Lords Sitting of 13 June 1945

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

EARL LLOYD-GEORGE OF DWYFOR
Richard, Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor—Was (in the usual manner) introduced, by virtue of a Patent dated 12th February, 1945, his father the first Earl, who was created by such Patent, never having taken his seat.
COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TREASON BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
POSTPONEMENT OF POLLING DAY BILL
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL.
2. 11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, your Lordships discussed three years ago the question of instituting a family allowances scheme. The principles of the Bill now before your Lordships' House are so much in accord with the kind of scheme then advocated that lengthy arguments commending the principles of this Bill seem to me to be unnecessary now. The
568
Family Allowances Bill is a first step in the Government's mighty programme of social insurance legislation. It is designed to fit into the new national insurance scheme outlined in Part I of the White Paper on Social Insurance and in broad outline it is a scheme that has already been welcomed by your Lordships. The object of the Bill is to provide a measure of cash assistance from public funds so that the burden of rearing the next generation may not be too heavy for the individual parents and may be shared by the whole community.
In essence the scheme is simple. There will be allowances for all families with children. The allowance will be at the rate of 5s. per week for each child in the family except the first, and the cost of providing for the allowances will be met from the Exchequer funds. It has been urged in some quarters that the allowance should be paid for all children, and in some quarters it has been suggested that the allowances might be higher, but, my Lords, it is not the intention of the scheme that parents should be relieved by the State of all financial responsibility for the bringing up of their children. There is no allowance payable for the first child of the family, because it was considered that family earnings should enable the parents to provide adequately for the first child without any cash assistance from public funds. It, however, the breadwinner is on benefit, is out of work, sick for example, then under the new national insurance scheme provision will be made for the first child. Further assistance will come in the development of school meals and milk services, which the Government propose to extend and make available free of cost for all children attending grant-aided schools.
When fully developed these services in kind will cost the community about £60,000,000 a year. Over 2,500,000 families will be eligible for the allowances; they will be payable for 4,500,000 children. It is estimated that the cost of the cash allowances will be in the neighbourhood of £57,000,000 a year, and that the cost of administration will be about £2,000,000 a year. The whole of these burdens will fall on the Exchequer. Children will be included in the family for allowances so long as they are under the school-leaving age, and after that age until their sixteenth birthday if they are undergoing full-time

569
instruction in school or are apprentices. Where children continue at school after the age of sixteen, the Government's view is that assistance can best be provided by educational grants. There will be no differentiation between children of the family and adopted children, or between legitimate and illegitimate children. All will be eligible for allowances on the same basis. In addition to their own children who are living with them, parents will be able to claim allowances for any of their children elsewhere towards whose maintenance they are contributing 5s. a week or more. They will also be able to include in their family for allowances any other child maintained by them, as also will any other person, so long as the child's parent or parents are not contributing a least 5s. a week cowards the child's maintenance.
There has been a great deal of discussion in another place and of course among the public outside, as to whether allowances should be paid to the father or the mother. In another place the view was taken that allowances should belong to the mother, and that is a decision which I think it is not likely that this House will want to reverse. It is a decision which, on a vote in another place, the Government adopted. The Bill now before the House provides that the allowances belong to the mother, but takes account of the convenience of the parents by securing that either the father or the mother will be able to take the order book to the Post Office and cash the allowances. In many families it might well be an irritation and restriction if only one parent was entitled to go to the Post Office and cash the allowances. The Bill also makes provision for those difficult cases where one parent may be unsatisfactory and not, in fact, a proper person to draw the allowances for the family. Either the lather or the mother or the Minister or the local authority is empowered to make representations to a court of summary jurisdiction that either parent is not a proper recipient of allowances for the family, and the court may then order that the allowances should be paid to one parent to the exclusion of the other.
All claims for allowances will be made to the Minister of National Insurance, and will be decided by him. There will, however, be an appeal from the Minister's decision to a Court of Referees. The referees have the power to state a case
570
for the opinion of the High Court so that on a difficult point of law the matter can be taken to the Court and decided there. Broadly, this is the procedure under the Contributory Pensions Act, and in fact it is working well in practice. We do not propose that allowances should be paid to residential institutions. The Bill is not designed to meet the needs of those children who have been deprived of family life, and while their needs are great they must be met in other ways. This Bill is concerned with family life and the child deprived of family life cannot be fitted into this picture. All parents who are British subjects, and born in the United Kingdom, will be eligible for the allowances, but this does not mean that other families who have made their homes in this country will not be eligible for the allowances. The Bill provides that the Minister may make regulations prescribing conditions as to residence, nationality, etc., to be satisfied in other cases, and it is intended that all persons who have made their homes here, and who have become regular members of this community, should be eligible for the allowances.
