Lords Sitting of 18 October 1944

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  BUINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I give the House this afternoon such information as is available at this stage regarding an urgent and important measure, the Town and Country Planning Bill, which is at present in progress in another place. From such inquiries as I have made, I gather that there is a distinct possibility that all stages will be completed there by the time that House rises on Friday next. I do net, however, propose that we should summon your Lordships to meet formally on Frio: ay, in order to give the Bill a First Reading, if it should have bean received that day, because the prospects are altogether too indefinite. I am arranging, therefore, if your Lordships agree to this course, that the Bill should be read a first time at a formal sitting en Monday next, either before or after the judicial sitting that day. Arrangements will be made that there shall be no loss of time, and that the Bill shall be in your Lordships hinds on Monday. I propose that the Sec and Reading should take place on Tuesday next, October 24th, and that we should, if necessary, extend the debate to the fallowing day, when we would take it as first Order. I shall be sorry if it be found necessary to take the time of the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Huntingdon, who have already Notices of Motion on the Paper for Wednesday, but I am sure that they will agree that, in the circumstances, I really have no alternative. This particular Bill is very urgent, and there has already been so much delay in its reaching the Statute Book.
  In the event of our concluding the Second Reading stage next week, I propose to take the Committee stage on Tuesday, 31st October, and Wednesday,
  594
  1st November, if a second day be needed. It will I think be for the general 1944. convenience if I put a Motion on the Paper giving precedence to proceedings on this Bill over all other Notices and Orders, unless the House specially provides otherwise. If the Committee stage is concluded on the 1st November, we shall hope to take Report on Monday, November 6, and Third Reading on the following day, when we shall hope to send the Bill back to another place for the consideration of such Amendments as it may have pleased your Lordships to make in it. I should like to put that provisional programme to the House.
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I would say that I consider the provisional programme which the noble Viscount has suggested is as good as he could have put forward at this stage.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the programme proposed is excellent. As far as the Second Reading is concerned, I do not know whether it will be found necessary to have a two days' debate, but I can promise the noble Viscount that we on these Benches will take up very little time on the Second Reading.

THE RHODESIAS AND NYASALAND.
2.6 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government can make any statement as to the future relations between Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have recently had under further consideration the question of the relations between Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland. In considering this question, they have fully taken into account the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1938–39, and they have also taken the opportunity to discuss the present situation in the throe Territories with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland during their recent visits to this country. It is recognized that there should be the closest possible co-ordination of the policy and action of the

595
Governments of the three Territories in all matters of common interest, and it has been agreed with them that concrete and positive steps should be taken to ensure that this co-ordination is effective and comprehensive. With this end in view, it is proposed that a Standing Central African Council covering the three Territories should be established on a permanent basis and that a permanent Inter-Territorial Secretariat should be set up. The Council will be consultative in character and its general function will be to promote the closest contact and co-operation between the three Governments and their administrative and technical services. Its precise functions and constitution will be matters for consultation between the three Governments, hut it is contemplated that it should deal with communications, economic relations, industrial development, research, labour, education, agricultural, veterinary and medical matters, currency and such other matters as may be agreed between the three Governments.
It is contemplated also that permanent standing committees of the Council should be set up to deal with communications. industrial development, research and such other matters as may be agreed upon, and that in addition ad hoc conferences should be held under the ægis of the Council to deal with technical and special subjects. It is intended that the leading unofficials in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should be closely associated with the work of the Council and its committees. His Majesty's Government realize that the Southern Rhodesia Government still adhere to their view that the three Territories should be amalgamated. While, however, His Majesty's Government have, after careful consideration, come to the conclusion that the amalgamation of the Territories under existing circumstances cannot be regarded as practicable, they are confident that the present scheme will make an important contribution, by ensuring a closer contact and co-operation to the future prosperity of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for this important and comprehensive statement. And might I ask him, first, whether this will require legislation; secondly, whether the term "labour" in regard to the matters with which the Council will deal
596
will include native policy; and, thirdly, what will be the position of the unofficial members referred to in the concluding part of the statement?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: With regard to the first question the noble Lord has asked, as far as I know it will not require legislation. With regard to the second, which was a question about native policy, as I have said this African Council will be merely consultative, it will not impose upon the three Governments any form of administration. With regard to the third question, the unofficial members will be in exactly the same position as all other members of the African Government. They are there to represent unofficial opinion generally.
LORD AMMON: May I ask the noble Viscount if there will be any opportunity, either in this House or in another place, to discuss the policy he has just announced and will information be given as to the personnel of the Council?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I see no reason why there should not be a discussion upon it. It is, as your Lordships know, a question about which there has been a certain amount of feeling on both sides, and I do not know whether very much discussion would improve that situation. I think the statement I have made is absolutely clear and it will be for the noble Lord to consider that for himself. With regard to the official personnel, I might let the noble Lord know about that later.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whether in future these changes in Constitutions should not be placed before Parliament for consultation, as in the past? This West African change in Constitution has apparently been granted in principle and arranged without any consultation with Parliament at all. I understand that the same sort of thing is occurring with regard to Northern Rhodesia. I think we ought to have some undertaking in Parliament that new Constitutions will not be given to any of our Colonies or Protectorates without Parliament being consulted beforehand.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There is no constitutional change in this. This is a Consultative Council for the three Territories. It does not involve a constitutional change so far as I can see. I do not think it could be argued by the noble Lord that

597
His Majesty's Government should not take any decisions in consultation with the other Governments concerned without seeking the approval of the House. We had a debate on that subject on a Motion put down by Lord Vansittart only the other day. I think Parliament always has its remedy. If it does not approve of what His Majesty's Government do, members can raise a debate and take whatever action they think right, but I do not think it is constitutionally correct to say such a negotiation should not have been, or could not have been, carried out without prior consultation.
VISCOUNT EUBANK: I must apologize to the noble Viscount. I came in rather late and I had in mind that a new Constitution had just been granted to the Gold Coast Colony, or was in the course of being granted. It was the question particularly in regard to West Africa to which I was referring.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not think that arises on this particular question.

SERVICE PAY.
2.14 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any further statement to make about the pay of His Majesty's Armed Forces, in particular whether they have considered the situation of Service personnel in India and the Pacific theatres of war and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name which explains itself. There has been a recent rise in pay for His Majesty's Forces which was welcome but I hope it was only an instalment. Without going into the rather complicated figures, it is broadly true to say that the rates of pay of the other ranks in the Far East now approximate to about two-thirds of the American rates and at home the comparison is less favourable to our men. The pay of officers compares rather more favourably under the new rates with that of the American and Dominion officers, but actually the British soldier's pay—and this applies to the Royal Air Force, and to a lesser degree to the Royal Navy because of the different conditions at sea and in port— is worth less to him in comparison with the American troops because of the
598
greater amenities and other advantages enjoyed by our Allies in the same theatres of war.
I want to say at once that I am sure your Lordships will be very glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has gone to India to inquire into welfare. All I can say about that, besides sharing that satisfaction, is that he should have been sent two years ago. These are some of the things he will find. Local leave is too expensive under present conditions for the troops to be able to take advantage of it. My noble friend Lord Moynihan, whose eminent father was so well known to your Lordships, has just returned from the Far East where he has been for three years, and he gave an interview which was published in the Daily Mail, a paper which I do not always see 100 per cent. eye-to-eye with but in this matter I think it performed a great service. Lord Moynihan is good enough to allow me to quote from his interview. In it he said:
"No ordinary soldier there" (meaning India) "could enjoy leave in any of the big towns because prices of even the cheapest pleasures were beyond his means."
He went on to suggest more leave centres with free entertainment and a holiday atmosphere, and many more concert parties and shows for the men in out-of-the-way places. With regard to the leave centres, I understand that there are very few Hill stations arranged as leave centres for the troops, which means that local leave is taken in the big centres like Delhi, Calcutta and Bengal and that is not any advantage to the men's health. If they could go to rest centres and leave centres in the Hills and have their sports and other amusements there it would do their health good.
This is very important because many of the troops have been a long time abroad already in many cases, and if the four or five years' rule is adhered to the hardship will be very great. I see that the Secretary of State for War answered a question on this matter in another place yesterday, when he said that 7 per cent. of men serving in the Middle East had served overseas continuously for four years. I have not the percentages in the other theatres, but I should rather think that in India they are about the same. My noble friend Lord Croft, or the noble Lord who is to answer, can perhaps inform the House on that matter. A great

