the men who have given their lives in the national cause. In view of what the noble Lord has said from the Front Bench, I feel that I cannot ask the House to divide, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw my Motion; but I shall bring the matter up again if we do not obtain satisfaction as a result of this debate.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.
  House adjourned.