In a scheme of this kind, where the funds are being provided by the British taxpayer, it is only right that the benefits of the scheme should be available only to those who are, in fact, members of our community. But provision has been made to enable the Minister to make reciprocal arrangements with other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire where similar schemes are in operation. The Government of Northern Ireland, for example, have informed us that they intend to put forward a Bill very much on the lines of this Bill. If that is done, the Minister will be able to make reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland, and the allowances will be payable by one Government or the other according to whether the children are in this country or in Northern Ireland.
Clause 13 deals with children's allowances payable as a part of workmen's compensation, unemployment benefit, or contributory widows' pensions. This is a purely transitory provision; it provides for the interim period when family allowances may be paid before the new and comprehensive insurance plan comes into force. The clause looks forward to that plan. Under the clause, as under the proposed insurance plan, the benefit for the

571
first child of the family will be paid as part of the benefit in question (workmen's compensation, unemployment benefit or widows' pensions), and provision for all other children will be made under the family allowance scheme.
Clause 14 deals with allowances for the children of members of the Armed Forces, and of war pensioners, and of civilians compensated for war injuries or war deaths. It makes it clear that in one way or another these classes will, pending a revision of the scale of allowances, receive family allowances, or their equivalent, on top of what they are now getting. For example, while the present structure of Service pay is in being, the soldier will get the equivalent of family allowances from Service funds or else family allowances in the ordinary way. If the Service Departments do in fact provide him with the equivalent of family allowances on top of what he is now getting, this clause enables the Minister of National Insurance to bring forward regulations withholding the payment of family allowances under this Bill; but if the structure of Service pay and allowances is later revised, on the footing that the soldier is a citizen and due to enjoy the benefits of family allowances in the ordinary way, and the Treasury issue a certificate to this effect, the power to make these regulations is to lapse and the soldier will get these allowances under the Family Allowances Act. Subsection (2) of this clause applies the same principle to allowances to the children of war pensioners or of civilians injured or killed as a result of enemy action.
It only remains for me to say a few words about the date of operation of the scheme. The scheme involves, as I have indicated, millions of families and still more millions of children. To bring it into operation will be a very considerable task. A staff must be recruited, trained and accommodated, in times of great shortage of staff. This task is already in hand, but it must be some time before the new scheme can be launched. The date of operation is to be appointed by the Minister, but I can say that the Government are pressing forward with the work as speedily as possible under present conditions. I hope that I have said enough at this stage to commend the Second Reading of this Bill to you. I
572
think that it is unnecessary for mg to say more, because I know that your Lordships are already fully acquainted with the Bill. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Woolton.)
2.25 p.m.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I rise to support the general principles behind this Bill. The struggle for the payment of children's allowances has been a long one, and one in which members of all Parties have participated; no single Party can or will claim exclusive credit for the gratifying fact that this Bill is now within sight of the Statute Book. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot give us the date on which the scheme will start, though I quite see the difficulties; but we hope that no time will be lost, and that we can look forward to it being put into effect certainly within the next twelve months. In a very true sense, this measure is a real object-lesson in how the Legislature can give concrete form to the general will on great human questions. It provides for the payment to the mother of 5s. a week in respect of each child after the first. I emphasize payment to the mother, because in a speech which I had the honour to make in this House just three years ago I specially pleaded for this, and I well remember how greatly I appreciated the support which I received from the then Archbishop of Canterbury and from many others in this House.
This measure is only a beginning; it is not in its final form, but it is a beginning which raises many hopes for the future. Five shillings a week, in our submission, is by no means an adequate sum, especially in view of the greatly increased cost of living. To-day 5s. cannot buy more than 3s. 3d. bought in 1938. My authority for saying that is a statement by Sir John Anderson a short time ago. We hope, therefore, that as soon as conditions permit the amount will be made more in keeping with real family needs. We also hope that the time will come when the scheme will include the first child as well. In the earlier stages of the passage of the Bill through another place, much discontent was expressed in all quarters at the prospect of the families of Service men not being granted this 5s. allowance. This discontent has been removed by the

573
Government's recognition that the children's allowances paid through the Service Departments are in fact pay. I submit that it should be an early task of the new Government to put the pay of the Fighting Services on a new and proper basis.