599
many men have been out a long time and, incidentally, in India particularly, there is, I understand, a good deal of complaint amongst the soldiers that the Royal Air Force sends its men home as a general rule after three years, whereas our Army men have to serve four or five years or even longer. I do not know how that is explained. I have always heard the criticism that the Royal Air Force, while it is tactically mobile is strategically immobile and that it is difficult to move Air Force personnel and ground staffs. But apparently that difficulty has been got over in India with regard to the Air Force, though not with regard to the Army.
I lost a nephew, my wife's nephew, recently in the Burma fighting. He was a young officer in a British Regiment who afterward transferred to the Ghurkas. This matter of pay did not affect him personally because his father, a wealthy man in Rhodesia, sent him what he required, but he wrote to us on many occasions about the hard lot of his men in regard to this leave question and about pay. What he told us bears out what Lord Moynihan said and what other people have also told me who have recently been out there amongst the men serving. In the Army there are men in all ranks, officers and other ranks, who have private means and in some cases the firms who employed them have made up their pay. I want to say to your Lordships that I practise what I preach, because the steel companies with which I am associated have, throughout the war and will continue to do so, opened a banking account for every one of its men who joined the Forces. We allow them half what they were earning with us, whether they are promoted or not, and whether their pay is raised or not, and pay it into the bank monthly. A man can withdraw the money as he wishes. Many other firms, I believe, have made similar arrangements and these men are comparatively well off. The same practice was followed in the companies I am connected with in regard to other men who wanted to serve but because of their skill were sent to munitions work. We made up their pay to the figure they were earning with us. I believe some of the municipalities have done the same thing. But these men with private means or with their wages made up are probably in the minority,
600
and I think most of the junior officers and men of other ranks have a purse which is very narrow indeed. Since Sir James Grigg and Sir John Anderson and the Prime Minister performed their eminent services in India the whole situation has altered monetarily. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, had the privilege of serving in India.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: A good many years ago.
LORD STRABOLGI: When he was there a young man could live like a fighting cock on a modest income. Living was cheap, houses were cheap, servants' wages were low. That is not the case now. There has been a certain amount of in-nation in India and nearly everything now is very expensive. Ordinary amenities, beer, clothes, the cinema, all the small luxuries which a soldier wants and which make all the difference to his life have gone up enormously in price so that while these increases may seem alright on paper in practice they are not enough. When we compare the position with that of the Americans we have to acknowledge that our Allies have been most efficient in all welfare organization. From all we hear when the American soldier in North Africa and Italy and elsewhere sets foot on shore there springs up a whole system of excellent clubs and cafeteria with charming American ladies to look after the men and provide a home atmosphere. The charges are reasonable and in every way the men are well looked after. The less said about our provision of amenities in these theatres of war the better. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will have something to say about these things when he returns from India.
Take such items as hospital charges. Why should an officer in India who goes sick on active service have to pay a hospital charge of 6s. a day compared to 2s. 6d. at home? All officers in Indian Regiments or attached to regiments with Indian troops are supposed to have bearers. At the time when Lord Temple-more strode the plains of Hindustan his bearer cost him 30 rupees a month. Since the Americans arrived you cannot get a bearer under too rupees a month. Then there is another matter which directly affects the question of pay, and that is the allowance of clothing. I hope this matter has now been remedied, but until

601
recently at one large depot at Deolali, some 120 miles north of Bombay, British troops were only allowed one pair of boots, two shirts, one pair of shorts and one pair of slacks. If they arrived with more, if they had two pairs of boots, for example, the extra pair was taken away. Under those conditions it was almost impossible for a man to look smart and clean and soldierly. Our men compared badly in this respect with Indian soldiers who were always well turned out and who had more kit. That is not a good thing. It is a good thing for Indian troops to be smart, but it is bad luck on the British soldier if he is not given enough clothes to be able to keep himself smart and cannot afford to buy more. That may have been due to shortage of hoots and clothing, but I hope it has been remedied now. That also directly affects pay because if a man is properly paid he can buy from the Indian tailors any extra clothing and boots he requires.
I referred just now to American canteens. There is still no N.A.A.F.I. in India. Soldiers have to buy from canteens run by native contractors who are making, large fortunes—or they ought to be because the prices they charge are enormous. To take one item only: a soldier who has to buy a tin of Colgate's toothpaste is charged 7s. 6d. fur it. There is another matter I want to take the opportunity of mentioning. Apparently all soldiers from the ranks who are commissioned in India—not those who go out with Commissions—automatically come under Indian. Army Regulations which affect their post-war leave and affect them in other ways adversely. Incidentally they deprived of a vote because they cannot go on the English Parliamentary Register. I think that should be remedied.
I have mentioned India particularly but there are many complaints from other theatres of war, notably North Africa. There has been correspondence in The Tines about Italy and Naples, which no doubt Lord Templemore and other noble Lords have seen. I understand the situation is now better in Naples. The fact is that the whole welfare organization for troops in these theatres of war needs overhauling. No doubt it will take a fairly long time to alter some of these anomalies, but it would
602
be a simple and quick matter to raise the pay of our soldiers to the same rate for a job as that given to American and Dominion troops. The process of improving welfare services in the East is bound to be slow. In India the Delhi Government cannot be hustled. .It has inherited some of the faults as well as the machinery of the Government of the Moguls. It is the most slow-moving machine, I suppose, in existence. But you can raise pay by a stroke of the Treasury pen. This lack of amenities and the high cost of living applies also to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, but in the case of the Navy not to such a great extent. The ships of the Navy go to old-established bases where there have been amenities and clubs and canteens for a long time and in any case the sailor lives aboard ship and is used to these things. But the soldier who has gone into the Army in this war—not the professional soldier who is settled in the East with his family on the strength and enjoying a fairly decent life—feels the loss of these amenities and ordinary advantages which his comrade at home enjoys as a matter of course and of right. That is the case. It applies in all theatres of war overseas. Rates of pay should be the same for the job whether a man wears the uniform of the American Army or the honoured khaki of the British Army. I beg to move.
2.30 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I intervene for a moment only to ask the noble Lord opposite to have regard to what my noble friend has said with respect to amenities and general welfare arrangements for our troops in India. I think most of us must have received complaints from time to time. We are all glad to know that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has gone out to India to inquire into conditions there. It may well be that the War Office is quite well disposed, but there may be difficulties raised by the Treasury. I do not think all these things need wait until we have received the full report which the Earl of Munster will make. Some improvements in the welfare and canteen arrangements could be effected, I think, without great loss of time, and are really very urgent in some parts. I hope that the noble Lord will not defer them all until the noble Earl returns to this House and makes his Report.
2.31 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I feel that in many ways it would have been more suitable if my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War had dealt with this question to-day. But as the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, dealt very largely with India, in the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma I have been asked to reply. As your Lordships will have noted, Lord Strabolgi has raised many points, but, in a way, the note running through the whole of his speech was that the recent advance of pay was not really sufficient. As regards that matter I am afraid that I cannot enter into any great discussion because it is only a month ago since the Command Paper 6553 was issued setting out the additional benefits for prolonged service and service in the Far East, which His Majesty's Government had decided to introduce. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that I really cannot, to-day, add anything to the provisions of that White Paper, and, with his leave, I will now proceed to deal with some of the other subjects in the speech which he made.
He spoke about the meagre opportunities for leave which are enjoyed —specially by other ranks—in India, and he suggested that leave centres, with what he called a holiday atmosphere, should be established. He proposed that there should be more entertainments and facilities for recreation at these places. I have just been informed, and I have great pleasure in telling him, that leave camps have been established in the Hills in India. There are, I understand, forty-two of these camps now in existence.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will my noble friend forgive my interrupting? That is a very interesting piece of information which he has just given, but can he add to it by telling us how many people these camps will accommodate?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I dare say that I may be able to tell my noble friend that towards the end of my speech. I will try to get him the information. At present it is not in my possession. The noble Lord dealt with hospital charges—what we used to call in days gone by "hospital stoppages." He complained that while hospital stoppages for officers in this country are 2s. 6d. a day,
604
in India they are 6s. a day. I think that is based on a misconception if I may say so, and it is illustrated by the similar complaint sometimes heard that while the maximum mess bill at home is 1s. 6d. a day in India it is 5s. 3d. a day. The point in this connexion is that while pay in Britain is made up of certain allowances, in kind and in cash, in addition to the basic money rate, in India the pay is consolidated and includes most of the British allowances. The 1s. 6d. I mentioned is therefore an extra amount paid by the officer after the deduction of his rations, while the 5s. 3d. represents the total amount payable, value for rations being already included in the pay. Similarly, in regard to hospital stoppages. To the 2s. 6d. which my noble friend has mentioned should be added ration allowances of 2s. 10d. When you add these two together, they make 5s. 4d. which does not compare too unfavourably, I think, with the Indian 6s. a day.
The next complaint which the noble Lord made was about the increased charge made for that well-known servant, the bearer, in India. The noble Lord is quite right in thinking that I enjoyed the services of a bearer in India. I believe that I paid him 30 rupees a month. It is certainly true that the cost of bearers has greatly increased, and the reply of the authorities in India is to encourage officers not to have bearers but to have soldier batmen instead. With regard to the shortage of clothing at the Deolali depot, I have not been able to find out anything as yet. With the few facts which the noble Lord has given me I may be able to ascertain something. His facts will be passed on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and he will make inquiries about this matter.
Then we had a question about the N.A.A.F.I. My noble friend complained that N.A.A.F.I. did not function in India. The answer is that it does not do so for the reason that N.A.A.F.I. are not prepared to take over in India owing to administrative difficulties and because of the strain on British man-power. But while on this subject I should like to read the noble Lord one or two facts about canteen services in India which will show him that the Government of India have not been idle in this matter. Since July, 1942, the Government of India have completely re-organized the

605
canteen services in India. Prior to that date canteens were run and provided by the Canteen Contractors Syndicate. Members of this syndicate had to be approved by the Quartermaster-General, and procure their supplies through the Syndicate. This system worked well in peace-time, and was well suited to Indian conditions and popular with the troops. In July, 1942, this system became inadequate because of the sudden increase of British troops in India due to the threat of Japanese invasion, and because, in war conditions, a commercial organization was not in a position to procure goods from overseas or to import what they could procure.
A new organization—Canteen Services (India)—was therefore set up. This is administered by a Board presided over by the Quartermaster-General, India, and other officers and officials. It is financed by the Government of India, obtains its goods through the Canteen Stores Department of the Government of India, and fixes prices in canteens throughout India. The contractors are now merely retail distributors in the non-operational areas. The idea that they are private profit-making firms is difficult to eradicate but really it is totally unfounded. In outlying training areas and operational areas canteens are staffed by the Indian Canteen Corps, a special organization raised by the Government of India to deal with these areas. These men go right forward with the troops, and now some of them have actually been overrun by the Japanese forces. Owing to the lack of time and shortage of man-power it has been necessary to continue to use the contractors as distributors in the rest of India. This Corps consists now of 3,088 officers and men, including 86 British officers. The prices of goods are fixed by the Canteens Board except in the case of fresh perishables for tea and supper trade, which are fixed by local commanders in conformity with local prices.
Canteen Services (India) have had great difficulties to contend with. For example, on corning into being only small stocks of sores were available; for the first nine months it was impossible, owing to shipping difficulties, to provide stores from overseas; large increases of troops and Royal Air Force personnel followed the fall of Malaya; the necessity for jungle training led to troops being posted in remote and
606
inaccessible areas. In spite of this the sale of goods was expanded on an enormous scale. Thus in August, 1942, the first month of its operation, sales totalled £106,628. This was raised to £373,842 in March, 1943. The total sales for the year March, 1943, to April, 1944, were £7,500,000, a monthly average of £633,962, of which over one-third was in operational areas. That is rather a long story, I know, but I felt bound to give the noble Lord those facts to show that the Government of India have been in no wise idle as far as this matter is concerned.
The noble Lord went on the complain, as I understood him, that the officers of the Indian Army were deprived of their votes. This question is rather complicated and has been very much misrepresented. When the relevant Act was drafted it was drafted in such a way as to exclude emergency commissioned officers of the Indian Army and of the Royal Indian Navy. Directly this matter was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for India, he took it up energetically with the Home Office and is still doing so; and I can inform the noble Lord that the question of amending legislation is under consideration. What has caused a good deal of misunderstanding is the fact that an Indian Army order recently issued to explain to British troops the procedure to be followed under the Act stated, purely as a matter of fact, that the Act did not apply to British officers of the Indian Army. This was misrepresented in certain quarters as an arbitrary deprivation by the Government of India of British officers of the Indian Army of the right to vote. It was, of course, nothing of the kind.
I promised my noble friend that I would get him information with regard to camps in the Hills' and the numbers there. I am sorry that I am unable to get those numbers now. The Secretary of State will inquire into the numbers to be accommodated in these various camps and either he or I will let my noble friend know.
I think I need say no more. I have dealt, I hope not at too great length, with the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. As he and the House are aware, my noble friend the Under-Secretary has gone to India to inquire into all these questions and, from what I know of my noble friend Lord