With regard to the recipients of workmen's compensation, the outlook is better because of the Industrial Injuries Bill. This appears to be a substantial, advance on the White Paper proposals. In respect of other categories, sun as the unemployed and certain sections of widows, the situation is far from clear, and my noble friends on these Benches will welcome any elucidation which the noble Lord opposite can give to the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government. In the meantime, we welcome the declaration by the Minister of National Insurance that "every family in Great Britain will benefit, whether tie breadwinner be at work or not." It of great importance that the Bill should be presented for the Royal Assent without any delay, and no time Should be lost in the setting up of the administrative machinery—a Very considerable task—necessary for the payment of these allowances. This measure is, of course, only one part of the picture of social insurance, and we must now await the whole plan. On behalf of my noble friends, however, with the reservations which I have mentioned, I welcome this great human measure, which destined to contribute so much to the welfare and to the happiness of the nation.
2.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, there was some anxiety lest this Bill should unfortunately be lost, in the hurry of the ending of Parliament, in what is usually called "the massacre of the innocents." We are particularly glad that this particular innocent has nor suffered, and that the Bill now reaches your Lordships on the way to the Statute Book. This is undoubtedly a great and beneficent reform. It has long been known, on the authority of those who analyze our social statistics, that the greatest single cause of poverty among the people is the maintenance of children, and that the periods in the life of a family when there are young children to bring up are those which put the heaviest economic burden upon the parents. To a greater
574
extent than any other cause, the maintenance of children leads to those who are below the poverty line being in that position. Those who fulfil the social duty of furnishing families for the continuance of the nation are penalized by being called on to bear very heavy sacrifices. Now the State, recognizing this, comes to their assistance by means of these allowances. They may be expected to have a useful and beneficent effect upon the birth-rate, which is already showing some small signs of revival.
With regard to the particular provisions of the Bill, there has been considerable controversy in another place on two of the points mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill here. On both of them the Government very wisely have given way. One was the payment of the allowance to the mother, which has long been advocated; the other was the point that the members of the Services should not lose the family allowances because they already have other allowances for their families on other grounds. On both those points there was divergence of opinion between the Government and the majority, apparently, of the House of Commons, and we are glad that the right solution has been reached in both cases. My noble friend Lord Southwood said he hoped that no Party would claim an exclusive right to the credit for this measure. No, I do not think any Party claims the exclusive right, but there is one Party, the Liberal Party, which may claim the right of priority, since for a number of years, when no other Party took an interest in the subject or were prepared to sponsor it, the Liberal Party included it in its official programme. The Labour Party, although undoubtedly their sympathies were in favour of the principle, were debarred from taking effective action by the fact that some of the principal trade unions took an unfavourable view of the proposal, for reasons into which I need not enter. However, now we are all at one, and although we regard this Bill as our own legitimate child, we are very pleased to think that it should also be adopted by others.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EPISCOPAL PENSIONS MEASURE, 1945.
2.33 p.m.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Episcopal Pensions Measure, 1945, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in 1926 a Church Assembly Measure establishing a scheme of pensions for Bishops was accepted by Parliament. This Measure varies that measure slightly and extends the scheme to cover Suffragan Bishops. It is expected that when the new scheme is in running order the total charges falling upon general Church funds for episcopal pensions will not exceed, if it reaches, the present sum allotted for that purpose. I think that that is an indication that the ground covered by this Measure is not very extensive. It was never challenged to a division at any stage in the Church Assembly. I shall be very glad to answer any questions if any noble Lord wishes for further details. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Episcopal Pensions Measure, 1945, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Earl Grey).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INCUMBENTS (DISABILITY) MEASURE, 1945
2.35 p.m.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Disability) Measure, 1945, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Measure has a much longer Church Assembly history, and is not quite such an easy one. For a good many years now the Church has been trying to devise a satisfactory way of meeting the public criticisms that incumbents are sometimes left in charge of parishes when the cause of religion would be better served if they could find a change of activity or be enabled to receive a pension. Desire for change may arise from a variety of
576
causes, and the Church Assembly has been at work along three main lines. This Measure is the first of them, and is designed to meet cases, in the words of your Ecclesiastical Committee, "where an incumbent is unable, through bodily or mental infirmity, wholly or partially to carry out his duties." I should like to stress the words "is unable." Before the Measure can be brought into operation in any case the inability has to be proved to the appropriate court. It is a question of fact, not of likes or dislikes. The appropriate court which is to consider whether there should be a change of incumbent is a committee of six clergy, to be drawn from a panel of twelve clergy elected by their own number from the clergy of the diocese. It is proposed to treat it therefore on a professional basis, just as scientific professions, such as doctors and lawyers, take into their own hands such rules of conduct as affect their own professions.