607
Munster, I am sure that he has the capacity and the will to deal with the matters entrusted to him very well and very thoroughly. On his return my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to lay Papers before Parliament giving a full statement of all that has been and is being done by the Government of India in connexion with the welfare of the troops, and, when that happens, I think it most probable that my noble friend opposite, or some other noble Lord, will bring forward a Motion in this House so that the question can be discussed again. My noble friend Lord Munster will then be here to answer in person.
In the meantime, I can assure Lord Strabolgi and the House that His Majesty's Government are not unmindful of these matters. I sometimes think that the war in Europe is so vast and fills our thoughts every day to such an extent that we are inclined to overlook the immense campaign—really almost a world war in itself—which is being carried on in the Far East. It is being fought against a very skilful, cruel and most unscrupulous enemy who is, in my opinion, just as much an enemy of the human race in the East as the Germans are in Europe. It is being fought under conditions of the greatest hardship, in frightful weather, and the one thing to be guarded against at all costs is letting our officers and men out there imagine for one moment that they are forgotten at home or that their immense campaign is looked on in any way as a side-show. In this matter nobody has been more frequent in his remarks to the contrary than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has never failed to emphasize the vastness and importance of the war in the East. I can assure my noble friends and the House that His Majesty's Government have these matters very much at heart and are fully alive to the need to relieve, as far as possible, the hardships of the very gallant soldiers of the Indian Army and of the British Army in India.
2.45 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, for his reply. It was refreshingly full of facts and information, and I wish he spoke more often for a Government Department, and especially
608
for the India Office. The point which particularly struck my noble friends on this side of the House concerned the Naafi. Why have Naafi the right to refuse to go to India? I thought that they were a Government Department. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. If they are needed out there, the sooner they are sent the better. There may be other reasons for their not being sent; I do not know. I should like to ask what profits there are on the turnover of £7,500,000 a year from the existing canteens. I presume that such profits go into some Army Fund, as in the case of Naafi. Perhaps my noble friend will let me have that information later.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I should not like to answer that off-hand.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not give notice of it, but there must be fairly large profits judging by the prices, and I should like to know where the money goes. On the main question, I should like to assure my noble friend that we shall not disappoint him; we shall certainly return to this matter. Two of your Lordships, among others, by most persistent hammering at the Government have obtained concessions—the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, on civil aviation, and my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery on pensions for officers. I can assure the Government that on this question of the pay of the troops we intend, especially when the European war is over and fighting is intensified in the East, to press for something to be done until we get satisfaction, and to do so both here and in another place. We have been shown what persistence can do. The examples I have given have been merely to show that the case for the raising of the pay to the American rates is unanswerable. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I am sure that noble Lords on these Benches echo what he said about the splendid services of our far-from-forgotten Army in the Far East. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PREMIUM BONDS.
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any Premium Bonds have been issued, or other forms of State lotteries established, in any British Crown Colonies or Mandated Territories, during the last twenty years; and if so, where and at what dates.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire is not able to be in the House this afternoon, and the answer which I am giving is given on his behalf. No State lotteries have been established in the Colonies during the last twenty years, although the noble Viscount is no doubt aware that such a lottery has existed for many years in Malta. Premium Bonds have been on issue in Cyprus since June 1, 1943.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question sanding in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any declarations have been made by preceding Governments during the last twenty years on the principle of Premium Bond issues; and if so, to what effect.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the question of Premium Bonds was considered by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1918, and they reported that they doubted whether the amount of new money to be obtained would justify any change of a contentious character in our financial methods. They said:
"We are satisfied that such strong views are held with regard to Premium Bonds that legislation to sanction them would be difficult to obtain, and that such a proposal might. cause a controversy in the country which would be most undesirable. We do not, therefore, advise that an issue of Premium Bonds be made at the present time or until further efforts have been made to render present issues more attractive to the investor."
That was in 1918.
On the 1st December, 1919, the House of Commons debated a proposal for Premium Bonds and rejected it by 276 votes to 84 on a "free" vote. The mover of the Resolution was the late Mr. Horatio Bottomley. The question was one of those considered by the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting in 1932
610
(Cmd. 4341). The Commission came to the conclusion that large scale lotteries, whether initiated by the State for the direct benefit of the Exchequer or by a Statutory Board for charitable objects, or by individual charities, were socially undesirable and should not be allowed. The Government accepted this recommendation. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have consistently refused to consider the issue of Premium Bonds in this country, and this decision has been conveyed to Members of Parliament by question and answer and in correspondence on many occasions. I will with the permission of the noble Lord append to this answer, as it will appear in the Official Report, some recent replies which have been given to questions on the subject in the House of Commons.
[These questions and answers were as follows:
7th December, 1939:
SIR RALPH GLYN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, for issue in the New Year, National Premium Bonds as an addition to the National Savings Certificates and Defence Bonds, the bonds being of a character which will ensure that none of the capital will be lost and interest drawn in the form of cash prizes at half-yearly or yearly intervals, and whether he will withdraw the objections to the issue of Premium Bonds for reasons given to the honourable and gallant Member for Abingdon three years ago by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the Government have permitted the continuation of football pools.
SIR KINGSLEY WOOD: No, Sir. The Government do not propose to make any issue of Premium Bonds.
18th June, 1940:
MR. OSWALD LEWIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of suppressing for the duration of the war all forms of betting, whether through bookmakers on credit or for cash or through totalisators, and of substituting therefor the issue of Premium Bonds hearing no interest, but subject to periodical drawings at a high premium, those Bonds which remained undrawn after a period of years to he repaid at par, in order that the large sums which would otherwise be used for betting may he lent to the State instead.
SIR KINGSLEY WOOD: No, Sir. It is not proposed to make an issue of the kind referred to which I consider would cause controversy and weaken the force of the National Savings Campaign.
20th June, 1940:
MR. CRAIK HENDERSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connexion with any new loans to be issued, he will consider the issue of a loan carrying a low rate of interest and the right to participate in prize drawings.
SIR KINGSLEY WOOD: No, Sir. It is not proposed to make an issue of this kind, which I consider would cause controversy and weaken the force of the National Savings Campaign.
9th December, 1941:
MR. NAYLOR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the practicability of arranging for an issue of non-interest bearing Bonds at 5s. or 10s. each, numbered for the purposes of a lottery for substantial prizes, thus gaining for the national effort part of the sums now spent upon racing and football pools, as well as saving a considerable sum otherwise payable in interest and reducing the administrative cost involved in the calculations and transmissions of interest.
SIR KINGSLEY WOOD: No Sir.]

THE BUCHENWALD MURDERS.
2.52 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the other Governments of the United Nations that steps be taken to obtain the names of those responsible for and guilty of the murders at Buchenwald with a view to their punishment.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as was stated in another place on behalf of His Majesty's Government on October 4, His Majesty's Government have this whole question under consideration. Quite apart from the practical difficulties of obtaining information at this stage concerning crimes committed by Germans against German nationals in Germany, such crimes, however atrocious, are in a different category from war crimes and cannot be dealt with under the procedure already elaborated in agreement between United Nations Governments. Pending further consideration of this matter, which is now taking place, I am not in a position to make any statement.

SERVICE PENSIONS.
2.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it will be necessary to institute an inquiry after the conclusion of hostilities to examine the past methods of administering the Acts and Royal Warrants relating to Service pensions, and to report what
612
steps, if any, are necessary for the removal and prevention of legitimate grievances.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the abortive debate which took place in this House a week ago on a somewhat similar Motion I took the advice then given me by the Leader of the House and put down, in his words, "a more general proposition" in order to have it more properly debated. It may not have been quite convenient to debate that Motion as it stood, but, as for the debate itself, there was nothing to find fault with. In fact, with the interposition of the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I consider it was raised to a high level, and the Leader of the Opposition did not find anything of which to complain. I venture to think that if at the conclusion of that debate the question had gone to a Division there was a very strong body of opinion, even if not a clear majority, in support of the Motion. In so far as I am responsible for the error in the wording of the Motion I apologize, but I do not apologize for the loss of time which resulted from the phrasing of that Motion. The Motion had been down on the Paper for several days, and if anybody has to apologize for the loss of time in the debate I suggest it is the Government. It would have been perfectly easy to change the wording of that Motion before it came on without altering the principle by one iota.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, did not really attempt to controvert the arguments that were brought forward in favour of the Motion. His great talents were concentrated on persuading your Lordships that it was not the proper time to raise the matter. This is what he said:
"…it is asking more than is reasonable to ask from the Government such a declaration, in the very pinch of the war, which has still to be decided, that this post-war inquiry will be set up."
Many and great schemes have come before your Lordships' House, and many more are on their way here, for dealing with what the Government intend to do after the war. Surely this relatively small matter, to obtain justice and fairness for most deserving people, might be included in the post-war programme. It is true, as the Lord Chancellor said, that the war is not yet decided, but we are all living

613
and planning and banking on victory, which we know is going to come, if it does not come, what is the use of all your great schemes? They will be blown sky high; they will not be worth the paper they are written on.
All am asking for to-day is an expression of opinion that an inquiry will be, necessary at the conclusion of this war
to examine the past methods of administering the Acts and Royal Warrants relating to service pensions and to report what steps, if any, are necessary for the removal and prevention of legitimate grievances.
Both the noble Lords I have mentioned gave examples of how necessary such an overhaul would be. Lord Rushcliffe spoke from his own experience on a Committee which was set up for this very purpose, to inquire into the anomalies of the pensions after the last war; while the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, described himself, as you will remember, as shocked by the way a case brought to his notice had been dealt with, and he found fault with the wording of the regulation under which that award had been given. I am quoting no mean opinion where the matter is one of right and justice. However, I think the greatest argument in favour of my Motion was in the words of the Lord Cbancellor, and was contained in his statement when he was referring to the pensions appeal tribunals, of which he said that, according to his information, they were working well. These are his words:
"The proportion of cases upon which, on appeal, it has been found possible and right to alter the original decision is very considerable."
That may be a tribute to the appeal tribunals, and a proof that they are working well, but surely it is a reflection on those who gave the decisions in the first place. Not all the questions relating to pensions and allowances can be referred to the tribunals. May it not be that in a very considerable number of the cases that cannot be referred to the tribunals the decisions might be reversed, considering that they were taken by the very same people?
During the debate last Wednesday I mentioned the case of a widow who had been refused any educational allowance for her boy because of the poor circumstances of the boy at the end of 1939. Last Saturday morning I got a letter from
614
the mother saying that she had on the 13th, two days after the debate in this House, received a communication from the Ministry of Pensions, saying that she had now been granted an educational allowance of £35 a year for the boy. Her original application went in six months ago, and during that time nothing at all had altered—neither the circumstances of the family, nor the regulations governing the awards—and yet it has been found possible to reverse the decision. It would appear, then, that it is possible to interpret these regulations in a humane way. If this had been done in the first place that unfortunate lady would have been saved six months' financial worry, superimposed upon all her other troubles.
That case cannot be unique. I myself have known rather similar cases. The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, gave an instance only the other day of a lady who had written and asked whether her second child, who is approaching the age at which he could receive an allowance, would be allowed to have it. She got back an official answer to the effect that it could not be considered now—overlooking the fact that that good lady had to plan her budget ahead. No consideration was given. I took up the particular case I quoted to your Lordships because the lady in question was the widow of a ranker officer, and therefore possibly might not find it quite so easy to get her grievance brought forward as other people might. You may say, why do not all the cases go to the tribunal? but that does not answer. Tribunals have to administer the regulations. They have not got a free hand, and it is no part of their duty to suggest alterations or modifications. The inquiry I ask for would give that power. It would deal with the working of the regulations in retrospect, would be able to see whether they rub hardly here and there, and could recommend the changes necessary to remove any of the injustices and hardships.
The Lord Chancellor reminded the House that the war had still to be decided. That is of course true. It is because that decision may not come for several months that it is very important in every way to give some assurance that you will have this inquiry and so satisfy the country as well as this House and render it unnecessary to go to a Division. Having people about the country suffering from a sense of grievance

615
is bad. It is not healthy, it forms cells of discontent. Every grievance is talked about and repeated from person to person. This touches everybody—every woman in/the country who has a husband or son serving abroad and who may lose him at any moment. It is just like a stone thrown into a pond. The ripples go outwards, and the reactions are felt far and wide. You cannot stifle discussion of this sort.
A statement to the effect that the Government will take every step, including an impartial inquiry, after the war will forestall any grievances, stymie all this grumbling, and strike a note of encouragement in many homes in this country. A comprehensive inquiry is the only practical way of getting at the facts. In what way would the Government suffer through committing themselves to such an inquiry now? I am sure it is the Government's intention to be kind and just and fair to everyone bereaved by the war. Why not proclaim the fact now? Anyhow I ask, if such an assurance is not forthcoming, that the House should register its opinion that an inquiry will be necessary at the conclusion of hostilities if we are to be fair and just to all who have suffered through the war. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it will be necessary to institute an inquiry after the conclusion of hostilities to examine the past methods of administering the Acts and Royal Warrants relating to Service pensions, and to report what steps, if any, are necessary for the removal and prevention of legitimate grievances.
3.3 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, I beg to support the Motion moved by the noble and gallant Admiral. As he reminded us, this matter was discussed as recently as last Wednesday, when the Motion which he moved was that a Select Committee should be set up, as after the last war, to go into these matters. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, took what I consider a perfectly sound constitutional point—namely, that Select Committees are not set up by the Government but by Parliament, and therefore in form at any rate the noble and gallant Admiral's Motion was not right. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack put to the House what was the Government's substantial objection to acceptance of the Motion. He
616
said that this is not the time to give such a pledge. He pointed out that the Select Committee of 1919 was set up, not during the war, but after the Armistice, after the fighting had ceased, and when the financial situation of the country was beginning to be surveyed as an after-war problem. For these and other reasons, he said, it was premature for the Government to give any such pledge at the present time. It seems to me, on the best consideration I can give to it, that the present Motion of the noble Earl meets in substance the objections which were raised last week.
What is Lord Cork's object? His object is simply this—and it is one with which everyone must have complete sympathy—to secure that grievances, if grievances exist, shall be considered and dealt with by an impartial tribunal. He does not mind, I gather, whether it is a Select Committee or a Royal Commission or any other form of inquiry so long as the inquiry is impartial and comprehensive. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that the 1919 inquiry was held when the financial situation of the country was beginning to be surveyed as an after-war problem. We do not know what the financial position of the country will be after the war, but none the less the Government have entered into every kind of commitment. They have accepted in substance the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge. What the financial situation will be I do not know, nor probably do they, but none the less they are prepared to implement these recommendations to a large extent to secure freedom from want after the war.
On the Order Paper to-day we have the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefits) Bill. The Government are prepared to-day to pass legislation which will provide for further benefits for the unemployed. They have passed the Education Act, and given promises and pledges that the school-leaving age will be raised. I do not quarrel with these things in the least—it is probably all perfectly right. I am only quoting these examples to show that the Government have entered into pledges now to do certain things after the war, all of which will certainly cost money. Take the Act passed the other day for which the Minister of Labour was responsible—the Act to ensure priority to people who have lost their jobs during the war so as to