The Measure first received general approval in the Church Assembly without a division in the summer of 1942. It was then committed to a Committee of the three Houses of that body. The Committee reported the Measure to the Assembly with Amendments in the autumn session of 1943, and it was revised and amended and then ordered to be brought before the diocesan conferences. Forty-one out of forty-three diocesan conferences approved the Measure (the Diocese of Sodor and Man making no return), and suggested various further Amendments, many of which were adopted by the Assembly at the autumn session of 1944. I can think of no other Assembly Measure which has received the endorsement of about 99 per cent. of diocesan conferences. At a separate sitting of the House of Clergy in February this year it was resolved by sixty-five votes to thirteen to support the motion for final approval, and four days later the Assembly gave the Measure final approval without a division. I am afraid that in a Measure of such difficulty touching personal issues, it would be beyond human nature to expect too per cent. support, but I am quite sure that the Church Assembly went to infinite pains to provide the method which would give the greatest satisfaction to the clergy concerned. A comparatively very small number of cases will be affected by this Measure, and the Church Assembly offers

577
it for the consideration of Parliament in the confidence that it is the best way that could be devised for dealing with it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Disability) Measure, 1045, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Earl Grey.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should lice to ask the noble Earl whether the appeal committee to which he has alluded will be an ad hoc committee in each case or a standing committee permanently elected.
EARL GREY: The panel of twelve is a standing committee, and I think each case will be considered by an ad hoc committee drawn from that standing panel.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISTRIBUTION OF FISH.
2.40 p.m.
LORD GRANTLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether there is any truth in the newspaper reports of gluts of herrings being thrown back into the sea; and whether, in view of the shortage of fish for general consumption, they can give any reason for transport not being provided for the distribution of these catches; and whether they will state how many Government Departments would be involved in making arrangements for the transport and distribution of this wasted food.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that there is no truth in the newspaper reports of gluts of herrings being cast back into the sea. Transport is being provided for the distribution of herrings from the various ports, and there is no evidence that herrings have been wastes through lack of transport facilities. Two Departments—namely, the Ministry of War Transport and the Ministry of Food—are responsible for arrangements for the transport and distribution of herrings.

SUPPLIES OF SOFT WOODS.
2.41 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what is the position regarding imports of soft woods. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the present moment our manufacturers are being exhorted and encouraged to do everything they possibly can to increase our export trade. It is very right and very proper that they should be exhorted in this manner, The object of my question, however, is to call attention to a certain handicap and disability under which manufacturers are suffering at the present moment owing to a great shortage in the supplies of soft woods. The work of a factory does not end with the manufacture of a certain article. After that article has been manufactured and produced, it has to be packed for dispatch. It has to be put into packing cases or into crates, and for this completely necessary purpose our manufacturers require adequate supplies of soft woods. Those supplies they have not got at the present moment. In fact, I find manufacturers of articles which are very important for the export trade who are reduced at the present moment to scraping round to get, for instance, old tea cases in order that they may extemporize some sort of packing for their goods, although I need hardly point out that old tea cases, which are rather flimsy and in any event are worn, are not very satisfactory for the purpose. Even so, they cannot get sufficient numbers of those old tea cases to meet their needs.
I assure your Lordships that this is really a matter of serious importance and of serious concern to certain manufacturers. I myself, in the course of the last four weeks, visited a very large factory. For reasons that will be understood I will not name the factory or the article that was being manufactured—it is better not to do so—but that article is of particular value to our export trade at the present time, and there happens to be a delegation in the country pressing for such articles. I went round the factory and I found that they had 8,000 units of their product stacked up, for which they were absolutely unable to obtain the necessary wood for packing. The result is that the firm has stopped production of that article because it is no use going on producing when it is impossible to get the wood in which to pack it and dispatch.
The net position is simply that that firm could, at the present moment, treble its production if it were able to get the soft woods necessary to pack these products. The thing goes further than that, because if the firm could treble its production it could obviously give very much more employment than it is giving at the present moment. The war contracts which this firm has had are running out and being discontinued. It could give a great deal of employment by getting on to its regular manufacture, but it is prevented from doing that because it cannot go into full production owing to the impossibility of getting the necessary wood to pack the products. Now this firm happens to employ literally thousands of men and women; in fact, in its particular area it is the chief source of employment, and consequently the well-being and the prosperity of that great neighbourhood depend very largely upon this firm being in full production. Yet the position at the present moment is that it cannot go into full production owing to the impossibility of getting the wood required to pack the products.