617
ensure that they will go back to them when the war is over. What Lord Cork is afraid of, and what some of us are afraid of, is that with all these claims on the benevolence of the State, the people for whom he is concerned—namely, the serving soldier, sailor, and airman—may be by-passed, overlooked, and disregarded. What he wants to ensure is that that shall not happen, that a pledge shall be given to them now that their claims will be considered along with the claims of other people.
It would be a most serious misfortune if the view should gain ground—and certainly it already exists—that the obligations of the State to other sections of the community are not reflected the Government's attitude to the soldier, sailor, and airman. We know—everyone knows —that but for them none of these other advantages would be possible at all. They and they alone will be responsible for victory, and without victory all these advantages would be lost and no one would get anything. Therefore, Lord Cork says, and says rightly, that in considering these things we should be satisfied that their claims will be looked into and, if grievances exist, that they will be put right. If this inquiry finds that no grievances exist, everyone will be satisfied and nothing need be done, but in so far as grievances exist they should be put right and justice should be done. I do not myself think for a moment that a mere departmental inquiry by the Minister of Pensions is sufficient. What is needed, as the noble and gallant Admiral said, is a comprehensive inquiry by an impartial tribunal which can hear in evidence the grievances of those who think they have them, and winch can report accordingly.
There is just one other point. If I may say so, the Government for another reason would be very well advised to accept this Motion and give this pledge now. If they do not, organizations representing soldiers, sailors, and airmen wild make their own inquiries, and there will be a great many reports by a considerable number of organizations. These reports may be conflicting, they will certainly be embarrassing, and it would be very much better for all concerned if there were what the noble Earl, Lord Cork, asks for, an impartial and comprehensive inquiry. That would give satis-
618
faction to those who are concerned and to whom everybody wishes to do justice, and it would allay grievances if grievances exist. For that reason I warmly support the Motion which my noble and gallant friend has moved.
3.11 p.m.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I think it was Bernard Shaw, and if my memory serves rightly, in The Devil's Disciple, who wrote that the British soldier could stand up against anything except the British War Office. If I might adapt Shaw, I think I might say that the British soldier, sailor or airman can stand up equally against anything except the British Treasury. There is just one particular aspect of this matter about which I would like to say a word this afternoon, because it is practically impossible to spend three or four years in one of the Services, as I have done, without acquiring a certain knowledge of it, and that is this question of "acting rank" and "temporary rank." They call it "temporary rank" in the Army, in the Air Force they call it "acting rank," but to all intents and purposes the terms mean the same thing.
The position, put very shortly, is something like this. It is understandable that there should have been a proviso, promotion being as rapid as it generally is in war-time, that pension rights should not be acquired by officers merely by virtue of their holding acting rank. All they get is the rank and the pay. They do not become eligible for pension nor, if they are killed or die on active service, do their widows or children. I suggest to your Lordships that, having regard to the length of the conflict, the state of affairs which has arisen might have been foreseen. To take a concrete case. A friend of mine has been serving abroad in a foreign theatre of war for four and a half years. He was, in May, 1940, an Acting Lieutenant-Colonel and he is an Acting Lieutenant-Colonel to-day. In respect of that four and a half years he draws nothing towards a pension either for himself, or for his widow should he be killed, and he will draw nothing as long as he holds the acting rank. That I know—and I speak from experience and from inside knowledge of those who feel very strongly on this matter, at any rate in the Middle East—is a very great injustice. I suggest very strongly to your Lordships that it cries out for a remedy. It is one

619
of the first things to which the Government should direct their attention when they amend these regulations in regard to pensions.
This important matter is raised not for the first time and it has been argued very ably by the noble and gallant Earl who has lent his prestige to it. I would ask your Lordships to picture for a moment the position of a man who has had the honour and glory not to mention the exhilaration and appalling weight of responsibilty of commanding in battle abroad a British Armoured Division. He returns to this country and what happens to him? He gets the pay and the rank of a Colonel, one of the gentlemen you see wandering up from Whitehall to lunch at one of the Clubs in Pall Mall. It is a bit of a come-down and it rankles. Take another example. Why should a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm lose his flying pay because he has been wounded? That surely is a scandal. There are many men in all branches of the Services at home and abroad who hold acting rank several steps above their war substantive rank but they are not eligible for pensions, nor are their widows or dependents, in respect of that rank. The solution of the problem seems to me to be a very simple one; that is for the Government to say in effect that a certain period of service, say two years, or any period they like to fix, even eighteen months or two and a half years, shall henceforth qualify a man for these pension rights. If you do that then this very real grievance will be remedied.
It seems to me a very sorry state of affairs that these people. who are fighting in all the four corners of the globe, should be treated like this. You do not do this kind of thing in the munition factories. There the trade unionists see to that, and Mr. Bevin takes very good care that the people employed in them are well paid and well fed and looked after. I think your Lordships will agree that we must look after our men who are fighting abroad and who, according to General Eisenhower, in his cable to the New York Herald to-day, still have a lot of bitter fighting ahead of them. I commend to His Majesty's Government Kipling's counsel:
"O! it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away,'
"But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play."
620
I hope I am wrong, but it seems that the band is going to go on playing for some time. It has taken us five years to hang out our washing on the Siegfried Line. I hope your Lordships will strongly support this Resolution.
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, in a few words I want to support the Motion of my noble and gallant friend Lord Cork. I am not going to repeat anything I said on a previous occasion. I wish in particular to observe that I cannot understand why the noble Lord who replies for the Government should have any hesitation about accepting this Motion. It is not suggested on behalf of the Government that the existing Royal Warrants are altogether satisfactory or that there are not serious grievances which have arisen in their operation. If they were to set up the contention that the Warrants are perfect and that no inquiry whatever would be needed, that at any rate would be a logical argument, but at present I am unable to understand why—with the practical admission that the Warrants are imperfect and that they are applied sometimes with a great lack of justice as regards the recipients of benefits under them—there should be any difficulty in accepting the opinion of this House that it will be necessary to institute an inquiry after the conclusion of hostilities. It is not as if the noble and gallant Admiral had fixed a date, nor is it as if he has specified the nature of the inquiry he wants. It seems to me to be an inquiry of a most harmless character, and I very much hope that the noble Leader of the House will be able to accept the Motion.
There is one other thing I should add. Since the matter came before your Lordships a week ago I took the opportunity of reading through the whole of the relevant Royal Warrants connected with this matter. I do not intend to take up the time of the House in criticizing them, but I do express my opinion with a very wide knowledge of documents of this character that they are not satisfactory, that there are various ways in which they might be amended, and that in the interests of justice it is very desirable that there should be an inquiry as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I should just like to say a few words in

621
support of the Motion. The noble and gallant Earl who raised the matter gave the instance of a young widow who asked whether she could get a pension for her child in a year or two's time. She was told, I understand, that she could not be given an answer now. I have had a great number of communications from young officers saying it is the uncertainty that worries them. They say they do not know whether or not, if they are killed, their widows will get any pension until a child becomes of pensionable age. That is one of the things that should be inquired into.
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion, because we have had a good deal of experience of similar Motions in the Canadian Parliament and I think in other Parliaments in the British Dominions. It must not be forgotten that Governments of their own Motion have from time to time introduced legislation that has met to no inconsiderable extent the complaints made. In the last few years legislation has created appeal tribunals which have exercised a very salutary effect upon decisions heretofore given. A Canadian friend of mine has brought to my notice the case of a widow whose husband died in uniform on duty in South Africa. She was refused a pension and she appealed to the tribunal which also refused. Then notice of appeal was given under a provision in the Statute that any question of law could be raised before a Judge of the High Court. Although she was represented by counsel before the tribunal on her application for leave to appeal to a Judge on a question of law, neither she nor her solicitors received notice of the time when the Judge would deal with the application, which was considered by the Judge without the applicant or anyone on her behalf having notice that the Judge was considering her application. All that happened was that an intimation was sent saying that leave to appeal was refused. In my view that was a gross miscarriage of justice. That is the type of case in which a Judge should have decided after argument whether a point of law existed. To my mind there was very clearly a point of law for the reason that there is a provision in the Royal Warrant that in case of doubt the applicant shall receive the benefit of the doubt. Where one doctor asserts that the
622
condition of the soldier was aggravated by his service and the pensions doctor says it was not, you have then one in favour and one against the claim of the widow, and the rule of law as I have always understood it is that where there is such a division of opinion there is a reasonable doubt and the matter must be resolved in favour of the applicant if the law provides as it does here that the applicant shall have the benefit of the doubt.
That widow's husband when he was in civil life was a motor salesman in Surrey. He was examined twice and was given a certificate that he was fit to go abroad. He died in a train in South Africa in the performance of his duty. The view expressed by the pensions doctor was that that man's condition—coronary thrombosis—could not in any sense be attributed to his service or be aggravated by it. On the other hand a very eminent doctor said that it could be so aggravated and was aggravated. The pensions doctor, however, said that it could not be aggravated, that it was constitutional, and that was the end of it. The man had been in perfect health for ten years and one of the members of the tribunal said that in view of the final report made upon him by the medical officers he would not have let the man go abroad but would have sent him to hospital. In the last war the same point was raised about rheumatic fever and it was held ultimately that when a heart condition developed from rheumatic fever a pension was payable. At least, I am so informed. One eminent specialist said that the condition was aggravated by the man's service, that the condition was such as to require quiet, and that the moment the man had to engage in exercise the condition was aggravated and brought about a fatal result. I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of that case any further. I am only expressing the views given by medical men.
The British Legion and other service organizations are constantly bringing to the attention of the Ministry of Pensions conditions as they find them. It was? only last year that legislation was enacted at the instance of the Government because of the representations made as to the necessity for appeal. The question as to the benefit of the doubt has been the subject matter of discussion in every Parliament in the British Dominions, I

623
believe. In Canada it was discussed at great length and a whole afternoon was taken up in the House of Commons there with discussion about the benefit of the doubt. The position should be made clearer than it has been in the past. To say that every applicant shall have the benefit of reasonable doubt would seem fair to all reasonable men; but there has been no definitive expression of opinion from those in ultimate authority as to what meaning should be attached to the paragraph in the Royal Warrant dealing with this matter. That should be done, but in the case to which I have referred opportunity to discuss the point of law involved was refused. I support the Motion with the greatest satisfaction and pleasure, because I believe an inquiry is desirable. In the Dominions inquiries have been held either before Commissions or Committees.
I disagree with my noble and gallant friend, however, when he asks the Government to express their intentions. In one of the Dominions, in answer to the question "What are the Government's intentions?" the reply was: "The intention of the Government will be made known if, as and when legislation is introduced to deal with the subject matter in question." That is the proper constitutional reply. It is not a question of the Government's intentions as expressed in legislation dealing with any matter, which is a vastly different thing. To ask a Government antecedently to express an intention with respect to matters is one thing; to express it in Parliamentary form in Statute is another. With the case to which reference has been made, the case in which intention has been legislatively expressed with respect to pensions, education and other matters, I will not again deal. I think that the Motion as it now stands, seeking merely an inquiry with respect to the administration of the pension laws of this country, is something that is in keeping with what has been done in every one of the self-governing Dominions, so far as I know. Such an inquiry could not but be advantageous to everybody, not least for the reason last mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe that it would obviate the danger of creating cells of discontent. I am bound to say that I saw a General Election conducted in Canada largely with respect to
624
the administration of the Pensions Act. That is something to be avoided, and if I, as more or less a stranger, may say so, this is one of the countries in the world that has been able to keep clear of the ballot box in the ultimate decisions upon matters of justice and fair play towards, and the proper treatment of, those who have offered their lives in the defence of the State.
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, last week the noble Earl, Lord Cork, raised in your Lordships' House the question of Service pensions, a subject to which the noble Earl has devoted great attention, and on which he speaks, as we all know, with great knowledge and authority. He asked at that time for a definite assurance on the part of 'His Majesty's Government that they would set up, after the war, a Select Committee to consider this question. As your Lordships will remember, the Motion, as it was at that time drafted, raised a number of practical difficulties which were pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, Viscount Samuel, and others. Lord Cork suggested in the debate that the Motion might be altered. He made the suggestion at the end of the debate, and he has reverted to the question to-day. Though our rules of order are extremely wide, I do not think that this would have been a very satisfactory mode of procedure. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl that he did not press his Motion, on that occasion, to a Division, but decided instead to table another Motion not open to the same technical objections.
With that fighting spirit, if I may say so, for which the noble Earl is renowned in the Navy, he put this second Motion on the Paper for the earliest possible day, and he has introduced it with the speech which your Lordships have heard this afternoon. I think that is proof that there is no desire to stifle, or indeed no possibility of stifling, discussion on this subject. The fact that in your Lordships' House you should have no fewer than two debates in five days on this subject should reassure the noble Earl. He spoke of stifling discussion. I cannot believe that he would maintain that attitude in the light of what has happened.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I do not think I said anything about stifling discussion.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, if he did not say anything about it, I am certainly very glad to withdraw what I said. Now I want to make it clear at the outset that there is no difference in any quarter of the House, so far as I know, either on the Front Bench or any other Bench, as to the object which we all seek to attain. I think—indeed I know—that all of us, if I may use the words of the noble Earl's Motion, desire the "removal and prevention of legitimate grievances." I am quite certain there is not a single noble Lord in this House who would not say that the welfare of Service-men comes very high, if not above all else, in his thoughts. The only question before us in this House to-day is what is the best machinery to employ for this purpose, and what is the proper time to decide upon the nature of this machinery. That is the only question involved in this Motion.
As I hope to show your Lordships, this question is not really quite so simple as it looks. The pensions question has been described—indeed If think it has been so described this afternoon—as a post-war problem, and the point was made by one or two speakers that His Majesty's Government have found no difficulty in tackling other post-war problems. But I suggest that this question of pensions is entirely different from such questions as social security, health service, education and so on, in one important respect. It is not a question of the money that is to be spent. One speaker, I think it was Lord Rushcliffe, said we were going to spend enormous sums; we did not know how much. That is not the question. The question really is one of uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the problem which we have to face in this particular matter. In the other cases which have been mentioned—those great schemes of reconstruction—all the essential factors are before us. We know exactly what alterations in the law are necessary to produce the desired results in the future. That is not the position in regard to Service pensions.
Here there are a number of factors which are at present entirely unknown. The noble Earl's Motion refers to no definite moment for the setting up of this
626
inquiry. He does not say when it is to be held. He uses the general phrase "after the conclusion of hostilities." Now I do not complain of that in the least. We none of us know yet when and in what circumstances such an inquiry as this could be set up. The noble Earl himself does not say what hostilities he means. He does not say whether it is the end of hostilities with Germany, or the end of hostilities with Japan. I appreciate the difficulty of the noble Earl, because none of us yet know exactly how this war is going to end. It may end all at one moment just as the last war ended. It may end by some gradual, slow, steady disintegration of the enemy. That may be the way in which it will come to an end. And yet, in spite of this uncertainty, this House is asked in the noble Earl's Motion to express a definite view without knowledge of any of those circumstances. I do not put that forward as a mere debating point. To my mind it is right and important to emphasize the inevitable vagueness of the proposition which is being put 'before your Lordships. I do not complain of that—the vagueness, as I say, is inevitable.
But may I draw your Lordship's attention to another defect in this Motion? It assumes that at the indefinite moment, to which I have referred, when some hostilities come to an end, methods of pensions administration will call for inquiry. That may be the position; I do not deny it at all. I hope it will not be, but it may, and in that case, if at that time the methods of pension administration give cause for an inquiry, there will, of course, have to be an inquiry; there is no doubt about that. I would not seek to-day to rule out that possibility, but at present we do not know what the position will be, and I think that it would be a very great mistake to assume that legitimate grievances in this sphere cannot be removed without an inquiry, or that grievances which exist now will still exist when the time for the inquiry comes.
As your Lordships know, or should know, numbers of these grievances are continually in process of being removed. The pensions situation never has been static, and it is not static at present. My right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions has said again and again that if any real grievance is shown to exist he will advise the Government to remedy it. As your Lordships will remember, there was a very exhaustive review