I do not want to press this matter at all by way of criticism. I am only calling attention to the facts. I am told that there is the possibility of some improvement in the near future in regard to our imports of soft woods. There were. certain difficulties immediately following the conclusion of the war with Germany, because obviously a certain amount of mine sweeping had to go on before traffic between the Baltic, the chief source of these soft woods which are required, and this country could be resumed. That mine-sweeping, however, has now been carried out, and I am given to understand that in the near future we may expect fairly substantial imports of soft woods.
But the matter does not entirely end there. When these larger imports of soft woods are received, they will, of course, quite properly, fall within the jurisdiction of the Timber Control, and the Timber Control, again very properly and very naturally, has allocated certain priorities in this matter. I am told that the priorities run somewhat as follows. First of all come war needs—none of us can quarrel with that. War needs, until the war with Japan is ended, must obviously come first, although I imagine that these war priorities may be rather a decreasing
580
factor at the present moment. Second in the list of priorities come civilian necessities. Again, having regard to the necessities of our housing programme and rehousing our bombed-out population, nobody can quarrel with that. Third on the list of priorities with the Timber Control come the necessities of our manufacturers.
Now I would say that all those priorities are completely and absolutely reasonable, but it may possibly be the case—I hesitate to say so definitely because the Government are usually better informed than one is oneself; they have access to much more information—that the disability and handicap under which our manufacturers, anxious to increase their production for the export trade, are suffering at the present moment, may have been overlooked. The object of my question is to bring this need and necessity—to the attention of the Government, because once a need is recognized very often it is possible, by a little thought and a little scratching round, to improve the allocations.
I would like to impress upon the noble Earl who is going to be kind enough to reply that this is a real need and a real necessity, the lack of which at the present moment is impeding production and is also handicapping employment in this country. A great deal of redundant labour is now becoming available as war contracts run out, and unless we can put these people on to peace production they will have to suffer from unemployment, and a great deal of unemployment may be caused in this way. Therefore, without making any criticism whatsoever—I assure your Lordships I have not the least wish to do that—I would ask the noble Earl who is going to reply if lie feels that he can tell us that the situation will be reconsidered, and that the Timber Control will be asked to go into the matter again to see how far it is possible to effect further releases of the necessary wood to manufacturers in order that this handicap to production and employment may be remedied.
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think the House will be generally glad that the noble Lord opposite has brought this matter to the attention of your Lordships. In point of fact my noble friend is quite correct. It is the Government's

581
policy to encourage manufacturers to export all they can, subject to certain essentials being left behind in this country, and anything that holds up or debars firms from exporting o their full extent is a matter naturally to be looked into. The position as I understand it, although it is somewhat distant from the Home Office to the Timber Control, is that the imports of soft woods are being maintained at the maximum quantities which are available to us from the present sources of supply. Unfortunately it is expected that a world-wide deficiency of these soft woods will last for at any rate the next two years during which time the reconstruction demands from this country, Russia and other European countries will be heavy indeed, whilst at the same time there is a shortage of labour and transport facilities which will restrict production.
Nevertheless I have been informed that the sources from which present supplies are being obtained will be augmented by the Baltic countries, and contracts have in fact already been placed with Sweden and Finland for substantial quantities of soft woods. In addition, as I think the noble Lord probably aware, a certain quantity of soft woods is already being obtained from the United States of America. The question of obtaining soft woods from Germany is one which has not been lost sight of, but I am not in a position to-day to give any information upon it to the noble Lord. I repeat that I am glad the noble Lord has brought this matter to our attention and I will certainly ask the Timber Control to look into it as a question of urgency. I think I am well aware of the firm to which the noble Lord referred in the course of his remarks.
LORD W1NSTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which I am certain will give very great satisfaction indeed to those manufacturers to whom I have referred who are suffering from disabilities at the present moment.

SERVICE PENSIONS.
2.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty 's Government whether it is their intention, in the event of being returned to office, to institute an inquiry to examine the past methods of administer-
582
ing the various Acts and Royal Warrants relating to Service pensions; whether such an inquiry will be given the power to report what steps, if any, are necessary for the removal and prevention of legitimate grievances, and will refer to past wars of this country in which His Majesty's Forces have been engaged.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I put the question which stands on the Paper in my name I would call your Lordships' attention to its wording, which is based upon that of a Resolution adopted by your Lordships' House without a Division in October last. That wording was chosen because I hoped it would remind the Government of that Resolution. It would not have been necessary for me to put down this question and occupy your time if there had been any mention, in the declaration of policy that has been issued by the Government, of their intention to do anything on behalf of the widows and orphans of men who have fallen in the war. There is no mention of them in that declaration and there has been no mention of them in any of the speeches I have heard made by the great stars of the political firmament on recent nights. I have listened to them all and in not one of their addresses was there any mention of anything of the sort. I include the addresses made by two political heads of two great fighting Services.