627
carried out in 1943 which gave a considerable measure of satisfaction to ex-Servicemen and their representatives. Nor was that review by any means final; there have been further improvements made since. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, referred to some of them in his speech this afternoon. While the Government hope—and I make no bones about this—that these improvements have removed the main grievances and that no further alterations of importance will be found to be necessary, they are still ready to examine any further substantial complaints which may arise.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in his speech last week, said with regard to those who feel that they have grievances:
"… their number would be much reduced if they knew that their case would be judged by a sympathetic and impartial tribunal instead of being, as in some cases they are, dismissed by the arbitrary rule of the Minister, against whose decision there does not happen to be an appeal."
He gave the impression—I do not know whether he intended to do so—that my right honourable friend the Minister was not perhaps a malevolent but at all events a very autocratic dictator who, without any advice, came to his own arbitrary conclusions. No doubt somebody, whatever the system may be, has to take final decisions, and presumably under our constitutional system the man who should take the final decision is the Minister who is responsible to Parliament; but it is clear, I agree, that the Minister ought to have proper machinery to enable him to receive advice. And in fact machinery for this very purpose of bringing complaints to the Minister already exists and, so far as I know, is functioning quite efficiently. I was a little surprised that in the whole of this debate there has been no reference to the machinery in question, and it is quite possible that there are some noble Lords who are not aware that it exists.
In fact, however, there is already in existence what is known as the Central Advisory Committee, which is set up for the precise purpose of bringing grievances to the notice of the Minister. This Committee was set up by Statute and its membership is very comprehensive; it is fully representative of all those who, in their various capacities, work for the welfare of ex-Servicemen and their dependants.
628
It includes Members of Parliament representing all the major political Parties, one member of your Lordships' House (Lord Nathan, whom I am very glad to see here this afternoon), three chairmen and one other experienced member of the War Pensions Committees, which, as your Lordships know, are independent bodies who give voluntary assistance to the Minister throughout the country and are able to keep in the closest and most constant touch with the feelings of ex-Servicemen, and four members of the British Legion. It is, in fact, as representative a body as any appointed to deal with this subject could be.
This Committee has the very widest possible terms of reference. To it the Minister can bring any criticism of a pension system of a general nature or which raises a point of principle. Equally from the other side any member of the Committee can bring to the notice of the Committee any matter of a similar nature which comes to his attention, with a view to having it fully discussed. That is the machinery which is already in existence, and I am sure the House will agree that it is not ill-devised for the purpose for which it was brought into being. It is always open to any noble Lord to bring to the notice of my noble friend Lord Nathan any point which requires investigation. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, did in fact consult the noble Lord with regard to the cases which he has raised in this House. I do not know whether Lord Morris, who put several very important points, mentioned them to Lord Nathan. I feel quite sure, however, though I speak for the noble Lord without having consulted him, that he would be very ready to give any point brought to his attention the fullest consideration.
I should add that the Minister of Pensions empowers me to say that he will not hesitate to consult the Committee if there is any good reason for him to do so, and he also asks me to tell your Lordships that he is very ready personally to discuss points of substance with any responsible critic; and that if Lord Cork, Lord Trenchard or any other noble Lord who has spoken has any definite grievance or difficulty which he desires to put before the Minister, such as the delay in reaching decisions to which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, referred, the Minister would warmly welcome a talk

629
with him. I hope—I shall not go further than that—that it is unlikely than any really serious, legitimate, material grievance will pass through this very elaborate sieve without having been given proper consideration. But if, in spite of all these precautions, it is found, at the end of the war, or very near the end of the war, that these grievances still persist, surely that is the time for the noble Earl, Lord Cork, to raise the matter in this House. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government at the proper time will be very ready to give to any views expressed by the House their most sympathetic consideration. But to press this Motion now, when the circumstances in which the inquiry might be held are completely unknown, and when it is not even known whether an inquiry will be necessary, would surely be both premature and unjustifiable.
The noble Earl and other noble Lords have ventilated their views this afternoon, and indeed, as I think the House knows I have great sympathy with what they say on many of these questions. They have expressed their concern. I suggest to the noble Earl that the proper course is now to withdraw this Motion, reserving, as strongly as he likes, in the speech which he will make at the end of the debate, his right to raise the question again whenever he thinks it proper to do I in my turn will readily give him the assurance that I will bring what has been said this afternoon to the notice of the Government. I believe that that is the wise and proper course to adopt, and I hope that the House will adopt it. A Division on this matter, on which there is no disagreement as to the object to be achieved but only as to the machinery to be adopted, would surely be deplorable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, in a recent debate on this subject, speaking with all his experience as a Prime Minister of Canada, warned the House of the danger of making this question a political issue. He spoke very wisely on that subject, and I hope that the House will be guided by the grave warning which he then gave. To adopt the course which I now propose to the noble Earl would, I believe, safeguard all the rights of the noble Earl and his friends on this matter, and would enable them to raise this question again at any time when they felt that it was proper to do so, and
630
when, as I say, the nature of the problem could be more easily assessed by the Government and by the House.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House before the noble and gallant Earl replies—
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should very much like to meet the views of the Leader of the House, and I know perfectly well that his sympathies are with us in the points that have been raised, but I would remind him that, accompanied by three other noble Lords, I met him and two other Ministers. It was then suggested that I should see the Minister of Pensions, and I left the room believing that I was going to have an interview on this point with the Minister. I thought it had been arranged. But I have never heard one single word since.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There may have been a misunderstanding. I do not know the facts, but it is quite possible the Minister was expecting to receive an approach from the noble Earl—like Lord Chatham and Sir Richard Strachan.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: That may be. I cannot see that this question of pensions is entirely different. The noble Viscount quoted some remarks I made in the last debate in this House. I said then that when we got a calmer atmosphere and knew what our future commitments were we could have all this reviewed. We know that we shall have to do what we can for these pensioners at the end of the war. It seems to me it is quibbling to ask whether it is at the end of the hostilities with Japan or the hostilities with Germany. I believe it would be a note of encouragement to a great number of people in this country if they knew there was another chance for them and that their cases would be reviewed. I want to reassure these people now, and I believe it is possible and would do no harm at all. As to the raising of political issues, there is nothing political about it. I am perfectly sure that if we go to a Division, however that Division goes, there will be members of all Parties on both sides, and I propose to ask those who believe that such a Committee will be necessary to vote that way this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INCREASE OF BENEFIT) BILL.
3.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, this Bill is introduced purely to tide us over a period of time when the amount of unemployment in the country is likely to alter during the transition from war to peace. The great war effort has meant that many changes will have to be made; many factories will have to be refitted and the machinery altered. It would be wrong not to suggest that certain temporary unemployment is likely to result, but this is not foreseen as being great. In fact, with the Government plans it is expected to remain small. We must be prepared, however, to see that those who have played their part in the war machine should, if through no fault of their own they are for a short time out of work, not go without adequate benefit. I understand that 8 per cent. is considered as the largest possible figure of unemployment. At present under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1940, rates vary between those employed in agriculture and other employed persons, and the amount of contribution varies also. It is considered that the cost of living since 1940 has risen about it per cent., and this Bill aims to raise the benefits by 20 per cent. The Government consider that these benefits can be paid out of the existing contributions and that there will be no need to call on the reserve fund. I should make it quite clear that no increase in the contributions is intended. The Bill has passed through another place without amendment, and it will come into force by order of the Minister of Labour on a given day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (WAR MARRIAGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FRENCH PERIODICALS.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To call attention to the fact that French newspapers and periodicals are not available in this country; to ask whether any facilities are being given for their importation; and, if not, whether facilities can be given.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the French authorities have not yet been able to arrange for French newspapers and periodicals to be available in this country. That is doubtless due to the lack of commercial transport from France to this country and also to the fact that Paris is not yet part of an "interior zone." I also understand that the newsprint position in Paris is precarious. His Majesty's Government would, of course, welcome the distribution in this country of regular supplies of French papers as soon as arrangements can be made.

CHELMSFORD GAS ORDER, 1944.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House.
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at four o'clock.