There was a paragraph in the declaration of policy in which we were told we must fulfil our obligations. The Government were to fulfil our obligations to the men and women of the Services and a rosy prospect of special training, etc., was held out for them. But surely at the present time the people to whom we ought to think of fulfilling our obligations are those who have fallen in the war and will not come back—those who by so doing, contributed to a victory without which we should have no prospect of fulfilling any obligations. The first obligation we should fulfil, I think your Lordships wit' agree, is the obligation we owe to those who have lost their lives in the war, and we can do this in part by being generous to their dependents and seeing that they are fully provided for—not seeing how little we need give them, but how much we can give them. The necessity for doing this was well exemplified by the statement

583
made the other day which has already been alluded to this afternoon. I refer to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving the reduced value of the pound sterling now compared with its value in the year before the war. How is this altered value going to affect the pensions and allowances given to officers and men not only of this war but of previous wars? Surely the time has now come when all pensions and allowances in respect of all our wars should be put on the same level.
They are not on the same level now, and they should be put on the same level. The men have performed the same services and they have got to live in the same community at the same cost of living as their younger colleagues who have been in recent wars. If I may, I would paraphrase one of the paragraphs of the declaration by substituting the word "pensions" for "taxes" and ask the Government to re-examine the whole structure of pensions after the war in order to lighten the burden where it presses most and to simplify the pension system. I submit that that is the only way to remove the many legitimate grievances which at this moment exist and which are causing discontent. I beg to put the question standing in my name.
2.57 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to the noble and gallant Admiral. The views of His Majesty's Government in this matter were clearly stated in the debates which took place in this House on the 11th and 18th October of last year. In giving further consideration to the question His Majesty's Government will not overlook the Resolution passed by this House on the latter of these dates in favour of an inquiry after the conclusion of hostilities. In another place only a month ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave a reminder that, although there was a comprehensive review of war pensions in July, 1943, further improvements had since taken place. He also gave an assurance that the system would continue to be adjusted as and when required. Even more recently my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions said in the same place that, if the question of setting up a Select Committee was to be considered with full knowledge of the relevant facts,
584
this could not be done until the war is completely ended.
This latter statement accords closely with the views of this House which passed a Resolution in October last to the effect that "in the opinion of this House it will be necessary to institute an inquiry after the conclusion of hostilities." This Resolution remains on record and if His Majesty's present Government are returned to office it will be kept in mind as an expression of the views of this House when the time comes to which it refers. That time has not yet arrived, but in the meantime it may be well to remind the noble Earl of the machinery which exists in the Minister's Central Advisory Committee for the consideration of general matters affecting the principle of war pension administration. Here any question of importance may be discussed and the Minister does not hesitate to seek the Committee's advice whenever it is desirable to do so. In all the circumstances I hope my noble friend will be content to leave the matter for the present on the basis of the Resolution placed on record by this House together with the assurance that at the proper time it will not be overlooked.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his answer. While I accept his statement gracefully I wish to remind him again that later on, if it is overlooked and the subject fails to be reviewed, I will raise it once more.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MARQUESS OF ABERGAVENNY'S ESTATE (PETITION FOR BILL).
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 192 relating to Private Bills, he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed Alexander Fitzmaurice Gilchrist, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature, as guardian or protector of the infants David Michael Ralph Nevill and Michael George Rathmore Nevill interested in the Bill, to represent such infants before the Committee on the Bill.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite if he can say anything about the arrangements for business to-morrow.
LORE TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we shall meet to-morrow at the usual time, two o'clock. The business will be to put through all its stages the Postponement of Polling Day Bill, which came up
586
from another place this afternoon, and the remaining stages of Bills still outstanding. Then the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has a question on the Paper about the arrangements for reception and dispersal of prisoners of war returned from the Far East, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster wishes to ask a question about arrangements for writing the naval official history of the war. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, also has a very important Motion on India, and my noble friend Viscount Cecil of Chelwood has a question to ask about the new International Organization.
House adjourned at two minutes past three o'clock.